a classroom enhancement initiative for south dakota … · classroom enhancement initiative for...

1

A

Classroom Enhancement Initiative

for

South Dakota State University

Approved January, 2014 Updated August, 2014 Updated August, 2015

Updated May, 2016

Task Force Members

Aaron Aure, Angela Boersma, Lew Brown, Marvin Clark, Dean Kattelmann, Laurie Nichols, Scott Pedersen, Jennifer Quail, Kristi Tornquist, Kay Trooien, Lois Tschetter

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

Consultant Findings and Recommendations .................................................................................. 5

Recommendation 1 ......................................................................................................................... 7

Expanding the Inventory of University-managed Classrooms

Recommendation 2 ......................................................................................................................... 8

Adopt SDSU Policy and Procedures for Classroom Use, Management, and Maintenance

Recommendation 3 ......................................................................................................................... 9

Develop a Classroom Improvement Plan to address Existing Classrooms and the Construction

of New Classrooms

Determining Classroom Prototypes

Determining the Desired Number of Classrooms by Prototype

Determining the Average Cost of Each Classroom Prototype

Five-Year Classroom Improvement Plan ....................................................................................... 11

Cost of Five-Year Plan ................................................................................................................... 14

Web Presence for Classrooms ...................................................................................................... 15

Campus Vetting and Feedback ..................................................................................................... 16

References .................................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix A: Report from JBA Consultant .................................................................................... 19

Appendix B: Classroom Evaluation Rating ................................................................................... 27

Appendix C: University Classrooms Policy and Procedure .......................................................... 31

Appendix D: 5-Year Classroom Improvement Plan by Classroom Prototype .............................. 37

Appendix E: Technology Budget .................................................................................................. 50

Appendix F: Classroom Enhancement Initiative by Building ....................................................... 51

3

Executive Summary

Impact 2018’s first goal is to Promote academic excellence through quality programs, engaged learners and an innovative teaching and learning environment. Because classroom condition concerns were voiced repeatedly by faculty in the strategic planning development process, a task force was named to study our current university classrooms and develop a plan to be more innovative and improve the overall teaching and learning environment. To launch the process, Joe Bilotta of JBA Incorporated was contracted to complete a classroom analysis. Based upon 114,269 credit hours, Bilotta found that the university needs approximately 128,000 square feet of classrooms; the current inventory is 126,048. This analysis was based on 45 hours per week of classroom use; 70% usage (31.5 hours), and having an average occupancy of 67% (classrooms about 2/3 filled). Assuming credit hours remain constant, Bilotta concluded that the university has approximately the right amount of classroom square footage. Bilotta, however, found several shortcomings in SDSU’s classroom management practices, an overabundance of lecture classrooms, and a void of more interactive classroom formats. Bilotta’s report identified six major recommendations, four of which were pertinent to the classroom improvement plan:

1. Move to a centrally managed classroom scheduling system with first preference to current department. Move to centrally funded and maintained classroom system and allow departments and Colleges to focus on custom instructional lab/studio spaces.

2. Adopt SDSU policy and procedures for classroom use, management, and maintenance. 3. Develop a classroom improvement plan to address existing classrooms and the construction of

new classrooms. 4. Be extremely careful about developing large lecture based classrooms. If necessary, design them

in a way that they can be converted to other uses in the future. The task force used Bilotta’s classroom analysis and recommendations as a framework for this improvement plan. The inventory of 125 classrooms (69 university and 56 departmental) was merged and became the working university classroom inventory. Each classroom was visited by a taskforce team to evaluate the room on a series of quality indicators to arrive at a classroom “score”. Several classrooms were dropped from the inventory due to extremely poor scores which resulted from functional or structural issues that were cost prohibitive. In addition, department heads were allowed to request classrooms back if certain conditions applied. Upon review by the task force, several classrooms were returned to the department. When completed, the university classroom inventory yielded 99 classrooms to be scheduled by the Registrar’s office and maintained by the university. For certain classrooms, department or college preference for scheduling will be honored. A policy and procedures document for University Classrooms was developed, approved, and went into effect fall, 2013. This document governs the rules surrounding classrooms and the procedures by which the university will operate (schedule, maintain, improve) classrooms.

4

The task force researched innovative classroom typologies that could facilitate newer pedagogies of teaching and learning. Based on this research and Bilotta’s recommendation to “be extremely careful about developing lecture classrooms,” the taskforce arrived at 5 classroom prototypes for the plan: seminar, lecture fixed, lecture mobile, active learning/grouping and collaborative. To determine the appropriate mix of classroom types, department heads were consulted on preferred pedagogy for each active class in the graduate and undergraduate catalogs. The results included:

5% collaborative

9% seminar

18% active learning/grouping

20% lecture fixed

48% lecture mobile

This analysis confirmed Bilotta’s conclusion that SDSU has an overabundance of lecture classrooms and must develop a more diverse set of instructional classrooms by increasing seminar, active/group learning and collaborative classrooms. In addition to preferred pedagogy, an average cost for each classroom prototype was calculated to aid in development of a plan. The average cost per type is:

Room type Furniture Remodel Technology Total Cost

Seminar $8,600 $30,000 $9,500 $47,500

Lecture Fixed

Auditorium $81,500 $227,700 $16,000 $325,200

Fixed powered tables $21,400 $76,000 $16,000 $113,400

Lecture Mobile $19,500 $58,875 $9,500 $87,875

Active Learning $43,300 $75,050 $100,000 $218,350

Collaborative $43,300 $114,000 $18,000 $175,300

Combining these two data points, the task force developed a five-year plan for classroom improvement. When completed, it will result in the following classroom portfolio:

Seminar 9 Lecture Fixed 24 Lecture Mobile 56 Active Learning 5 Collaborative 4 High Tech Conference Seminar* 1

*Current location of Doner Auditorium

A detailed improvement plan is under development for the 99 classrooms with 19-20 classrooms improved each year beginning summer of 2014 and through 2018. With inflation, the plan will cost $10.2 million with approximately $4.3 million coming from existing resources and $5 million needed through private funds. The SDSU Foundation is committed to assisting with this project. A web site for classrooms is under development including the ability to scout and reserve rooms, or report a classroom problem.

5

Consultant Findings and Recommendations

As SDSU launched Impact 2018, improvements in teaching and learning environments were identified as a high strategic priority. To facilitate thoughtful movement toward this goal, the university engaged the services of JBA, Incorporated, an architectural and campus planning consulting firm. Joe Billota was hired to assist the university in understanding the current status of its classrooms and to make recommendations to improve the quantity and quality of university classrooms so as to better facilitate teaching and learning. Bilotta worked with the campus summer and fall 2012; major findings included: Existing Classroom Inventory

The campus has 125 classrooms totaling 118,602 Assignable Square Feet (ASF). There is an additional 7,446 ASF of classroom service space for a total of 126,048 ASF.

The Registrar’s Office manages 69 of these rooms. Individual departments and colleges managed the remaining 56 rooms. This is a relatively high percentage of departmentally managed spaces for a public institution.

Registrar managed rooms are typically larger lecture type spaces while the department rooms are smaller, more collaborative spaces. Many times the department spaces are also used for meetings or unscheduled gatherings.

Lecture rooms dominate the classroom inventory. Generally speaking, there is little diversity is SDSU’s classroom inventory. Over the past few years, the University has been making a concerted effort to address this.

Desired Classroom Types

The campus data suggests 88% of course are taught in didactic mode (lecture). It also indicates 80% of the University’s classrooms are designed specifically for lecture.

Input gathered from instructors throughout the process indicates today’s learning modalities are geared more towards interactive engagement with the students. If the campus were to rebuild classrooms today, it would only create approximately 1/3 of the spaces the lecture style format. A much higher percentage of group learning and interactive classroom spaces are necessary.

Departmental requirements show that lecture style classrooms should only account for approximately 38% of the rooms. This compares to today’s 80%. It also shows an increased need for group learning classrooms. Input suggests the need for approximately 30% of the classrooms supporting a group learning pedagogy as compared to the existing 10%.

Campus also indicated a need for more collaborative spaces. These spaces are designed specifically for engagement amongst the students in a variety of formats and environments. These do not yet exist on campus.

Classroom Needs

Classroom needs analysis is based on 114,269 credit hours. The analysis shows the need for approximately 128,000 ASF of classroom space. This is just slightly more than the current 126,048 ASF.

The analysis is based on a 45 hour week, using each classroom on the average of 70% of the time (31.5 hours), and having an average occupancy rate of 67% (2/3 filled).

Although the amount of space doesn’t seem to be a concern, the type of space is. A more diverse set of instructional classrooms is needed. The University needs to transform its classroom inventory, by reducing the high percentage of larger lecture spaces and increase its

6

group learning and collaborative classrooms. A focus is to increase the amount of medium-sized group learning and collaborative space over time. Facilities were built decades ago when lecture was the primary methodology for course delivery. This is no longer the case. Lecture spaces will be necessary for some time, but there is an overabundance of this type of space at South Dakota State University.

