Developing and Supporting Classroom Technologies at IUB

Submitted by the Classroom Technologies Committee

Members of the Committee:

Adam Allerhand, Chemistry

Tom Coleman, Fine Arts

Elizabeth Boling, School of Education

Sue Ferencz, Office of Information Technologies

Jeffrey Hart, Political Science

Norma Holland, University Computing Services

Sonja Johnson, Bureau of Facilities Programming and Utilization

Kay Dahlgren, Registrar's Office

Jacob Levanon, University Computing Services

Deborah Olsen, Office of Academic Affairs

Reza Pishgahi, Physical Plant Electronics

W. Ray Smith, Instructional Support Services

Beverly Teach, Instructional Support Services

Gary Wittlich, Office of Information Technologies, Chair

Executive Summary
Introduction and Statement of Purpose			 
I. The Case for Supporting Classroom Technologies	 
II. The Costs of Maintaining Existing Technology 
	Classrooms							 
	A. Types of Existing Classrooms				 
	B. Costs of Existing Installed Technology Inventory	 
	C. Cost for Maintenance and Required Replacement 
		of Existing Classroom Technologies		 
	D. Current Problems in Budgeting and Funding 
		for Classroom Technologies			 
III. A Plan to Bring General Purpose Classrooms up to 
	Acceptable Standards for Technology Use		 
	A. Goals							 
	B. Costs of Implementing the Plan				 
	C. Priorities							 
CONCLUSION	

To ensure that increasing demands for classroom technologies can be met, Indiana University needs both to provide stable funding for the costs associated with developing and maintaining these technologies, as well as to create a comprehensive plan to address future technology needs in the classroom.

In attempting to meet these demands, Indiana University finds itself in the company of other Research I institutions that are investing, in order to compete for faculty and students, in "technology," which includes classroom and network upgrades, computers and servers, projection and display equipment, and personnel costs. Currently, technology classrooms are divided into four types by technology capabilities. After calculating the annual costs associated with each room type, and comparing the actual costs of maintaining these facilities for FY96 ($393,949) with projected costs for FY97 ($767,942), the need for increased funding becomes evident.

A lack of dedicated funding, however, is but one problem. Another, and equally important problem, is that no single funding source controls the budget for classroom technology, which creates difficulty in finding funds tomaintain classrooms, let alone develop new facilities. In addition tofinding a dependable funding source, the university needs to assess future technology needs. The recommended plan includes a ten-year goal to upgrade and increase facilities across campus, and it provides cost breakdowns for each stage of implementation--costs range from an estimated $767,942 in FY'97 to $1,111,877 by FY '06-07. Although the university can and should undertake specific initiatives to meet immediate demands placed on existing technology--and those demands are pressing--the university must address the long term issues of maintenance and planning in order to sustain our existing investment in technology and to meet student and faculty expectations in the future.

I. The Case for Supporting Classroom Technologies

• For example, there is the growth in requests by faculty to reserve Public Computing Facilities student clusters. While some of this use stems from the need to have individual stations for each student, much of it is a function of lack of access to general classrooms equipped for technology use in instruction. The situation becomes more extreme each semester. As faculty desktop computing resources improve and more faculty develop teaching applications using these resources, the demand for technology-ready classrooms will be escalated further.
• More evidence of the strength of this trend is found in the responses of nearly three hundred IUB faculty to a survey taken in spring 1996. Eighty-eight per cent reported that instructional technologies are directly related to their teaching, and 86% stated that equipment should be installed in classrooms. When asked to anticipate future needs, 64% indicated more use of network resources, 61% more use of interactive courseware and CD-ROMs, and 57% greater use of multimedia presentations such as Power Point.
• And, of course, it is undeniable that as more students enter the university with computing experience, meeting their expectations for technology use will become an increasingly important issue.

