To: John Butler, Chair, Classrooms Committee

From: Rosalie F. Maddocks, Chair Subcommittee 3

Date: February 16, 1999

On January 6 Dr. John Butler, Chair of the Classrooms Committee, sent an eleven-question questionnaire to the colleges asking for their uses and perceptions regarding general purpose classrooms. The responses received as of February 16 from 11 colleges are compiled below. (No response was received from Education, Engineering or Honors.)

ARCH: yes, but very few, and only those in this building.

BUS: YES

GSSW: GSSW seldom uses general purpose classrooms. . .when we do, it tends to be for special things like new student orientation where we use SW 101.

We rarely use general purpose classrooms... only when we have sections of classes that we can't accommodate in our building. And, as far as I know, we've never had any specific problems with the classrooms assigned...

HRM: NO

HFAC: Yes.

LAW: NO.

NSM: Yes

OPT: No, we don't.

PHAR: All courses taught in the first two year of our professional programs during are taught in general purpose rooms. In addition, we teach a core science course (PHAR 2362) which requires a large general purpose room.

SS: Yes

TECH: we do not use general classrooms. Occationally we do when we encounter a problem. This past semester we used quite a few while we did some work in T1 rooms. We are back to normal (?) and in general, do not anticipate the need for general classrooms.

ARCH: We're OK- we use the few that we have pretty well. Some classes outside the college use these spaces as well, but no problems have arisen.

BUS: ENOUGH FOR MOST OF THE TIME...HOWEVER, DURING OUR PEAK TIMES (EARLY EVENING) WE COULD USE M0RE SPACE.

HRM: THE FACULTY DETERMINED THE CLASSROOM CONFIGURATIONS THAT WE NEEDED THAT WOULD BEST SATISFY OUR CURRICULAR CONTENT AND DEMANDS AND THEN, THE COLLEGE GENERATED PRIVATE FUNDING FOR THE UNIVERSITY TO CONSTRUCT THE NECESSARY CONFIGURATIONS. THUS THE CLASSROOMS WE USE ARE DESIGNED FOR SPECIFIC DEMANDS AND A "GENERAL PURPOSE CLASSROOM" WOULD NOT WORK FOR OUR NEEDS.

HFAC: We do not have enough allocated to our use. The general purpose classroom allocation has not been changed significantly in many years. During that time, the pressure of offering core curriculum classes has increased, especially at prime times, but the classroom space that we've had all along is not longer sufficient to meet those demands.

NSM: In general, NSM has been able to meet its "proven demand". About 15 years ago Glenn Aumann got all of the NSM departments to agree to offer the same courses at the same time in the same classroom (fall to fall and spring to spring). This has worked well for us but .... as demand shifts then we end up under utliizing the room. Historical Geology, for example rarely has more than 80 students and is often taught in 116 SR.

PHAR: We are constantly in search of alternative rooms since with the exception of L2D2 the rooms that we use are not permanently assigned to us.

SS: We barely manage with what we get, but are curious to know how classrooms are (were) allocated.

ARCH: No.

BUS: Our CLASSROOMS ARE OF TWO GENERAL CAPACITIES...AUDITOIRA (180 OR ABOVE STUDENTS) OR 66 SEAT CLASSROOMS. WE COULD USE SOME IN THE 70-100 RANGE.

HRM: WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL NEEDS AT THIS TIME NOR, UNFORTUNATELY DO WE HAVE SURPLUS.

HFAC: Our biggest unmet demand is for classrooms whose capacity is from 55 to 150. We don't have anymore fights over very large classrooms (>250) any more, and I'm not sure why. It may be that we've stretched the day past noon enough to meet those needs. More afternoon classes have obviously reduced the pressure during prime times.

NSM: Our need seems to be for classrooms to do course related activities once the semester starts .... review sessions, test taking, etc. In general, these tend to be large classrooms that are required.