Bilotta’s full report can be found in Appendix A. The report provided six recommendations for the task force to address:

1. Move to a centrally managed classroom scheduling system with first preference to current department. Move to centrally funded and maintained classroom system and allow departments and Colleges to focus on custom instructional lab/studio spaces. a. A central system will improve the use of all shareable classrooms. Persons managing the

system have the tools and knowledge to align classroom types and pedagogies with instructor needs.

b. Pooling the classrooms together provides an increased and more diverse inventory of classrooms available to all programs.

c. A central budget needs to be established to support all classrooms in the central pool. These rooms must be maintained and equipped properly. This will improve long-term, lifecycle costs associated with classrooms. An appropriately funded central budget will also allow departments to apply their budgets toward instructional labs or other department spaces.

d. Many of the current departmental classrooms are smaller rooms and serve a dual function of classes and meeting space. Having the appropriate amount of departmental meeting/conference rooms will reduce the need for small department only controlled classrooms.

2. Adopt SDSU policy and procedures for classroom use, management, and maintenance. a. There should be a consistent classroom use policy. This includes not only operating

considerations, but planning considerations as well. b. This will maximize classroom utilization, improve quality, and reduce costs over time.

3. Develop a classroom improvement plan to address existing classrooms and the construction of

new classrooms. a. Determine which rooms are best suited for furniture and technology improvements to

repurpose into grouping and collaborative classrooms. b. Develop a curriculum driven flexible plan for any new classrooms.

4. Be extremely careful about developing large lecture based classrooms. If necessary, design

them in a way that they can be converted to other uses in the future. a. Any new lecture spaces should be designed with a flat floor or very large tiers. Technology

should be used to reach out to a larger audience when necessary. Flat floors will allow increased ability to adapt these spaces when necessary.

5. Understand the impacts of on-line and hybrid courses in lieu of didactic only delivery. a. The lecture pedagogy will be challenged and changed quickly regardless of the residential

population in any campus. Facilities must be able to adapt and meet this unknown rate of change.

6. Consider additional evening or “non-traditional” scheduled classes.

7

Expanding the Inventory of University-managed Classrooms

Recommendation 1

To implement the first recommendation, move to a centrally managed classroom scheduling system with first preference to current department, the task force developed a full inventory of the 125 classrooms. This included the 69 managed by the Registrar’s office and 56 additional classrooms managed by colleges/departments. The task force analyzed this inventory in two ways. First, department heads and deans were allowed to request that a classroom be removed from the university inventory if there were extenuating circumstances that might inhibit the use of the classroom for general teaching purposes. Examples included expensive computer or lab equipment, non-ADA compliant, environmental conditions not conducive to teaching/learning, etc. More than a dozen classrooms were removed based upon a reasonable rationale. A few classrooms were also removed from the list due to approved building renovations that would re-configure the space. Second, the task force developed an evaluation tool to assess and score each classroom on a series of quality indicators including: flooring, walls, window covering, ceiling, furniture (condition and type), cooling, whiteboard, lighting, sightlines, accessibility, circulation, acoustics, and technology. Results ranged from a score of 14 (indicating a high quality classroom) to a score of 44 (indicating a poorer quality classroom). The evaluation tool and resulting classroom scores can be found in Appendix B. Based upon evaluation scores, four classrooms with extremely poor scores were removed from the inventory. When both exercises were completed, a university classroom inventory of 99 classrooms remained. The second part of this recommendation was to move to centrally funded and maintained classroom system and allow departments and Colleges to focus on custom instructional lab/studio spaces. With the creation of the university classroom inventory, it was determined that all classrooms within the inventory would:

1. Be centrally scheduled by the Registrar’s office with preference given to designated departments based upon previous “ownership”. The existing preference list was shared with department heads and deans and corrections were provided to the Registrar.

2. Be funded for maintenance and improvements by a central source of funding. With this, a 5-year rotation for maintenance and improvements of all 99 classrooms was developed.

3. Allow departments and Colleges to fund and maintain laboratories, studios, and other discipline-specific instructional space.

These changes in university classroom management and scheduling were shared with the University Management Team during spring semester, 2013 and became effective fall semester, 2013.

8

Adopt SDSU Policy and Procedures for Classroom Use, Management, and Maintenance

Recommendation 2

The second recommendation was to develop university policy and procedures to address classroom use including scheduling procedures, management of university classrooms, and maintenance including technology repairs and upgrades. After reviewing a number of classroom policies from other universities, a sub-group drafted a policy and procedures for University Classrooms, Number 2:2 which can be found in the South Dakota State University on-line Policy and Procedure Manual at http://www.sdstate.edu/policies/. The policy was vetted with the full task force, and reviewed by legal counsel, the Provost and approved by the President. The policy went into effect fall 2013. The policy and its procedures set forth the on-campus University classroom inventory and utilization protocols to ensure fulfillment of the University commitment to providing quality learning environments for faculty and students consistent with changing pedagogy requirements. This policy excludes departmentally-controlled laboratories, class rooms, or other learning environments. A full policy can be found in Appendix C.

http://www.sdstate.edu/policies/

9

Develop a Classroom Improvement Plan to Address Existing Classrooms and the Construction of New Classrooms

Recommendation 3

Several steps were undertaken to develop this recommendation. The first step was to determine appropriate classroom prototypes, and secondly to determine the optimal number of classrooms within each prototype. The optimal number of classrooms is driven by preferred teaching pedagogy.

Determining Classroom Prototypes The task force conducted an environmental scan to determine futuristic and diversified classroom prototypes. They began by reviewing the prototypes offered by Bilotta in his presentation, but supplemented by reviewing literature on classrooms and exploring newly constructed classrooms at other universities. Ultimately, the task force arrived at the following prototypes:

Seminar (S):

These spaces are more/less formalized by the presence of conference type furniture that facilitates discussion and interaction. Typically these spaces would be used for upper level and graduate seminars. These spaces have basic technology support.

Example Rooms: Wecota 002 Wenona 004

Lecture – Fixed (LF):

These spaces support traditional lecture based learning through fixed seats and writing surfaces. Typically these spaces have auditorium seating or fixed tables with power and mobile chairs. These spaces have extensive technology support

Example Rooms: Ag Engineering 100 Rotunda D

Lecture – Mobile (LM):

These spaces are often used for lecture based learning, but are relatively flexible and could accommodate other teaching methods. Typically these spaces have tablet arm chairs or mobile tables and chairs. These spaces have extensive technology support.

Example Rooms: Wagner 159 Northern Plains Biostress 102

Active Learning/Grouping (AL/G):

These spaces are collaborative in nature in that students sit and work in pods/groups. The intent is for students to be using computer/tablet technology throughout the class. Student lead discussion and learning is supported through technology & connectivity. These spaces have extensive technology including connectivity with each of the pods/groups.

Upgrades for Summer 2014

Example Rooms: Daktronics Eng Hall 260 Northern Plains Biostress 067

Collaborative (C):

These spaces have a very unique and specific set-up and teaching style. The intent is to support informal learning through varied and simultaneous activities. These spaces are not intended for lecture based learning. These spaces have varied and specialized technology.

Example Rooms: Example Example

10

Determining the Desired Number of Classrooms by Prototype Current classrooms were identified using the five prototypes above. As expected, nearly all classrooms fell into either lecture fixed (n=26) or lecture mobile (n=66). See Table below. To determine the optimal number of classrooms within each prototype, the task force queried department heads by developing a comprehensive inventory of active classes from the undergraduate and graduate catalogs. The courses were sorted by prefix and sent to appropriate department heads to identify course pedagogy preference using the classroom prototype descriptions above. If a course did not require a classroom (e.g. internship, independent study, lab, studio), the course was marked “NA”. Courses were sorted by pedagogy preference. The table below summarizes the total number of courses in each category, along with current number of classrooms, and percentages and number of desired classrooms.

Classroom Type

Current number of classrooms

Course pedagogy

preference

Desired classrooms as a

percentage

Resulting number of “desired” classrooms*

Seminar 5 221 9% 9

Lecture Fixed 26 494 20% 20

Lecture Mobile 66 1204 48% 47

Active Learning 2 446 18% 18

Collaborative 0 126 5% 5

Total 99 2491 100% 99

*This represents the distribution of desired classrooms based on preferred pedagogy

Determining the Average Cost of Each Classroom Prototype

In addition to optimal number of classrooms, a financial feasibility analyses was conducted. Cost projections were computed by classroom type. The following resulted:

Room type Furniture Remodel Technology Total Cost

Seminar $8,600 $30,000 $9,500 $47,500

Lecture Fixed

Auditorium $81,500 $227,700 $16,000 $325,200

Fixed powered tables $21,400 $76,000 $16,000 $113,400

Lecture Mobile $19,500 $58,875 $9,500 $87,875

Active Learning $43,300 $75,050 $100,000 $218,350

Collaborative $43,300 $114,000 $18,000 $175,300

From these combined data, optimal number of classroom types and financial cost for each type, a five-year classroom plan was developed.