Casey Green's 1995 national survey of desktop computing in higher education based on data collected from more than 600 colleges and universities compares trends in classroom technology in 1994 and 1995. In all cases the growth is pronounced: >50% increase in E-mail, and significant percentage increases in the creation of computer classrooms, use of simulations and computer exercises, presentation, courseware, multimedia, and CD-ROM based materials.

Our peer institutions are investing heavily in technology to support both traditional classrooms and online distributed learning.

• Penn State supports classroom technology with life-cycle funding to guarantee technology currency and holds an annual summer conference on classroom technology;
• Michigan has built a new media-rich facility called the Media Union to focus on technology developments in teaching, research, and creative activities;
• Virginia Tech has invested heavily in training faculty in instructional technology use through its Cyberschool initiative;
• UC Berkeley has established CyberSemester '97, a semester-long venture of seminars, guest speakers, and hands-on training to educate faculty in the uses of technology in both research and pedagogy;
• The University of Wisconsin has outlined its needs and budget to support technology classrooms in "Institutional Support for Multimedia Classrooms: A Two Year Study, 1993-95," and
• The University of Minnesota has outlined its technology classroom needs in a document, "University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Campus Classroom Study," March 16, 1995.

II. The Costs of Maintaining Existing Technology Classrooms

Table 1: Cost of Existing Installed Technology

Table 2: Annual Costs per Room Type

Table 3: Ongoing Cost of Classroom Technologies Support FY97

• Most technology classroom computers have been provided by Student Technology Fee funds, but there is currently no identified line item funding to support upgrade of current room computers or other technology in those rooms, or to support creation of new technology classrooms;
• Management and training for use of core campus rooms resides with Instructional Support Services, which has provided these services in the absence of a specific budget for such support and by reallocation of its resources. Some units (primarily the School of Business and the School of Education) are managed and supported by local support providers;
• Installation and maintenance of classroom technologies resides primarily within the Physical Plant Electronics Classrooms Group, but neither the extent of budget nor number of staff is sufficient;
• Oversight of renovation of classrooms resides with the Classroom Committee, but there is no funding allocated on an annual basis to assure ongoing renovation or to provide the technology for use within classrooms;
• Coordination and planning for technology classrooms resides with the Classroom Technologies Committee;
• Data jack and phone access from within classrooms is provided by Bloomington Campus Telecommunications Services, but there is no fund identified from which ongoing communications costs for technology classrooms may be expended; and
• Repair and Rehabilitation funding to upgrade classroom technologies is appropriated to the Physical Plant from the Office of the Vice President for Administration, but this source is dependent upon General Assembly action every two years and consequently cannot be counted on as a guaranteed source.

III. A Plan to Bring General Purpose Classrooms up to Acceptable Standards for Technology Use

• No classroom should be less capable than the Type I classroom after 2007
• Rooms with installed technology (Type III and IV) should be distributed across classroom buildings, building conditions permitting
• 30% of classrooms in each building should be Type III or IV
• All general purpose classrooms with capacity of 80 seats or greater should be at least Type III, especially those with fixed auditorium seating (N= 46)
• At least 75% of classrooms with capacity of 0-40 should be Type II (N=96)
• At least 7% of classrooms with capacity of 0-40 should be Type III (N=10)
• At least 30% of classrooms with capacity of 41-79 should be at least Type III (N=26)

Table 4: Number of rooms in each category at present and after goals have been met

Table 5: Estimated costs of renovation and technology per room

Table 6: Proposed Ten Year Plan

C. Priorities

Priorities for selecting individual rooms to be renovated and equipped to fulfill Table 6 goals are set out below.

• Physical condition of classroom
• Suitability of room for technology installation
• Capacity of room
• Past use of technology in the room
• Projected future use of technology by users normally assigned to the room
• Location of the building
• Number of technology rooms already available in the building
• Utilization history of the room
• Stage of planning

Table 7: Projected Annual Costs for the Proposed 10-Year Plan at Mid-Point and Completion