Tech-Talks AQIP:
Learning Space Enhancement
October 22, 2008
4 – 5pm
Academic Quality Improvement
Program
AQIP
AQIP is structured around quality
improvement principles and processes
and involves a structured set of goalsetting, networking, and
accountability activities.
AQIP Cycles of Improvement
• Action
• Accreditation
– One-year cycle
– 3 or 4 Action Projects
– Annual updates
• Strategy
–
–
–
–
Four-year cycle
Systems Portfolio
Systems Appraisal
Strategy Forum
– Seven-year cycle
– Check-up Visit
– Reaffirmation of
Accreditation
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 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
Summary of Action Projects
Title
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 Composition
Name
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
Institution Composition of
Benchmarking Sample
Private
30%
Public
70%
• 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
• Standing Committee
(72%)
University responsibility for LSE process
VP or Univ
Staff
32%
Dean/Dept.
Head
7%
Provost/
VPAA
61%
Provost/VPAA
Dean/Dept. Head
VP or Univ Staff
– with campus stakeholder
representation
• Departmental/unit
budget processes (20%)
• No campus process
(8%)
Key Benchmarking Findings - Funding
Selected Funding Ranges
Institution
Funding Sources
Unknown
22%
One-time
funding
14%
Advancement
3%
(enrollment,
type)
General
Fund
44%
Fee
11%
Departments
6%
General Fund
Departments
Fee
Advancement
One-time funding
Unknown
Recurring
budget
dollars
Budget
dollars per
student
(est.)
MTU peer
(3750;
public)
~ $1.5
$413
million/year
MTU peer
(5800;
public)
~ $2
$345
million/year
MI
(13,000;
public)
$850 900,000/
year
$67
Recommendations - Summary
Process
1. Provost responsibility
2. Timing/Cycle – 1.5 years
3. Learning Space
Enhancement Committee
(standing)
4. Initial focus – centrally
scheduled classrooms
(prototype ~70 rooms)
Funding
1.
Annual budget allocation
($850,000 – 1.5 million), General
Fund
–
–
–
2.
3.
4.
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)
Recommendation -Process:
Timing/Cycle (startup year)
• Form Learning Space Enhancement committee
Summer
Startup year could follow an abridged
cycle
Fall
Spring
• Develop guidelines & communication mechanisms
• Identify campus needs (central classrooms)
• Prioritize & recommend (central classrooms)
• Plan & acquire bids (for Fall’s projects)
• Identify campus needs from constituents (next
year’s)
• Complete renewal & upgrade work (Fall’s projects)
Summer
Recommendation -Process:
Timing/Cycle (steady state)
Fall
• Report on
completed projects
(from prior year)
• Prioritize &
recommend this
year’s projects
Once process is in place, a recurring
steady-state process can occur on
campus.
Spring
Summer
• Complete work for
this year (by Fall)
• Plan & acquire bids
for this year’s
projects
• Identify future
year’s needs
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 - Funding
Startup Year Budget
Request Description
Ceilings, lighting,
tables/seating,
boards, painting,
flooring/carpet,
window treatments
Ongoing Budget
Request Amount
$250,000
•Maintenance (0)
•Renewal (25/$5000)
•Upgrade (5/$25000)
Technology upgrade,
renewal, maintenance
$460,000
TOTAL
$710,000
Request Description
Ceilings, lighting,
tables/seating,
boards, painting,
flooring/carpet,
window treatments
Request Amount
$425,000
•Maintenance
(70/$2500)
•Renewal (25/$5000)
•Upgrade (5/$25000)
Technology upgrade,
renewal, maintenance
$460,000
TOTAL
$885,000
Questions/Comments?
Administrative Response
Last week-
Space:
the final
Frontier..
Administrative Response
Exec team:
the next
generation
Administrative Response
Exec team:
Learning
spaces:
the next
generation
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 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
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)
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
QUESTIONS
and
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