11

Five-Year Classroom Improvement Plan Updated May, 2016

Based upon the preferred classroom type and average cost for each type, the task force developed a five-year plan for classroom improvement. When completed, it will result in the following distribution of classrooms:

Seminar 8 Lecture Fixed 24 Lecture Mobile 54 Active Learning 5 Collaborative 4 High Tech Conference Seminar* 1 *Current location of Doner Auditorium

Upgrades will begin summer of 2014 and continue through 2018. Each year, 19-20 classrooms will be renovated or improved. A master plan for the 99 classrooms was developed using a variety of factors including: rating or score of each classroom (with an attempt to address poorer quality classrooms earlier in the plan), type of classroom (developing or improving some of each classroom type each year), and location of classroom (with some attempt to economize by working on adjoining classrooms). The full 5-year work plan with each of the 99 (96) classrooms detailed with specific improvement costs can be found in Appendix D. This is a summary of the improvement plan:

BLDG ROOM # SF # STATIONS TYPE RATING

Year 1 --FY 2014 & 2015 -- Summer 2014 (completed) Agricultural Engineering 108 528 16 S 20 F

Yeager Hall 208 634 16 S NA F

Agricultural Engineering 100 2081 204 LF 20 P

Bailey Rotunda B* 1085 77 LF 25 P

Bailey Rotunda G* 1892 120 LF 20 P

SD Art Museum 104 1965 140 LF 20 P

Wagner Hall 208 1380 74 LF 21 F

Agricultural Engineering 203 1080 48 LM 27 F

Solberg Hall 8 757 32 LM 24 F

Wagner Hall 125 859 45 LM 21 P






Wenona Hall 208 680 28 LM 34 F

McFadden Biostress Lab 67/69 1888 78 AL/G 14 F

Yeager Hall 229 1000 25 C NA F

12


Year 2 -- FY '16 -- Summer 2015 Yeager Hall 210 682 18 S NA F

Bailey Rotunda A* 1892 113 LF 21 P

Bailey Rotunda C* 1085 61 LF 24 P

Bailey Rotunda F* 1085 70 LF 24 P

McFadden Biostress Lab 103* 1968 132 LF 16 F

Architecture, Math, and Engineering 210 972 40 LM 14 P

DePuy Military Hall 100 654 28 LM 22 F

DePuy Military Hall 101 653 28 LM 22 F

McFadden Biostress Lab 102 656 24 LM 18 P

Solberg Hall 102 884 38 LM 21 P

The Barn 123 815 48 LM 19 P

Wagner Hall 114 1389 65 LM 23 F

Wagner Hall 453 1115 40 LM 21 F

Wecota Hall 4 628 30 LM 18 P

Wintrode Student Success Center 118 982 35 LM 18 P

Yeager Hall 231 733 35 LM 21 P

Architecture, Math, and Engineering 214 969 42 AL/G 16 F

Architecture, Math, and Engineering 220 629 30 AL/G 16 F

The Barn 109 900 29 C NA F

Wecota Hall 26 544 24 C 24 F

Year 3 -- FY '17 -- Summer 2016

Wagner Hall 128 459 15 S 27 F

Wenona Hall 001 364 12 S 22 F

Alfred Dairy Science Hall 151 580 27 LF 16 P

Avera Health & Science Center 41 1946 90 LF 16 P

Avera Health & Science Center 43 1946 90 LF 16 P

Bailey Rotunda E* 1085 97 LF 23 P

Crothers Engineering Hall 204 2233 148 LF 17 F



Animal Science Complex 129 1201 38 LM 15 F

Crothers Engineering Hall 215 650 32 LM 17 P





Grove Hall 115 932 30 LM -- P

Solberg Hall 216 905 24 LM 23 F


Pugsley Continuing Education Center 117 760 35 AL/G 21 F

13


Year 4 -- FY '18 -- Summer 2017 Wenona Hall 4 310 12 S 22 F

Wenona Hall 10 508 11 S 28 F

Alfred Dairy Science Hall 100 2019 172 LF 16 F

Daktronics Engineering Hall 112 840 32 LF 15 P





Avera Health & Science Center 27 662 40 LM 14 P




McFadden Biostress Lab 119 944 32 LM 19 F


Solberg Hall 215 879 38 LM 23 P

Yeager Hall 206 437 30 LM 16 F

Yeager Hall 212 653 49 LM 16 F

Daktronics Engineering Annex 260 804 48 AL/G 14 F

Year 5 -- FY '19 -- Summer 2018 Wecota Hall 2 402 14 S 21 F

Animal Science Complex 126 3180 219 LF 17 P

Bailey Rotunda A* 1892 113 LF 21 P

Bailey Rotunda B* 1085 77 LF 25 P

Bailey Rotunda C* 1085 61 LF 24 P

Bailey Rotunda D 3861 387 LF 20 P

Bailey Rotunda E* 1085 97 LF 23 P

Bailey Rotunda F* 1085 70 LF 24 P

Bailey Rotunda G* 1892 120 LF 20 P

Berg Agricultural Hall 100A 1422 110 LF 16 F

Berg Agricultural Hall 100B 916 62 LF 16 F

Daktronics Engineering Annex 370 966 39 LF 14 P

McFadden Biostress Lab 103* 1968 132 LF 16 F

Avera Health & Science Center 280 871 60 LM 14 P Key: Seminar = 8

Crothers Engineering Hall 209 987 65 LM 14 P Lecture Fixed=24

Crothers Engineering Hall 217 652 32 LM 15 F Lecture Mobile=54

Crothers Engineering Hall 351 1176 38 LM 21 F Collaborative=4

Hansen Hall 4 1078 60 LM 17 F Active Learning/Group=5

Hansen Hall 8 881 42 LM 21 F HiTech Conference Seminar=1

Hansen Hall 10 1171 49 LM 17 F F=Full upgrade

Honors Hall 118 928 32 LM 14 P P=Partial upgrade

McFadden Biostress Lab 28 970 48 LM 16 P *rooms listed more than once


Stanley J Marshall HPER Center 104 1357 72 LM NA F

Stanley J Marshall HPER Center 120 628 34 LM NA F

TBD TBD 1000 49 LM NA F

Briggs Library ? 600 24 C NA F

Administration-Doner 211 5938 60 Hi Tech Conference Seminar

F

14

A year-by-year presentation of the project cost can be found below. The total cost for the 5-year improvement plan in today’s dollars is $9,097,780. However, using a 3% inflation factor to account for anticipated cost increases over a 5-year period, the adjusted estimate is $10,239,631. Of the $10.2M, approximately $4,320,000 in university funding has been identified through HEFF M&R and technology budgets. This leaves a deficit of approximately $5 million. Please see Appendix D for yearly detail in costs, and Appendix E for a detailed cost analysis of the technology budget. It is important to note that the technology costs outlined in this report refer to classroom technology such as projector, document camera, etc. The university has a significant investment in the network that connects the classroom technology as well as the cloud environment and wireless infrastructure, all of which supports student learning. These network and infrastructure costs are outside of this plan. The classroom plan with unmet need was presented to the SDSU Foundation Board of Governors as a funding priority. At this time, the Governors/Trustees are developing their 5-year strategic plan with funding priorities, and the classroom need has been included.

Technology Architecture Furniture 3% Inflation

Year 1 FY '14 & '15 Required $305,500 $1,166,485 $687,525

Allocation $230,000 $580,000 $0

Deficit -$75,500 -$586,485 -$687,525 -$1,349,510 -$1,349,510

Year 2 FY '16 Required $483,000 $1,129,770 $509,800

Allocation $230,000 $370,000 $0

Deficit -$253,000 -$759,770 -$509,800 -$1,522,570 -$1,568,247

Year 3 FY '17 Required $297,500 $858,960 $375,000

Allocation $230,000 $620,000 $0

Deficit -$67,500 -$238,960 -$375,000 -$681,460 -$722,961

Year 4 FY '18 Required $337,000 $596,445 $221,350

Allocation $230,000 $800,000 $0

Deficit -$107,000 $203,555 -$221,350 -$124,795 -$136,366

Year 5 FY '19 Required $466,000 $1,393,970 $269,475

Allocation $230,000 $800,000 $0

Deficit -$236,000 -$593,970 -$269,475 -$1,099,445 -$1,237,432

Total (5 years) Required $1,889,000 $5,145,630 $2,063,150 $9,097,780 $10,239,631

Allocation $1,150,000 $3,170,000 $0 $4,320,000

Deficit -$739,000 -$1,975,630 -$2,063,150 -$4,777,780 -$5,014,516

Cost of Five-Year Plan

15

Web Presence for Classrooms A web presence has been developed for university classrooms. A Goggle campus map identifies buildings with university classrooms including identification of the classroom with room number and photo. In addition, classrooms can be searched by a variety of filters including: type of space, capacity/seats, location, available resources/features, etc. The web site also allows individuals to inquire about scheduling the room, request technical assistance with a classroom and provide room feedback. http://www.sdstate.edu/resources/rooms/index.cfm

http://www.sdstate.edu/resources/rooms/index.cfm

16

Campus Vetting and Feedback

Beginning in early November, 2013, a draft of the 5-year Classroom Improvement plan was shared with the campus for reaction and feedback. In addition to posting the plan on Inside State, task force members visited the following leadership and shared governance bodies to present the plan and invite feedback.

