Tech-Talks AQIP: Learning Space Enhancement

1. Tech-Talks AQIP: Learning Space Enhancement October 22, 2008 4 – 5pm

2. Academic Quality Improvement Program AQIP AQIP is structured around quality improvement principlesand processes and involves a structured set of goal-setting, networking, and accountability activities.

3. AQIP Cycles of Improvement • Action • One-year cycle • 3 or 4 Action Projects • Annual updates • Accreditation • Seven-year cycle • Check-up Visit • Reaffirmation of Accreditation • Strategy • Four-year cycle • Systems Portfolio • Systems Appraisal • Strategy Forum

4. AQIP Action Projects • Action Project Goals • Focus and highlight Michigan Tech’s efforts in undertaking specific improvement initiatives • Provide evidence to the HLC the Michigan Tech is seriously committed to a regimen of continuous improvement • Three Action Projects must be ongoing at all times • Information on the projects must be shared.

5. AQIP Categories Helping Students Learn Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs Valuing People Leading and Communicating Supporting Institutional Operations Measuring Effectiveness Planning Continuous Improvement Building Collaborative Relationships

6. Summary of Action Projects

7. AQIP Learning Space Enhancement Project October 22, 2008

8. Committee Composition

9. History • July/August 2006; started 22 August 2006 • 2-4 times a month, through 22 June 2007 • MTU-AQIP Publicity intern, Feb/Mar/Apr 2007 • Benchmarking summary report, 30 Apr 2007 • Budget recommendation 24 Apr, 3 May 2007 • Recommendation report • 5 & 22 June 2007 • 11 December 2007

10. Charge • Proposed: “This project would establish a regular process to update the physical, aesthetic and technology needs of classrooms, laboratories, and landscape of the campus. It will also create the first plan in order to initialize the process(es).” • Realized: “Committee is charged with establishing a University-level, regular process to maintain, renew, and upgrade learning spaces. The process would identify campus needs, prioritize the needs, and make funding recommendations for upcoming maintenance, renewal, and upgrade projects at the University.”

11. Learning Space Definition • Campus spaces that support the learning objectives of the University academic mission • Traditional • Centrally-scheduled classrooms, seminar & conference rooms, building lounges, library, study areas, offices, learning centers • Newer – surrounding or contiguous • Building alcoves, informal study/teaching spaces, collaboration or commons areas

12. Maintenance, Renewal, Upgrade • Maintenance • To follow regular schedules and procedures for preventative maintenance and general housekeeping of learning spaces and related technology • Renewal • To replace or repair ceilings, walls, flooring, etc. to provide a pleasing environment • Upgrade • To provide appropriate technology, teaching/learning tools, furniture, and environmental features (e.g., lighting, floor coverings, acoustical elements, etc.) to create improved opportunities for learning. Upgrade includes training of instructors on how to use improved spaces to meet teaching and learning objectives.

13. Benchmarking Sample • Structured interviews • 43 schools; 34 responses; 79% response rate • 70% public, 30% private • MTU peers • Carnegie Mellon • Colorado School of Mines • Rensselaer Polytechnic • Missouri University of Science and Technology (UMR)

14. Benchmarking sample – Selected Colleges and Universities • Michigan • Michigan State • Grand Valley State • Northern Michigan • Central Michigan • Eastern Michigan • Ferris State • Lake State • Saginaw Valley State • UM – Dearborn, Flint • Beyond Michigan • McGill (Canada) • Southern Illinois - Carbondale • SUNY – Binghamton • University of Tennessee • Virginia Tech • Marquette University • Milwaukee School of Engineering • Syracuse University

15. Key Benchmarking Findings – Organizational Structures • Standing Committee (72%) • with campus stakeholder representation • Departmental/unit budget processes (20%) • No campus process (8%)

16. Key Benchmarking Findings - Funding

17. Recommendations - Summary Process Funding Annual budget allocation ($850,000 – 1.5 million), General Fund Renewal every 3 years Upgrade every 14 years Maintenance continuous Maintenance $$ to Facilities, Educational Technology Services, Information Technology Renewal & upgrade $$ – project by project (LSEC) Startup budget $710,000 $250,000 (non-technology) $460,000 (technology) • Provost responsibility • Timing/Cycle – 1.5 years • Learning Space Enhancement Committee (standing) • Initial focus – centrally scheduled classrooms (prototype ~70 rooms)

18. Recommendation -Process: Timing/Cycle (startup year) Startup year could follow an abridged cycle

19. Recommendation -Process: Timing/Cycle (steady state) Once process is in place, a recurring steady-state process can occur on campus.