PHAR: Yes, when need rooms which can handle 100 students. Part of the problem being that to give exams we usually need to look for a room for that purpose because of the crowded conditions in the assigned lecture room. Also, with the room for the core course we have found that the hour

that the course is taught determines the interest. Using the 8:00 am time slot leads to low enrollment and serious problems with attendance. With 12:00 noon both of these end points are improved. (Example: Fall '98 8:00 am 175 registered, Spring '99 12:00 noon >200 registered).

SS: We need a few larger classrooms (100) with appropriate technology.

ARCH: No, with the one exception of FRI AM- we could se more space then

BUS: EVENINGS, PARTICULARLY 5:30 - 8:30

HRM: WE HAVE NO SCHEDULING PROBLEMS AT THIS TIME. THE ONLY SCHEDULING PROBLEM WE HAVE IDENTIFIED IS THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN CORRECTLY IDENTIFYING THE FULL EXTENT TO WHICH OUR CLASSROOM SPACES ARE BEING UTILIZED AND THUS THERE HAS BEEN AN APPARENT FALSE PERCEPTION THAT WE HAVE UNUTILILIZED SPACE. THIS WILL BE RECTIFIED IN FUTURE SCHEDULES.

HFAC: We could use more classroom space for undergraduate classes during the morning prime times.

NSM: We are not using the 7-8:30 AM slot at all and rarely use 8-9 MWF. 2:30-4 and 4:00-5:30 are also under utilized.

PHAR: We would like a room of approx. 300 at noon both spring and fall for the core course and we would like two rooms close to S&R 2 from 8:00 - 11:00 M-F for professional courses. The problem with the present courses (L2D2 and 160 or 180 Melcher is the distance for students and faculty. The

ability to use electronic instruction is inhibited by the distance from the college facilities in S&R 2.

SS: Yes, at the peak demand times of 0009-1300 MWF and 10-1300 TTh.

ARCH: Not bad yet.

BUS: NO REAL EFFECT, OTHER THAN HAVING TO TEACH SOME CLASSES LATER IN THE EVENING THAN FACULTY MAY PREFER

HRM: THE LABORATORY COMPONENT ATTACHED TO OUR CURRICULUM CONTENT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ROTATE FACULTY BETWEEN LAB AND LECTURE VERY EFFECTIVELY WITH OUR CURRENT CONFIGURATION.

HFAC: No serious problem in HFAC.

NSM: Like many departments, our offerings have contracted with respect to time .... this pushes many courses into the 9-2 syndrome leaving the tails underpopulated.

PHAR: As explained in 4. we have limitations on how the lectures are presented. In addition, it is difficult to develop relations between student and student and faculty and student because are students have no home to congregate in because they are moving not only between three buildings on the central campus, but students need to go to the TMC for specialty labs (Dispensing, sterile product labs). Also, the "wet" labs that our students take during the first year are in the old science building and the "skills" labs that our students take every semester are presented in S&R 2.

SS: Being the pampered sloths they are, most professors want to teach only betwen 1000 and 1400.

ARCH: Not bad yet.

BUSINESS: NONE

HRM: IT IS CRITICAL TO OUR CURRICLUM AND CONTENT.

HFAC: Recently, faculty in foreign languages have asked for classrooms of all sizes with seats that are not fixed to the floor. There recently has been a growing demand from some faculty for more computer classrooms. Shortage of adequate AV equipment has limited the number of classrooms in which art history faculty can teach. (Perhaps renovation of Fine Arts building will remedy this, but perhaps not.)

NSM: There is an increasing interest in having computers and data projectors available. Until more are available we need a scheduling process that takes the needs of the instructor into account.

PHAR: In the "skills" labs we do a lot of small group - student centered instruction and learning. This has been very difficult because we need rooms with movable tables and chairs. The college has had to spend very significant funds to remodel three rooms in S&R 2 for these needs. Despite the costs the rooms still have severe limitations. The scheduling is very difficult because we have 8 sections of 25 students each that have to use 4 rooms in the time slots of 1-5pm M-F. We also do not have space for the students to meet outside of instructional periods. This has significant implications as related to the development of professional attitudes and bonds to the college. We have also been attempting to change our exam processes to what we call "common exam days". What this means is that we have tried to have days on which 2 or 3 exams are given. This requires the availability of large rooms over extended periods of time.