University Management Team: Scott Pedersen, Lew Brown, Kristi Tornquist, Kay Trooien Faculty Senate: Scott Pedersen, Jennifer Quail, Kay Trooien Professional Staff Advisory Council: Aaron Aure, Kay Trooien, Laurie Nichols Student Association: Kristi Tornquist, Lois Tschetter Civil Service Advisory: Marvin Clark Executive Team: Dean Kattelmann, Laurie Nichols Town Hall Meeting: Laurie Nichols SDSU Foundation Staff: Laurie Nichols SDSU Foundation Board of Governors: Laurie Nichols Media: Brookings Register, Dec 14, 2013 Brookings Economic Development Corporation newsletter, January, 2014 Brookings Register, Jan 16, 2014

Feedback was overwhelmingly positive; overall those who reviewed were impressed with the plan and felt, when implemented, it would greatly improve the teaching and learning environment. Several concrete suggestions were provided and have been incorporated into the plan including:

1. Review the number of desks in lecture mobile classrooms. Some of these classrooms have too many desks for the square footage making circulation and overall movement a problem. This can also become an accessibility issue. Attend to maximum capacity.

2. As you order new desks, pay attention to the size (frame) of the desk and the tablet/writing surface of the desk. Both should be increased for comfort and functionality.

3. As you renovate classrooms, include more outlets.

4. WiFi capacity of some classrooms needs to increase.

5. For those classrooms that were returned to the department/college, but sure there is accountability for improvements to these as well.

17

6. Develop a standing University Classroom Committee whose charge is to ensure overall teaching and learning quality including continuation of updates after the five-year time period. The committee will report to the Provost, although representatives from Classroom Technology Services and Facilities and Services will need to be represented as well.

7. Formulate a faculty/student advisory group to advise those who will be making the improvements (e.g. Classroom Technology Services and Facilities and Services). The advisory group could work over the summer to provide advice on furniture purchases, classroom layout, placement of technology, etc.

With this feedback incorporated into the implementation plan, the Taskforce formally approved this plan in January, 2014.

18

References

Houtman, N. (2013, Spring). Online and face-to-face: Active learning combines technology and

teamwork. Terra, Oregon State University, p. 29-31.

Kennedy, M. (2013, March). Today’s learning spaces. American School and University, 30-32. Maximizing space utilization: Measuring, allocating, and incentivizing efficient use of facilities. 2010.

Education Advisory Board, Washington, D.C. Michael, J. (2013, March). The changing classroom environment: Ideas for updating furniture and

furnishings in educational facilities. American School and University, 26-29. Millard, E. (2013). Setting the foundation for high-tech spaces. (July, 2013). University Business, 27-29. Painter, S., Fournier, J., Grape, C., et. al. (2013). Research on learning space design: Present state,

future directions. Society of College and University Planning. Planning for Assessing 21st Century Spaces for 21st Century Learners (2013, November). Narum, J.L. (Ed).

Learning Spaces Collaboratory. New Classrooms Building Projects at:

Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

Cornell

University of California-Davis

University of Minnesota

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

University of Wisconsin

University of Wyoming

19

Appendix A

Report from JBA Consultant

27

Appendix B

Classroom Evaluation Rating

29

SDSU General Classroom Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Evaluation Descriptions Building/Room: _____________________________ Feature Possible Notes Ratings Flooring 1, 2, 3 (1) newly installed (2) unsure about install but still functioning (3) asbestos tile or areas with missing or damaged tiles or stained carpet

If the flooring is concrete and is safe and functional should it be rated at (1) or rated at (3) because we want all the space to have some type of covering & not just concrete

Comment: Walls 1, 2, 3 (1) newly painted (2) in need of touch-up (3) in very bad condition, in need of patching/repair most ratings will be (2) because most space is in need of touch-up Comment: Window Coverings 1, 2, 3 (1) relatively new and functioning blinds. This rating is also used when a room does

not have any windows. (2) outdated and/or poorly installed blinds (3) not functional in keeping out the light or missing entirely Comment: Ceilings 1, 2, 3 (1) suspended ceiling with all tile in excellent condition; or finished ceiling in

excellent condition, no spots or discoloring (2) suspended ceiling with some damaged/missing/discolored tiles; finished ceiling in need of repair

(3) ceiling in need of major repair - beyond replacing a few ceiling tiles Comment: Furniture 1, 2, 3 (1) furniture 5 years or newer, use of alternative seating solutions (2) average condition furniture, maybe dated colors/style

(3) old wooden tablet armchairs - too small for today's students & teaching methods

Comment: Furniture 1,3 (1) movable or adjustable allowing for reconfiguration of set-up (3) fixed to flow; not movable Comment: Space Cooled 1, 3 (1) space is cooled (3) space is not cooled Comment: Whiteboard 1, 2, 3 (1) whiteboard and in good condition (2) whiteboard in need of repair/replacement (3) chalkboard Comment:

30

Lighting Control 1, 3 (1) adjustable (3) not adjustable Comment: Sightlines 1, 3 (1) no obstructions, good sightlines (3) obstructions, poor sightlines Comment: Accessibility 1, 3 (1) building & room are accessible (3) building & room are not accessible Comment: Circulation 1, 3 (1) good circulation throughout the room for instructor & students (3) poor circulation space, room is overcrowded, too many stations for size of room Comment: Acoustics 1, 2, 3 (1) No distracting noises nor does sound bounce (2) Some noise from HVAC but sound is acceptable (3) Noisy air exchange/sound bounces/difficult to hear Comment: Technology 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (1) fully enhanced technology is within 5 years of age (2) fully enhanced technology is older than 5 years [Marvin Clark and his team (3) partial technology within 5 years of age will evaluate each classroom (4) partial technology is older than 5 years on this criteria. You can omit (5) not enhanced or minimal technology this score.] Comment: Check category which best describes the classification of classroom for the database (see attached for descriptions) Classroom type: Discussion/Seminar Lecturer Grouping Collaborative Imaging

31

Appendix C University Classrooms Policy and Procedure

Office/Contact: Office of Academic Affairs

Source: SDBOR Maintenance and Repair Policy 6:6, SDBOR Facilities Use by Private Parties Policy

6:13, SDBOR Technology Purchases Policy 7:6

Link: http://www.sdbor.edu/policy/6-Facilities/documents/6-6.pdf, http://www.sdbor.edu/policy/6-

Facilities/documents/6-13.pdf, http://www.sdbor.edu/policy/7_Technology/documents/7-6.pdf

SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY

Policy and Procedure Manual

SUBJECT: University Classrooms

NUMBER: 2:2

1. Purpose

This policy and its procedures set forth the on-campus University classroom inventory and utilization

protocols to ensure fulfillment of the University commitment to providing quality learning

environments for faculty and students consistent with changing pedagogy requirements. This policy

excludes departmentally-controlled laboratories, class rooms, or other learning environments.

2. Definitions

a. Becoming Live: The point at which the Master Schedule becomes available for students and

faculty to view, which occurs one month prior to early registration.

b. Capacity:

i. Section Capacity: The number of students who can register for a specific class. This is

controlled within the College and is determined by teaching pedagogy, historical

interest in this course, and desired size of the section.

ii. Classroom Capacity: The maximum number of student stations within the classroom.

This number is based on square footage of the room, egress requirements, number of

exits, and type of furniture.

c. Credit Hour: A unit by which the University measures its course work. The credit hour value

for a course is determined primarily by the amount of time, the intensity of the educational

experience, and the amount of outside preparation required by the student. For example, a

lecture course with readings or other out-of-class preparation would result in one credit for

each class hour scheduled per week for a semester while a laboratory experience with little

out-of-class preparation may equal one credit for three hours scheduled per week of a

semester.

d. Department-Controlled Laboratory: A room used primarily for formally or regularly

scheduled classes that require special purpose equipment or a specific room configuration for

student participation, experimentation, observation, or practice in an academic discipline.

These laboratories are assigned to a specific department and are scheduled by the department.

