During Fall term 1999, WCTS surveyed the faculty to determine if smart classroom needs were being met and to forecast classroom technology demands for the near future. The results were published in the 1999 WCTS Smart Classroom Access Plan. The survey found that only about half of smart classroom needs were being met and the situation would only get worse unless faculty were given greater access to properly equipped teaching spaces.

The 1999 Access Plan identified four ways to improve access to smart classrooms:

• Take advantage of partially equipped classrooms by upgrading them to smart classrooms. This has been done in Olin 157, Olin 304, Science 116 and Olin 248.
• Take advantage of new and renovation construction projects. This has been done with the Science Building addition and renovation. The new wing includes four new smart classrooms and renovated section of the building contains three new smart laboratories. This approach will continue during Summer 2003 with the Maxey Hall and the Hall of Music renovations which each include a smart classroom. Additional renovation of the Science Building this summer will include provisions for classroom technology.
• Directing WCTS annual classroom technology upgrade and construction money to the buildings with the greatest shortage of smart classrooms. The 1999 survey identified Maxey Hall as the building with the greatest need for additional smart classrooms. Since 1999 Maxey Hall has received one new smart classroom, one new smart cart, one major smart classroom upgrade and several minor classroom technology upgrades.
• Aggressive scheduling by the Registrars Office, including:

1. Incorporating technology requirements as a factor in scheduling class locations.
2. Schedule at least five classes in each smart classroom – this might require early morning, late afternoon or evening classes and faculty having to use facilities outside their Division. Progress has been made in classroom scheduling, but discussion of the Registrars scheduling process is beyond the scope of this report.

The 2002 Survey

During Spring term 2002, IMS resurveyed the faculty to determine if access to classroom technology had improved since 1999 and to see if demand was changing. A complete discussion of the results can be found at 2002 WCTS Classroom Technology Survey.

The 2002 survey found:
• While most faculty can access the classroom technologies they need, forty three percent of faculty have at least some difficulty scheduling classes in rooms equipped with the technologies they would like to use. The problem is nearly evenly spread across the Divisions.
• Division III is the heaviest per capita user of classroom computer projection. While faculty in all Divisions would like greater access to classroom computer projection, the problem appears most acute in Divisions I and II.
• Faculty needs for in-class VCR and DVD projection are generally being met
• Faculty needs for in-class traditional AV equipment are generally being met. Traditional AV equipment is very popular, we need to continue to maintain and upgrade this equipment.

Discussion

The 1999 and 2002 surveys showed similar results: the faculty want easier access to smart classrooms.

In response to faculty demand, between Fall term 1999 and Spring term 2003, Whitman’s smart classroom and laboratory count has increased from 14 to 27. During that period smart cart count remained unchanged at four.

During Summer 2002, seven smart classrooms and labs were added to the Division III Science Building bring the total count in Division III up to 13 smart classrooms, laboratories and carts. That should help meet the majority of the demand for classroom projection in that Division for the near future. Access to classroom computer projection still needs to be addressed for Divisions I and II.

During Summer 2003, either three or four additional smart classrooms will be built in Division I and II buildings, bring the total number of smart classrooms, laboratories and carts on campus to either 34 or 35.

Smart carts, while offering location flexibility, have some serious time related problems that render them an ineffective use of resources. With just 10 minutes between classes, a faculty member literally has to run to retrieve and setup a cart prior to class. And when class is out, faculty have have to run again to take the cart down and return it to the storage area.. It is nearly impossible for two faculty members to use the cart for consecutive class hours.

Conclusions & Recommendations

In the past five years there has been an explosion in faculty demand for smart resources including classrooms, laboratories and carts. IMS has made major advances in this area and is meeting most of the faculty demands.

Five years ago, IMS was responsible for one smart classroom. By Fall 2003, IMS will be responsible for 34 or 35 smart classrooms, laboratories and carts. During this period IMS has seen a minor increase in budget and a decrease in staffing. As smart classrooms age, we are finding equipment reliablity is becoming an issue. IMS is not staffed to deal with aging and failing equipment nor does it have the funding to upgrade existing smart classrooms. This situation leads to four recommendations:

1. IMS lacks the staff and funding to maintain our present smart classrooms. Until this situation can be addressed, additional smart classroom construction should be kept to a minimum.
2. Focus IMS staff and funding on maintaining and upgrading our existing smart classrooms so that classroom facilities and user interfaces are standarized and equipment is reliable.
3. Agressive classroom scheduling, as described in the 1999 survey, should be used to optimize access to existing smart classrooms.
4. Projection carts are an inefficient use of resources. One of the Maxey projection carts should be dismantled and the equipment used to build an additional smart classroom in Maxey Hall. The result will be increased reliability and availablity of this equipment.