20. Recommendation -Process: Learning Space Enhancement Committee Reports to Provost Members serve 3-year staggered terms (historical perspective) Campus stakeholder representation Office of Student Records and Registration, Facilities, Office of the CIO, Educational Technology Services, Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development Undergraduate Student Gov’t, Graduate Student Council Faculty (1 from each School/College determined by School/College) Chair determined by Committee and Provost

21. Recommendation - Process: Learning Space Enhancement Committee Startup Tasks: Develop communication mechanisms (collecting needs, reporting to campus) Develop guiding principles for prioritization Ongoing Tasks: Identify needs (using multiple methods) Set project priorities Make recommendations Plan & acquire bids Monitor work and report results to campus constituents Assess process effectiveness

22. Recommendation - Funding

23. Questions/Comments?

24. Administrative Response Last week-Space: the final Frontier..

25. Administrative Response Exec team: the next generation

26. Administrative Response Exec team: Learning spaces: the next generation

27. Administrative Response Recommendation 1: annual budget allocation general fund $850K-1.5M • Classroom technology upgrades received $50K in the summer ‘08, and an additional $50K for this academic year; enough for technology upgrade in 5 classrooms, total • We built in 100K/year hereafter for classroom technology upgrades (not related to furniture, paint etc.)

28. Administrative Response Recommendation 2: Timing cycle 1.5 years • 1-yr cycle may be a better match with budgeting process? • Ranked priorities and argumentation provost by late December • Key elements: • relevance to furthering the Strategic Plan • assignment of responsibility for facilities (chairs, walls etc.) and technology

29. Administrative Response Recommendation 2: Timing cycle 1.5 years (ctd., budget process) • Committee should rank university-wide priorities rather than having schools or colleges “compete”; also update list for subsequent years • Note all budget requests are in direct competition; compensation is one of the highest priorities • Consider finding extra funds through, e.g. educational innovation grants, Tech Fund donations, grants for “green building” retrofitting (Enterprise started in this area connected to AQIP #4, Carbon Counting)

30. Administrative Response Recommendation 3: Learning Space Enhancement Committee proposed • Agreed • Composition, as recommended, representing: • faculty representatives from each school/college selected by their dean; a representative of OSSR, CIO, ETS, CTLFD, USG, GSC, facilities. • Chair recommended by committee and appointed by provost • Committee reports to Deans’ council (because deans submit the budget requests)

31. Administrative Response Recommendation 4: Begin with centrally scheduled classrooms • all classrooms, indeed all space is university space • Space database, reported on last week by the AQIP Committee addressed the “Comprehensive University Space Inventory Process”; classroom data are now being put in to this database, which will facilitate the committee’s work (room attributes, condition noted) • Don’t want to neglect the rooms upgraded earlier this century by departments; many are now in need of upgrade/maintenance • Useful to include other forms of learning space such as labs, meeting rooms in library, dorms, etc.

32. Administrative Response Overall Process • Form committee, fall 2008 • Use new space inventory database (AQIP #2) • Provide Deans’ Council with prioritized list, cost estimates, assigned responsibilities for each component (Facilities, ETS, etc.) • Provost brings forward priorities in early spring budget process • Priorities agreed, bids requested, contracted by May, work over summer, ready to use in fall semester

33. QUESTIONSand OPEN DISCUSSION

34. Have an idea for an AQIP Action Project?Go to:http://www.admin.mtu.edu/admin/prov/index.htmand complete the AQIP Action Project Submittal Form