All equipment and upgrades are funded by the assigned department and under the

decentralized budget model, departments are charged per square foot.

http://www.sdbor.edu/policy/6-Facilities/documents/6-6.pdf




http://www.sdbor.edu/policy/7_Technology/documents/7-6.pdf

32

e. Freeze Date: The date a snapshot of students’ enrollment information is taken and stored for

reporting.

f. Priority/Preference Scheduling: University classrooms that are first scheduled for a specific

department prior to the Master Schedule Becoming Live.

g. Technology Fully Enhanced: Single or Dual projection classrooms with some having an

interactive smart board as one of the projection images, 6-7 computer inputs on the outside

walls, PC, laptop, document camera, combo desk, auxiliary and close circuit fiber feed.

h. Technology Partially Enhanced: Classrooms equipped with a smart board, projector, sound

system, and combination deck.

i. University Classroom Types: Rooms scheduled by the Office of the Registrar for use by

classes from any department. Equipment and upgrades are centrally funded through the

University.

i. Seminar Classroom: Space formalized by the presence of conference - type furniture

that facilitates discussion and interaction. These spaces are typically used for upper

level and graduate seminars and have basic technology support.

ii. Lecture-Fixed: Space that supports traditional lecture-based learning through fixed

seats and writing surfaces. These spaces have extensive technology support.

iii. Lecture-Mobile: Space that is used for lecture-based learning, but is relatively flexible

and could accommodate a variety of teaching methods. These spaces have tablet arm

chairs or mobile tables and chairs. These spaces have extensive technology support.

iv. Active Learning/Grouping: Space that is collaborative in nature in that the students are

organized and work in pods or groups. Intended for students to be using computer

technology throughout the class. Student - led discussion and learning is supported

through technology and connectivity. These spaces have extensive technology

including connectivity with each of the pods or groups.

v. Collaborative: Space that is very unique and specifically supports innovative learning

through varied and simultaneous activities. These spaces are not intended for lecture

based learning and have varied and specialized technology.

3. Policy

a. Roles and Responsibilities:

i. Office of Academic Affairs: Under the leadership of the Provost, the Office of

Academic Affairs (OAA) has ultimate responsibility for the University learning

environments. The OAA will be responsible for all aspects of classroom planning

including new classroom construction, existing classroom improvements, and

reporting to the University and the SDBOR. In addition, the OAA will implement

classroom planning by coordinating with other offices on campus, monitor progress,

refine as needed and seek feedback so as to continuously improve learning

environments and to ensure appropriate utilization and occupancy.

33

ii. Office of the Registrar: Responsible for assigning classroom space as an integral

part of the responsibility of building a semester schedule. The Office of the

Registrar will maintain and make available a current inventory of each course’s

preferred classroom type and to the extent possible, match course to classroom

type. The Office of the Registrar will also keep a current priority scheduling list

to ensure department(s) priority scheduling rights.

iii. Academic Deans: Responsible for assuring that requested times for daytime

courses are from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM, Monday through Thursday and 8:00 AM

to 6:00 PM, Friday. Deans are responsible for addressing conflicts between

classes in different subject areas with a view to maximizing scheduling choices

for students.

iv. Office of Instructional Technology: Responsible for classroom technology

including technology enhancements, upgrades, repairs, periodic checks, training,

and on-call services for faculty.

v. Facilities and Services: Responsible for maintaining classroom inventory

including the on-going evaluation of classroom conditions and a five (5) year

schedule for upgrades. Facilities and Services monitors and reports classroom

usage, implements classroom renovations, and advises on new construction

projects.

b. Classroom Enhancement

i. The University will continually review and update its classrooms to offer a range

of structures to facilitate engaged learning, to realize sufficient utilization and

occupancy, and to facilitate redirection of resources to better maintain existing

classrooms.

ii. Classroom inventories as well as utilization of these resources will be

maintained, reviewed, and disseminated in accordance with University and

SDBOR policies and procedures, including but not limited to in electronic

databases and in publications and studies.

iii. Classrooms and facilities improvement plans will be continually reviewed,

developed, and implemented to facilitate continuous adaptation to current

pedagogy and effective efficiencies.

c. Scheduling

i. University Classrooms are scheduled centrally by the Office of the Registrar.

Courses will be assigned to a University Classroom based on two criteria: the

Section Capacity established for the class, and preferred University Classroom

Type. If both cannot be fulfilled, the Section Capacity criteria will be honored

first in scheduling a classroom.

34

ii. Courses that adhere to the following time guidelines will be given first priority:

1. Three basic options are available for course and classroom

scheduling: 50 minutes of instruction beginning on the hour (e.g.,

8:00-8:50); 75 minutes of instruction beginning on the hour or at the

half hour point, following the schedule established below (e.g., 8:00-

9:15); 2.5 hours of instruction beginning on the hour (e.g., 4:00-

6:30). Some variations will occur for laboratories and studios.

2. For Monday, Wednesday, Friday courses, the courses will start on

the hour and end 50 minutes after the hour. For Tuesday, Thursday

three-credit courses, the courses will meet for 1 hour and 15 minutes.

The time schedule for said courses is: 8:00 AM -9:15 AM, 9:30 AM

– 10:45 AM, 11:00 AM – 12:15 PM, 12:30 PM – 1:45 PM, 2:00 PM

– 3:15 PM, 3:30 PM – 4:45 PM. If a three-credit course meets only

Monday, Wednesday, the course must be scheduled after 3:00 PM

for effective classroom usage.

3. One and two-credit courses will be scheduled on Tuesday and/or

Thursday. These courses will start on the hour and end 50 minutes

after the hour.

4. Evening courses that meet more than once a week will be scheduled

to meet at the same time each evening.

iii. Courses will be scheduled into the “right-sized” rooms; that is, rooms that are not

too large for the projected enrollment. Changes in room assignment will be made

based on enrollment history, preliminary enrollments, and actual enrollments so

as to match University Classroom Type and Capacities.

iv. Courses offered for credit have priority over non-credit classroom scheduling.

When two or more departments request the same room and time, the course with

the greatest enrollment is given the first priority.

v. To facilitate student schedules and to best utilize classrooms, courses will be

distributed throughout the day and week, utilizing mornings and evenings,

Monday through Friday. This also applies to multiple section courses including

large lecture courses, which will be distributed evenly throughout the day and

week.

vi. Finals exams are scheduled separately and published in the semester schedule.

Courses that regularly meet in these classrooms during the term will receive

priority for scheduling during Finals Week.

vii. Whenever possible, courses scheduled in a classroom for one term will carry

over to the next term.

viii. Consideration will be given to minimize faculty travel from one building to

another although not all faculty can be scheduled to teach in only one building.

35

Individual accommodations will be considered as appropriate on a case by case

basis in accordance with law.

ix. Conflicts will be resolved initially by the scheduler and the requesting individual.

Should a conflict be unresolved, the Registrar and Department head will work to

resolve the conflict. Remaining conflicts will then be submitted to the Provost for

final resolution.

4. Procedures

a. The Office of the Registrar will distribute draft schedules to departments as follows:

i. Spring Term – First draft is sent the 1st week in April, the second draft is sent the

1st week in August, priority or preference for rooms ends the 4th week in

September.

ii. Summer Term – First draft is sent 2nd week in April, the second draft is sent the

2nd week in August, priority or preference for rooms ends the 4th week in

September.

iii. Fall Term – First draft is sent the 1st week in October, the second draft is sent the

1st week in December, priority or preference for rooms ends the 3rd week in

February.

b. Departments will develop their semester schedule when requested by the Registrar’s

Office and submit by the due date for the Office of the Registrar to schedule courses

with classroom type and apply priority designations.

i. During scheduling, departments will indicate University Classroom Type

preferred, section capacity, and other needs for each specific course.

ii. The Registrar’s Office will assign priority classrooms to identified departments

(if requested), up to the published date on the electronic classroom Master

Schedule, or one month prior to the start of early registration and make the

schedule and assignments available to the campus community.

iii. After the deadline, classrooms will be available for scheduling to others outside

of the priority designation on a first come, first served basis.

c. Laboratory schedules set by Departments will be submitted to the Registrar for

publication in the class schedule.

d. Classroom reservations for events outside of the regular class schedule can be made

from 8:00 am – 5:00 pm with the Registrar’s Office; to schedule events after 5:00 pm

and/or on weekends, contact Central Reservations.

e. Changes required to scheduled rooms and other accommodations will be submitted to

the Office of the Registrar for rescheduling into different classroom spaces.

f. Facilities and Services will implement Classroom Enhancements in accordance with a

rotating enhancement plan with input from the Provost.

36

g. All classrooms, except Active Learning/Grouping and Collaborative, will be unlocked in the

morning and locked at night by custodial staff. During business hours the rooms will remain

unlocked. Active Learning/Grouping and Collaborative classrooms will remain locked and

access will be through card swipe.

h. The Registrar’s Office and Classroom Technologies will coordinate faculty/staff access each

semester.

i. Non-technology classroom supplies are provided by Facilities and Services.

j. Concerns with the classroom or furniture shall be submitted to Facilities and Services.

k. Concerns with the technology shall be submitted to Classroom Technologies.

5. Responsible Administrator

The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, successor, or designee is responsible for bi-

annual and ad hoc review of this policy and its procedures. The University President is responsible for

approval of modifications to this policy and its procedures.

SOURCE: Approved by President on 08/08/2013.

Revised Approved by President on 04/29/2014.