ARCH: No significant difference in this discipline.

HRM: WE ARE CURRENTLY STUDYING THE RETRO-FIT OF OUR LECTURE CLASSROOMS WITH LAPTOP CONNECTIVITY.

HFAC: 104-C is really a substandard classroom, especially for students who are in wheel chairs or are otherwise similarly disabled. It is one of only two large classrooms (i.e., 100 seats or more) assigned to this college even though HFAC has more enrollments every semester than any other college

NSM: In many of the smaller rooms the students enter from the front - and as they leave early or come late they cause distraction.

PHAR: As indicated above, we have been doing a lot of active student learning, peer teaching, and small group learning. This cannot be readily done with rooms that have fixed configurations.

ARCH: We need computer access throughout our studios- more here than in our

classrooms. We will need "docking stations" throughout the building.

BUS: WE WILL NEED MORE CLASSROOMS THAT CAN EASILY INCORPORATE AND INCLUDE TECHNOLOGY.

HRM: WE HAVE IDENTIFIED IN OUR STRATEGIC PLAN THE NEED FOR AN EXPANSION TO THE CURRENT BUILDING THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL COMPUTING CAPABILITIES, AN EXPANDED ARCHIVE, AND ADDITIONAL INTERACTIVE CLASSROOM SPACES.

HFAC: More AV and computer equipment in all classrooms.

NSM: Our most pressing need is for quality laboratory space -- and safe space --- RIght now the Fleming Building is pushed beyond its resources.

PHAR: We would like to move electronic lecture rooms such that each student will have a PC connected to the instructors PC. The lectures will be case based and serve to illustrate concepts that he student will have read before coming to class. The "lectures" will be interactive. The problem is that the college of pharmacy at Texas Tech is already there and our students are wondering why we don't have the same resources in 1999!!!!!

ARCH: In a good system there will be an incentive to share resources. Perhaps sharing should produce more $ form the central control for maintenance, etc. There should be both central control and local control of space- depending on the nature of the space and its amenities. Protecting and maintaining equipment must be addressed in sharing.

HRM: FIRST I THINK A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO HOW WE DEFINE WHAT WE CALL A GENERAL PURPOSE CLASSROOM. CURRENTLY THE DEFINITION SEEMS TO SINGULARLY REVOLVE AROUND THE NUMBER OF SEATS IN THE ROOM WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL CRITERIA BEING CONSIDERED SUCH AS: WHO IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE GENERAL PURPOSE CLASSROOM; LOCATION, PROXIMITY TO OTHER CLASSROOMS FOR COURSES A STUDENT MIGHT BE TAKING, PROXIMITY TO A FACULTY MEMBERS OFFICE AND RESOURCES NEEDED TO TEACH A CLASS; DOES THE SUBJECT ASSIGNED TO THE CLASSROOM REQUIRE CERTAIN TECHNICAL SUPPORT/EQUIPMENT AND WHO IS GOING TO PROVIDE/MAINTAIN SUCH EQUIPMENT, ETC.

HFAC: Classroom space would be allocated to colleges/departments for a fixed period of time, based on specific demands for equipment, number of seats, location on campus, etc. But the allocations would be reviewed regularly to adjust for changes in requirements. Periodic overall allocation should be done by the central administration, but semester-by-semester assignment (within the limits of those allocations) should take place at the college level, at least through the second round of schedule development each semester. After that, unusued classrooms should go into a university pool

for the rest of that scheduling cycle for everybody to draw from (as is the case now). Make someone at the central administration level ultimately responsible for general purpose classrooms to resolve conflicts between colleges and to focus on the care and feeding of those rooms. We need a classroom czar with more power than Louise Riley now has. Special purpose classroom space should be reviewed regularly to make sure that the space is being properly used. It should not be possible for a department to obtain space for a special purpose classroom and then have that space forever without periodic rejustification for its use in that way.

