MINUTES
Joint Classroom Steering Committee
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
1:30-3:00 p.m.
Green Hall, Rm 302
Attendance: Ann Morrissey, Dean Libutti, Janie Palm, Ken Sisson, Jim Kowalski,
Karen Caines, Michael Pennell, Bob Bullock, Ryan Carrillo and Dave Porter.
Introductions and Review of Committee Charge
Introductions were made and Ann Morrissey reviewed the committee charge and its
genesis (see committee charge). The committee was formed in response to expressed
concerns by faculty during a Faculty Senate meeting nearly a year ago about classroom
upkeep, access, scheduling, and coordination.
Discussion of FSEC proposal for large classroom technology planning
It was explained by Ann that, in recent discussions, the Faculty Senate Executive
Committee proposed that idea of focusing on improving technology in largest classrooms
as way to improve faculty student engagement. Technology-enhanced large classrooms
would entice more faculty to teach in them and perhaps this would translate to greater
willingness on the part of faculty to teach classes after 2pm if they could teach in those
enhanced classrooms. This committee could respond by developing a plan for improving
the larger classrooms.
There was discussion about the NOMAD Education grant which is money being used for
technology to help improve classrooms. It was decided that the committee would like
to get an update on the NOMAD grant and related planning, including specific
progress to date and plans for the future.
An idea was raised about conducting a survey of faculty about the kinds of technology
they would prefer to have in larger classes. Other ideas involved soliciting from other
universities best classroom technologies. Sources of information would include
architectural firms and URI’s IDP and related research from sources like Educause for
best practices. Dave Porter will work on these issues in follow up and report back to
the committee at our next meeting.
Dean Libutti will follow up with the committee by sharing a summary report and master
list of classes that have 75 or more students.
The idea to develop a minimum standard of classroom technology was discussed. This
would involve a proposed standard equipment list as well as defining a “ smart
classroom.” Discussion ensued about the role and activity of other classroom
management and planning teams. It was reported that the Classroom Mgt Team: (Janie,
Ken, Paul, Dave) is active and handles follow up of requests for technology, repairing
classroom technology, and scheduling technology for classes. This committee may need
to redefine its priorities for work and how it functions to align with the directions of the
Classroom Steering Committee.
Updates from Subcommittees:
Data Based Management:
Ken Sission provided a brief update to the committee.
1. Enrollment Services has utilized the Insight program to keep data on classroom
There is a need to link this data base with that used for classroom management.
2. These databases should be more end user friendly
3. Need to have greater communication with departments about what exists in
classrooms.
4. There is a need and challenge to updating the databases.
5. Work towards standardized classrooms.
The committee urged that recommendations be developed by Ken by others
working on the issues of improving the data bases and other areas of challenge, so
that if resources are needed to make improvements, the committee can advance
those issues.
Design Standards:
Ryan Carrillo indicated that this committee has not convened.
There is a need to establish design standards for new classrooms.
Technology would need to be incorporated with the design standards
Next Agenda:

Report from David Porter on best practices research and the faculty survey to
improve classroom technology.
Future work:
 Develop an improved system or process for access to classrooms by faculty and
resolving problems.
 Assign faculty to related committees
 Develop a more effective communication process between classroom
management and faculty.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.