37

Appendix D 5-Year Classroom Improvement Plan by Classroom Prototype

Updated May, 2016

BLDG ROOM # SF #

STATIONS

TYPE PT=fixed

power table A=Auditorium

RATING Upgrade Calendar

Year

Upgrade Fiscal Year

Seminar

Agricultural Engineering 108 528 16 20 2014 FY'15

Yeager Hall 208 634 16 NA 2014 FY'15

Yeager Hall 210 682 18 NA 2015 FY'16

Wagner Hall 128 459 15 27 2016 FY'17

Wenona Hall 1 364 12 22 2016 FY'17

Wenona Hall 4 310 12 22 2017 FY'18

Wenona Hall 10 508 11 28 2017 FY'18

Wecota Hall 2 402 14 21 2018 FY'19

Lecture - Fixed

Agricultural Engineering 100 2081 204 A 20 2014 FY'15

Bailey Rotunda B* 1085 77 A 25 2014 FY'15

Bailey Rotunda G* 1892 120 PT 20 2014 FY'15

SD Art Museum 104 1965 140 A 20 2014 FY'15

Wagner Hall 208 1380 74 PT 21 2014 FY'15

Bailey Rotunda A* 1892 113 A 21 2015 FY'16

Bailey Rotunda C* 1085 61 A 24 2015 FY'16

Bailey Rotunda F* 1085 70 A 24 2015 FY'16

McFadden Biostress Lab 103* 1968 132 A 16 2015 FY'16

Alfred Dairy Science Hall 151 580 27 PT 16 2016 FY'17

Avera Health & Science Center 41 1946 90 PT 16 2016 FY'17

Avera Health & Science Center 43 1946 90 PT 16 2016 FY'17

Bailey Rotunda E* 1085 97 A 23 2016 FY'17

Crothers Engineering Hall 204 2233 148 A 17 2016 FY'17

Alfred Dairy Science Hall 100 2019 172 A 16 2017 FY'18

Daktronics Engineering Hall 112 840 32 PT 15 2017 FY'18




Animal Science Complex 126 3180 219 PT 17 2018 FY'19

Bailey Rotunda A* 1892 113 A 21 2018 FY'19

Bailey Rotunda B* 1085 77 A 25 2018 FY'19

Bailey Rotunda C* 1085 61 A 24 2018 FY'19

Bailey Rotunda D 3861 387 A 20 2018 FY'19

Bailey Rotunda E* 1085 97 A 23 2018 FY'19

Bailey Rotunda F* 1085 70 A 24 2018 FY'19

Bailey Rotunda G* 1892 120 PT 20 2018 FY'19

Berg Agricultural Hall 100A 1422 110 A 16 2018 FY'19

Berg Agricultural Hall 100B 916 62 A 16 2018 FY'19

Daktronics Engineering Annex 370 966 39 PT 14 2018 FY'19

McFadden Biostress Lab 103* 1968 132 A 16 2018 FY'19

38

Lecture - Mobile


Solberg Hall 8 757 32 24 2014 FY'15

Wagner Hall 125 859 45 21 2014 FY'15

Wagner Hall 127 862 45 21 2014 FY'15

Wagner Hall 157 580 30 20 2014 FY'15

Wagner Hall 159 693 36 20 2014 FY'15

Wagner Hall 167 693 36 20 2014 FY'15

Wagner Hall 169 580 30 20 2014 FY'15

Wenona Hall 208 680 28 34 2014 FY'15

Architecture, Math and Engineering 210 972 40 14 2015 FY'16

DePuy Military Hall 100 654 28 22 2015 FY'16

DePuy Military Hall 101 653 28 22 2015 FY'16

McFadden Biostress Lab 102 656 24 18 2015 FY'16

Solberg Hall 102 884 38 21 2015 FY'16

The Barn 123 815 48 19 2015 FY'16

Wagner Hall 114 1389 65 23 2015 FY'16

Wagner Hall 453 1115 40 21 2015 FY'16

Wecota Hall 4 628 30 18 2015 FY'16

Wintrode Student Success Center 118 982 35 18 2015 FY'16

Yeager Hall 231 733 35 21 2015 FY'16



Animal Science Complex 129 1201 38 15 2016 FY'17

Crothers Engineering Hall 215 650 32 17 2016 FY'17





Grove Hall 115 932 30 -- 2016 FY’17

Solberg Hall 216 905 24 23 2016 FY'17

Wagner Hall 131 828 45 18 2016 FY'17


Avera Health & Science Center 27 662 40 14 2017 FY'18






Solberg Hall 215 879 38 23 2017 FY'18

Yeager Hall 206 437 30 16 2017 FY'18

Yeager Hall 212 653 49 16 2017 FY'18



39



Hansen Hall 4 1078 60 17 2018 FY'19

Hansen Hall 8 881 42 21 2018 FY'19

Hansen Hall 10 1171 49 17 2018 FY'19

Honors Hall 118 928 32 14 2018 FY'19



Stanley J. Marshall HPER Center 104 1357 72 NA 2018 FY'19

Stanley J. Marshall HPER Center 120 628 34 NA 2018 FY'19

TBD TBD 1000 49 NA 2018 FY'19

Active Learning/Group

McFadden Biostress Lab 67/69 1888 78 14 2014 FY'15



Pugsley Continuing Education Center 117 760 35 21 2016 FY'17

Daktronics Engineering Annex 260 804 48 14 2017 FY'18

Collaborative

Yeager Hall 229 1000 25 NA 2014 FY'15

The Barn 109 900 29 NA 2015 FY'16

Wecota Hall 26 544 24 24 2015 FY'16

Briggs Library ? 600 24 NA 2018 FY'19

HI Tech Conference Seminar

Administration-Doner 211 5938 60 2018 FY'19

* rooms listed more than once

40

5-Year University Improvement Plan with Detailed Cost Estimate BLDG ROOM # SF # STATIONS TYPE RATING Technology Architecture Furniture Notes Annual Investmt

$230,000 $580,000 $0 by room type

SAE 108 528 20 S 20 F $9,500 $39,600

$8,000 Seating

$3,000 Table

$60,100

SYE 208 634 16 S NA F $9,500 $47,550

$6,400 Seating

$3,000 Table

36 $66,450 $126,550

SWG 208 1380 88 LF 21 F

$14,500 $64,600

$22,000 Seating

$30,800 Tables with power

$1,000 Instructor

$132,900

SAE 100 2081 210 LF 20 P

$16,000 $83,240

$120,750 Seating

$1,000 Instructor

$220,990

SMU 104 1965 140 LF 20 P $14,500 $78,600

$80,500 Seating

$1,000 Instructor

$174,600

SRO B* 1085 96 LF 25 P FY'19 $43,400

$55,200 Seating

$1,000 Instructor

$99,600

SRO G* 1892 120 LF 20 P FY'19 $75,680 (electrical work)

$69,000 Seating

654 $1,000 Instructor

$145,680

$773,770

SAG 139* 1092 61 LM 18 P $100,000 AC upgrades

$100,000

SWE 208 680 22 LM 34 F $9,500 $51,000

$5,500 Seating

$4,675 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$71,675

Year 1 --FY 2014 & 2015 -- Summer 2014 --> (F&S Allocation $210,000 FY 2014 and $370,000 FY 2015)

Total S stations

Total LF stations

41

SAE 203 1080 20 LM 27 F $9,500 $81,000

$7,000 Stools

$12,000 Benches

$1,000 Instructor

$110,500

SSO 8 757 32 LM 24 F $9,500 $56,775

$8,000 Seating

$6,800 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$82,075

SWG 157 580 40 LM 20 P $9,500 $23,200

$2,000 $16,000 Seating Node

$1,000 Instructor

$49,700

SWG 169 580 40 LM 20 P $9,500 $23,200


$1,000 Instructor

$49,700

SWG 125 859 49 LM 21 P $9,500 $34,360

$19,600 Seating Node

$1,000 Instructor

$64,460

SWG 127 862 49 LM 21 P $9,500 $34,480


$1,000 Instructor

$64,580

SWG 159 693 48 LM 20 P $9,500 $27,720


$1,000 Instructor

$57,420

SWG 167 693 48 LM 20 P $9,500 $27,720


$1,000 Instructor

409 $57,420 $707,530

SNP 67/69 1888 78 AL/G 14 F $100,000 $179,360

$19,500 Seating

$78,000 Tables

$1,000 Instructors

78 $377,860 $377,860

SYEA 229 1000 15 C NA F $18,000 $95,000

$300 Instructor

$18,000 Tables

$4,500 Chairs

$135,800 $135,800

$30,000

$305,500 $1,166,485 $687,525

Existing Allocation $230,000 $580,000 $0

-$75,500 -$586,485 -$687,525

Total LM Stations

Total AL/G stations

Misc Technology

Year 1 --FY 2014 & 2015 -- F&S Allocation $210,000 FY 2014 and $370,000 FY 2015

Year 1 FY '14 & '15 Required

Difference

42

BLDG ROOM # SF # STATIONS TYPE RATING Technology Architecture Furniture Notes

$230,000 $370,000 $0

Year 2 -- FY '16 -- Summer 2015 -->

SWC 26 544 24 S 24 F $9,500 $40,800

$7,200 Seating

$3,000 Tables

$60,500

SYE 210 682 18 S NA F $9,500 $51,150

$7,200 Seating

$3,000 Tables

$70,850 $131,350

SNP 103* 1968 138 LF 16 F FY'14 $226,320

$79,350 Seating

$1,000 Instructor

$306,670

SRO A* 1892 113 LF 21 P FY'14 $75,680 (electrical work)

