Tech-Talks AQIP: Learning Space Enhancement

October 22, 20084 – 5pm

Academic Quality Improvement Program

AQIPAQIP is structured around quality improvement principles and processes and involves a structured set of goal-setting, networking, and accountability activities.

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

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.

AQIP Categories

Helping Students LearnAccomplishing Other Distinctive ObjectivesUnderstanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ NeedsValuing PeopleLeading and CommunicatingSupporting Institutional OperationsMeasuring EffectivenessPlanning Continuous ImprovementBuilding Collaborative Relationships

Summary of Action ProjectsTitle Michigan Tech

Title AQIP Kickoff Date Completion Date Status

Improving the Diversity of the Faculty

Improving the Diversity of the Faculty

June 1, 2006 Sept 29, 2008 Complete

Learning Space Enhancement

Classroom and Facilities Upgrade Plan

June 1, 2006 Oct 22, 2008 Final Report

Comprehensive University Space Inventory Process

Comprehensive University Space Inventory Process

June 1, 2006 Oct 14, 2008 Final Report

Carbon Neutral Carbon Counting June 1, 2007 TBD Ongoing

AQIP Learning Space Enhancement Project

October 22, 2008

Committee CompositionName Affiliation

Jason Carter Department Chair, Exercise Science-Health-Physical Education, CSA

Mike Hendricks Controller

Theresa Jacques Interim Registrar

Patty Lins Director, Educational Technology Services/Online Learning

Michele Miller Associate Professor, ME-EM, COE

John Rovano Director, Facilities Management

Chelley Vician Associate Professor, SBE (Committee Chair)

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

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.”

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

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.

Benchmarking Sample

Public70%

Private30%

Institution Composition of 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)

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

Key Benchmarking Findings – Organizational Structures

Provost/VPAA61%

Dean/Dept. Head7%

VP or Univ Staff32%

University responsibility for LSE process

Provost/VPAA

Dean/Dept. Head

VP or Univ Staff

• Standing Committee (72%) – with campus stakeholder

representation

• Departmental/unit budget processes (20%)

• No campus process (8%)

Key Benchmarking Findings - Funding

General Fund44%

Departments6%

Fee11%

Advancement3%

One-time funding14%

Unknown22%

Funding Sources

General Fund

Departments

Fee

Advancement

One-time funding

Unknown

Selected Funding Ranges

Institution(enrollment, type)

Recurring budget dollars

Budget dollars per student (est.)

MTU peer (3750; public)

~ $1.5 million/year

$413

MTU peer (5800; public)

~ $2 million/year

$345

MI (13,000; public)

$850 - 900,000/ year

$67

Recommendations - Summary

Process1. Provost responsibility2. Timing/Cycle – 1.5 years3. Learning Space

Enhancement Committee (standing)

4. Initial focus – centrally scheduled classrooms (prototype ~70 rooms)

Funding1. Annual budget allocation ($850,000

– 1.5 million), General Fund– Renewal every 3 years– Upgrade every 14 years– Maintenance continuous

2. Maintenance $$ to Facilities, Educational Technology Services, Information Technology

3. Renewal & upgrade $$ – project by project (LSEC)

4. Startup budget $710,000– $250,000 (non-technology)– $460,000 (technology)

Recommendation -Process: Timing/Cycle (startup year)

Summer •Form Learning Space Enhancement committee

Fall •Develop guidelines & communication mechanisms•Identify campus needs (central classrooms)•Prioritize & recommend (central classrooms)

Spring •Plan & acquire bids (for Fall’s projects)•Identify campus needs from constituents (next year’s)

Summer •Complete renewal & upgrade work (Fall’s projects)

Startup year could follow an abridged cycle

Recommendation -Process: Timing/Cycle (steady state)

Fall •Report on completed projects (from prior year)

•Prioritize & recommend this year’s projects

Spring •Plan & acquire bids for this year’s projects

•Identify future year’s needs

Summer •Complete work for this year (by Fall)

Once process is in place, a recurring steady-state process can occur on campus.

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

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

Recommendation - FundingStartup Year Budget

Request Description Request Amount

Ceilings, lighting, tables/seating, boards, painting, flooring/carpet, window treatments•Maintenance (0)•Renewal (25/$5000)•Upgrade (5/$25000)

$250,000

Technology upgrade, renewal, maintenance

$460,000

TOTAL $710,000

Ongoing Budget

Request Description Request Amount

Ceilings, lighting, tables/seating, boards, painting, flooring/carpet, window treatments•Maintenance (70/$2500)•Renewal (25/$5000)•Upgrade (5/$25000)

$425,000

Technology upgrade, renewal, maintenance

$460,000

TOTAL $885,000

Questions/Comments?

Administrative ResponseLast week-

Space:the finalFrontier..

Administrative ResponseExec team:the nextgeneration

Administrative ResponseExec team:Learningspaces: the nextgeneration

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.)

Administrative ResponseRecommendation 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

Administrative ResponseRecommendation 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)

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)

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.

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

QUESTIONSand

OPEN DISCUSSION

Have an idea for an AQIP Action Project?

Go to:http://

www.admin.mtu.edu/admin/prov/index.htm

and complete the AQIP Action Project Submittal Form