NSM: Required courses - whatever the CORE evolves into - should have the highest priority. Departments should be encouraged to secure class-labs for their upper level courses.

PHAR: If pharmacy had two large lecture rooms within our own building our needs for General Purpose rooms would be limited to the one core course. We need these rooms now since it is hard to develop pride and professionalism when we don't have the physical facilities that other professional programs have.

SS: Rooms would be exclusively ours. But for now, no bumping from rooms after the schedule goes to the printer. Also, these rules should be written--not "understood".

ARCH: Not historically a problem here.

HRM: AS IN DESIGNING A RESTAURANT OR HOTEL FACILITY THE FRONT OF THE

>HOUSE SPACE (IE. DINING ROOM, LOBBY, ETC) REQUIRES A RATIO OF BACK OF THE

>HOUSE SPACES. SEEMINGLY UH HAS LOST FRONT OF THE HOUSE SPACE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT MAKE AVAILABLE ADEQUEATE SPACES FOR OFFICE OF TEACHING ASSISTANTS, ADJUNCT FACULTY, ETC AND SUCH SPACES HAVE BEEN CARVED OUT OF INSTRUCTIONAL SPACES.

HFAC: In our college, general purpose classroom space has been converted to special purpose space for foreign language instruction (need for expensive equipment, carpets on floors, etc.) and for conversion to computer use labs. Also one large classroom in Roy Cullen was converted to office space for approximately 75 TAs who had no offices in which to meet with students in their freshman- and sophomore-level core courses. When Pyschology was forced out of SR1 to give science faculty more lab space, its relocation in Heine took away eight or nine really good classrooms with capacities of 50-80. Also new buildings have been built with little or no general classroom space (e.g., HSC, MSM, SR2, ARC, AAF). I think another general purpose classroom building with two large auditoria and other rooms on two or three upper floors with capicities of 35-85 would be beneficial to the entire campus. Put is where the old Technology building is now, in the middle of the campus, like another PGH.

NSM: Look at the first floor of SR - two classrooms to Physics for Labs - the Dean took the lab rooms for research. One room because of the NMR in the lab beneath --- the magnetic field is too high for safe use.

PHAR: In Roy Cullen the room was converted into offices. At one time there were lecture rooms in E. Cullen and they were converted into offices. We had rooms in Fleming and were never given rooms when moved to S&R 2. Several rooms have been converted into labs in S&R 1 (1st floor). Obviously, this has not been a good thing in that our program involved from two didactic years + experiential to three didactic years + experiential and from approx 75 students/yr to 100 students/yr and still have only one room assigned to use (L2D2). In addition, we have been trying for 4 or 5 years to get the room updated!!!!!

SS: Does this include rooms not on the general purpose list? Does it break time bands.

ARCH: Computer courses are constrained by our facilities, but these courses are not taught in general purpose rooms.

HRM: NO

HFAC: We make the necessary adjustments now to prevent problems like this from occuring, but if more classroom space of the appropriate size and with the necessary equipment were available during prime times, we would schedule more classes during those hours than we are able to schedule now

because of the shortage of acceptable space.

We continue to object to the increasinly common practice of scheduling undergraduate classes in general purpose classrooms OUTSIDE of the official time bands. This is particularly problematic before one o'clock on MW when classes are scheduled for 1.5- instead of 1-hour periods. We also object to using general purpose classrooms for 3-hour periods on one day of the week and not using that classroom during those hours on the other days of the week (e.g.: 9-12 M and nothing on W or F).

NSM: We have - as a group - tended to give faculty too much say in when they\ teach. I think that UH needs to seriously look at its patterns of room use and spread things out a bit. Verifiable demand is interesting. Do you want to take a course at 8AM may get one response but If you can take Algebra only at 8AM will you take it may get another. I think our students will adjust to reality BUT we must be consistent.

PHAR: We continually compete for rooms for all of our courses, but especially for the core course (PHAR 2362) at an hour other than 8:00 am.