$64,975 Seating

$1,000 Instructor

$141,655

SRO C* 1085 97 LF 24 P FY'14 $43,400

$55,775 Seating

$1,000 Instructor

$100,175

SRO D 3861 387 LF 20 P $100,000 FY'10 FY'10

$100,000

SRO F* 1085 97 LF 24 P FY'14 $43,400

$55,775 Seating


$100,175

$748,675

SWG 373 817 40 LM 24 F $9,500 $61,275

$10,000 Seating

$8,500 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$90,275

SDP 100 654 28 LM 22 F $9,500 $49,050

$7,000 Seating

$5,950 Table

$1,000 Instructors

$72,500

SDP 101 653 28 LM 22 F $9,500 $48,975

$7,000 Seating

$5,950 Table

$1,000 Instructors

$72,425

SWG 114 1389 65 LM 23 F $9,500 $104,175


$1,000 Instructors

$140,675

SWG 453 1115 40 LM 21 F $9,500 $83,625

$10,000 Seating

$8,500 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$112,625

Annual

Investment by

Type

Total LF stations

Total S stations

43

SSO 102 884 40 LM 21 P $9,500 $35,360

$10,000 Seating

$8,500 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$64,360

SYEA 231 733 35 LM 21 P $9,500 $29,320

$8,750 Seating

$7,650 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$56,220

SNP 102 656 36 LM 18 P $9,500 $26,240

$9,000 Seating

$7,650 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$53,390

SIM 123 815 48 LM 19 P $9,500 $32,600


$1,000 Instructor

$64,300

SWSC 118 982 35 LM 18 P $9,500 $39,280


$1,000 Instructor

$63,780

SWC 4 628 30 LM 18 P $9,500 $25,120

$7,500 Seating

$6,375 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$49,495

AME 210*** 972 40 LM 14 P $9,500 FY'15 FY'15

$9,500

465 $849,545

AME 214*** 969 42 AL/G 16 F $100,000 FY'15 FY'15

$100,000

AME 220*** 629 30 AL/G 16 F $100,000 FY'15 FY'15

$100,000

72 $200,000

SIM 108 900 24 C NA F $24,000 $85,500

$6,000 Seating

$24,000 Tables


$140,500

$140,500

$30,000

Year 2 FY '16 $489,000 $1,101,270 $509,800

$230,000 $370,000 $0

-$259,000 -$731,270 -$509,800


$230,000 $620,000 $0

Year 3 -- FY '17 -- Summer 2016 -->SWE 001 364 12 S 22 F $9,500 $27,300

$4,800 Seating

$3,000 Table

$44,600

Misc Technology

Required

Allocation

Difference

Annual

Investment by

Type

Total LM stations

Total AL/G stations

Total C stations

44

SWG 128 459 15 S 27 F

$9,500 $34,425

$6,000 Seating

27 $3,000 Table

$52,925

$97,525

SCEH 204 2233 148 LF 17 F $14,500 $256,795

$85,100 Seating

$1,000 Instructor

$357,395

SRO E* 1085 97 LF 23 P FY'14 $43,400

$55,775 Seating

$1,000 Instructor

$100,175

SDS 151 580 27 LF 16 P $14,500 FY'11 FY'11

$14,500

SAV 41 1946 90 LF 16 P $16,000 FY'10 FY'10

$16,000

SAV 43 1946 90 LF 16 P $16,000 FY'10 FY'10

$16,000

452 $504,070

SSO 216 905 24 LM 23 F $9,500 $67,875

$6,000 Seating

$5,100 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$89,475

SAE 122 639 49 LM 19 F $9,500 $47,925


$1,000 Instructor

$78,025

SAE 216 791 60 LM 19 F $9,500 $59,325


$1,000 Instructor

$93,825

SAS 129 1201 42 LM 15 F $9,500 $90,075

$10,500 Seating

$8,925 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$120,000

SWG 131 828 45 LM 18 P $9,500 $33,120


$1,000 Instructor

$61,620

SCEH 223 976 40 LM 18 P $9,500 $39,040


$1,000 Instructor

$65,540

SCEH 307 544 36 LM 18 P $9,500 $21,760


$1,000 Instructor

$46,660

SCEH 324 559 36 LM 18 P $9,500 $22,360


$1,000 Instructor

$37,760

Total S stations

Total LF stations

45

SCEH 215 650 32 LM 17 P $9,500 $26,000


$1,000 Instructor

$49,300

SCEH 305 434 24 LM 17 P $9,500 $17,360

$9,600 Seating Node


$37,460 $739,765

SPCA 117 760 35 AL/G 21 F $100,000 $72,200

$9,000 Seating

$36,000 Tables


$218,200 $218,200

$30,000

Year 3 FY '17 $307,000 $858,960 $375,000

$230,000 $620,000 $0

-$77,000 -$238,960 -$375,000


$230,000 $800,000 $0

Year 4 -- FY '18 -- Summer 2017 -->SWE 4 310 12 S 22 F $9,500 $23,250

$4,800 Seating

$3,000 Table

$40,550

SWE 10 508 11 S 28 F $9,500 $38,100

$4,400 Seating

$3,000 Table

23 $55,000

$95,550

SDS 100 2019 172 LF 16 F $16,000 $232,185

$98,900 Seating

$1,000 Instructor

$348,085

SDEH 112 840 32 LF 15 P $14,500 FY'09 FY'09

$14,500

SDEH 118 842 38 LF 15 P $14,500 FY'09 FY'09

$14,500

SDEH 218 842 40 LF 15 P $14,500 FY'09 FY'09

$14,500

SDEH 124 611 27 LF 14 P $14,500 FY'09 FY'09

$14,500

309 $406,085

SAE 208 592 49 LM 18 F $9,500 $44,400


$1,000 Instructor

$74,500

Allocation

Difference

Annual

Investment by

Type

Total S stations

Total LF stations

Required

Total LM stations

Total AL/G stations

Misc Technology Upgrades

46

SNP 119 944 32 LM 19 F $9,500 $70,800

$8,000 Seating

$6,800 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$96,100

SNP 122 944 32 LM 19 F $9,500 $70,800

$8,000 Seating

$6,800 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$96,100

SYE 206 437 30 LM 16 F $9,500 $32,775

$7,500 Seating

$6,375 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$57,150

SYE 212 653 49 LM 16 F $9,500 $48,975


$1,000 Instructor

$79,075

SAV 27 662 40 LM 14 P $9,500 FY'10 FY'10

$9,500

SAV 282 860 60 LM 14 P $14,500 FY'10 FY'10

$2,000 $14,500

SAV 380 897 50 LM 14 P $14,500 FY'10 FY'10

$2,000 $14,500

SAV 382 584 40 LM 14 P $9,500 FY'10 FY'10

$9,500

SSO 215 879 38 LM 23 P $14,500 $35,160

$9,500 Seating

420 $8,075 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$68,235 $519,160

SDEA 260 804 48 AL/G 14 F $100,000 FY'12 FY'12

$100,000

48 $100,000

$30,000

$337,000 $596,445 $221,350

$230,000 $800,000 $0

-$107,000 $203,555 -$221,350


$230,000 $800,000 $0

Year 5 -- FY '19 -- Summer 2018 -->SWC 2 402 14 S 21 F $9,500 $30,150

$5,600 Seating

14 $3,000 Table

$48,250 $48,250

SAG 100A 1422 110 LF 16 F $16,000 $163,530

$63,250 Seating

$1,000 Instructor

$243,780

Annual

Investment by

Type

Total S stations

Difference

Total LM stations

Total AL/G stations

Misc Technolog Upgrades

Year 4 FY '18 Required

Allocation

47

SAG 100B 916 62 LF 16 F $14,500 $105,340

$35,650 Seating

$1,000 Instructor

$156,490

SRO B* 1085 96 LF 25 P $9,500 FY'15 FY'15

$9,500

SRO G* 1892 120 LF 20 P $14,500 FY'15 FY'15

$14,500

SNP 103* 1968 138 LF 16 F $14,500 FY'15 FY'15

$14,500

SRO A* 1892 113 LF 21 P $14,500 FY'15 FY'15

$14,500

SRO C* 1085 97 LF 24 P $9,500 FY'15 FY'15

$9,500

SRO F* 1085 97 LF 24 P $9,500 FY'15 FY'15

$9,500

SRO E* 1085 97 LF 23 P $9,500 FY'17 FY'17

$9,500

SDEA 370 966 39 LF 14 P $14,500 FY'12 FY'12

$14,500

SAS 126 3180 244 LF 17 P $100,000 FY'14 FY'14

1213 $100,000 $596,270

SAV 280 871 60 LM 14 P $9,500 FY'10 FY'10

$9,500

SWG 335 1089 40 LM 19 F $9,500 $81,675

$10,000 Seating

$8,500 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$110,675

SCEH 351 1176 45 LM 21 F $9,500 $88,200


$9,775 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$119,725

SNP 184 538 36 LM 14 F $9,500 $40,350

$9,000 Seating

$7,650 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$67,500

SCEH 217 652 32 LM 15 F $9,500 $48,900


$1,000 Instructor

$72,200

SCEH 209 987 65 LM 14 P $9,500 $39,480


$1,000 Instructor

$75,980

Total LF stations

48

SHON 118 928 32 LM 14 P $14,500 FY'14 FY'14

$14,500

SNP 28 970 48 LM 16 P $9,500 FY'12 FY'12

$9,500

SPEC 104 1357 72 LM NA F $14,500 $101,775

$18,000 Seating

$15,300 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$150,575

SPEC 120 628 34 LM NA F $9,500 $47,100

$8,500 Seating

$7,225 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$73,325

TBD TBD 1000 49 LM NA F $9,500 $75,000

$12,250 Seating

$10,625 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$108,375

SHN 4 1078 60 LM 17 F $9,500 $80,850

$15,000 Seating

$12,750 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$119,100

SHN 8 881 40 LM 21 F $9,500 $66,075

$10,000 Seating

$8,500 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$95,075

SHN 10 1171 49 LM 17 F $9,500 $87,825

$12,250 Seating

$10,625 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$121,200

602 $1,156,730

SFND 200 1513 40 LM 16

SSOR 1 738 49 LM 21

SSOR 2 775 33 LM 19

SSOR 4 655 32 LM 19

SAG 139* 1092 61 LM 18

215

Total LM stations

off line Summer 2015





Total LM stations

49

BL 3 600 24 C NA F $24,000 $57,000

$6,000 Seating

$24,000 Tables

$1,000 Instructor

$112,000

TBD TBD 1200 24 C NA F $24,000 $114,000

$6,000 Seating

$24,000 Tables


$169,000

$281,000

AD Doner 211 5938 60

Hi Tech

Conference

Seminar

F $100,000 $682,870 $60,000 very rough number

$842,870 $842,870

$30,000

$557,000 $1,910,120 $478,500

$230,000 $800,000 $0

-$327,000 -$1,110,120 -$478,500

Technology Architecture Furniture 3% Inflation

Year 1 --FY 2014 & 2015 --F&S Allocation $210,000 FY 2014 and $370,000 FY 2015

Year 1 FY '14 & '15 $305,500 $1,166,485 $687,525

$230,000 $580,000 $0

-$75,500 -$586,485 -$687,525 -$1,349,510 -$1,349,510

Year 2 FY '16 $489,000 $1,101,270 $509,800

$230,000 $370,000 $0

-$259,000 -$731,270 -$509,800 -$1,500,070 -$1,545,072

Year 3 FY '17 $307,000 $858,960 $375,000

$230,000 $620,000 $0

-$77,000 -$238,960 -$375,000 -$690,960 -$733,039

$337,000 $596,445 $221,350

$230,000 $800,000 $0

-$107,000 $203,555 -$221,350 -$124,795 -$136,367

$557,000 $1,910,120 $478,500

$230,000 $800,000 $0

-$327,000 -$1,110,120 -$478,500 -$1,915,620 -$2,156,047

Phase I Total (5 years) Required $1,995,500 $5,633,280 $2,272,175 $9,900,955 $11,143,612

Allocation $1,150,000 $3,170,000 $0 $4,320,000

Difference -$845,500 -$2,463,280 -$2,272,175 -$5,580,955 -$5,920,036

Allocation

Difference


Allocation

Difference


Difference

Allocation

Difference

Required

Allocation

Difference

Required

Allocation

Difference

Required

Allocation

Summary of 5-Year University Improvement Plan


Misc Technology Upgrades

Total C stations

50

Appendix E Technology Budget

98 Classrooms at 19 Classrooms per Year

1 Seminar room per year

5 Lecture Fixed Classrooms per year

1 Collaborative Environment per year

1 Active Learning Classroom per year

11 Lecture Mobile Classrooms per year

Technology Projection Plan

15 single projection upgrades ($9,500/room) for a total of $142,500/year

1 dual projection upgrades ($16,000/room) for a total of $16,000/year

1 dual projection upgrades ($14,500/room) for a total of $14,500/year

1 collaborative upgrade ($18,000) for a total of $18,000/year

1 triple projection or Active Learning environment at $100,000/year

Extra replacement lamps, repair parts, PCs, monitors at $30,000/year

Total budget = $321,000

Breakdown of Room Prototype with Projection Plan

1 seminar room single projection = $9,500

1 lecture fixed dual projection = $16,000

4 lecture fixed single projection = $38,000

1 Collaborative dual projection = $18,000

1 lecture mobile dual projection = $14,500

10 lecture mobile single projection = $95,000

1 Active Learning Environment = $100,000

1 Misc. AV accessories (lamps, repairs, PCs, Monitors) = $30,000

51

Appendix F Classroom Enhancement Initiative by Building

Updated August, 2015

Building Name Room # Room Type Year (1-5) Priority Scheduling

Architecture, Math and Engineering 210 LM 2 MATH

Architecture, Math and Engineering 214 AL/G 2 MATH

Architecture, Math and Engineering 220 AL/G 2 MATH

Administration-Doner 211 Hi Tech Conference Seminar 5

Agricultural Engineering 100 LF 1 ABE

Agricultural Engineering 108 S 1 ABE

Agricultural Engineering 203 LM 1 ABE




Berg Agricultural Hall 100A LF 5 BIOL/BOT

Berg Agricultural Hall 100B LF 5 BIOL/BOT

Alfred Dairy Science Hall 151 LF 3 DS

Alfred Dairy Science Hall 100 LF 4 DS

Animal Science Complex 129 LM 3 AS/RANG

Animal Science Complex 126 LF 5 AS/RANG

Avera Health & Science Center 41 LF 3 PHA/CHEM

Avera Health & Science Center 43 LF 3 PHA/CHEM

Avera Health & Science Center 27 LM 4 PHA/CHEM

Avera Health & Science Center 282 LM 4 PHA/CHEM/CHD

Avera Health & Science Center 380 LM 4 MLS/PHA/CHEM



Briggs Library ? C 5

Crothers Engineering Hall 204 LF 3 PHYS/CEE

Crothers Engineering Hall 223 LM 3 ME

Crothers Engineering Hall 307 LM 3 PHYS/CEE




Crothers Engineering Hall 217 LM 5 PHYS/CEE/ME


Crothers Engineering Hall 351 LM 5 ME/CEE

Daktronics Engineering Hall 112 LF 4 EE/CSC/SE



52


Daktronics Engineering Annex 260 AL/G 4 EE/CSC/SE

Daktronics Engineering Annex 370 LF 5 EE/CSC/SE

DePuy Military Hall 100 LM 2 MSL

DePuy Military Hall 101 LM 2 MSL

Grove Hall 115 LM 3 Design

Hansen Hall 4 LM 5 DS

Hansen Hall 8 LM 5 CHD/EDU/DS

Hansen Hall 10 LM 5 CHD/EDU/DS

Honors Hall 118 LM 5

Stanley J Marshall HPER Center 104 LM 5

Stanley J Marshall HPER Center 120 LM 5

McFadden Biostress Lab 67/69 AL/G 1 AS/PS/WL

McFadden Biostress Lab 103* LF 2 AS/PS/WL

McFadden Biostress Lab 102 LM 2 AS/PS/WL



McFadden Biostress Lab 103* LF 5 AS/PS/WL



Pugsley Continuing Education Center 117 AL/G 3 ECE

Bailey Rotunda B* LF 1

Bailey Rotunda G* LF 1

Bailey Rotunda A* LF 2

Bailey Rotunda C* LF 2

Bailey Rotunda F* LF 2

Bailey Rotunda E* LF 3

Bailey Rotunda A* LF 5

Bailey Rotunda B* LF 5

Bailey Rotunda C* LF 5

Bailey Rotunda D LF 5

Bailey Rotunda E* LF 5

Bailey Rotunda F* LF 5

Bailey Rotunda G* LF 5

SD Art Museum 104 LF 1 ARTH

Solberg Hall 8 LM 1 ME/OM




TBD TBD LM 5

53

The Barn 123 LM 2 AT/PE

The Barn 109 C 2

Wagner Hall 208 LF 1 NURS

Wagner Hall 157 LM 1 Mod Lang


Wagner Hall 125 LM 1





Wagner Hall 453 LM 2 Consumer Sci

Wagner Hall 128 S 3


Wecota Hall 26 C 2 CHD/GEOG

Wecota Hall 4 LM 2 GEOG

Wecota Hall 2 S 5 GEOG

Wenona Hall 208 LM 1 EDU/CHD

Wenona Hall 1 S 3 CHD/EDU

Wenona Hall 4 S 4 EDU/CHD

Wenona Hall 10 S 4 CHD/EDU

Wintrode Student Success Center

118 LM 2 ENGL

Yeager Hall 208 S 1 MCOM/ADV

Yeager Hall 229 C 1 MCOM/ADV

Yeager Hall 210 S 2 MCOM/ADV

Yeager Hall 231 LM 2 MCOM/ADV



a classroom enhancement initiative for south dakota … · classroom enhancement initiative for...

Documents