All attendees joined remotely, via Zoom.

Attendees (8):
Jonathan (Jon) Becker, Amita Chin (Vice Chair), Andrew Ilnicki, Oscar Keyes, Kirk Richardson, Valerie Robnolt (Chair), Carmen Rodriguez, Dayanjan (Shanaka) Wijesinghe

Also in attendance (12):
Ex officio members (4): Colleen Bishop, Alex Henson, Elaine Reeder, Jennifer Joy-Gaba
Scribe (1): Jana Avery
Guests (7): John Bogan, Houston Griffith, Jared Parker, Hannah Steighner, Kayla Watts, Crystal Williams, William Nelson, Jr.

At 2:00pm Valerie opened the meeting and welcomed everyone to the 3rd FTAC meeting of this academic year.

She announced that the agenda was adjusted, so that Hannah Steighner could speak first, and she also mentioned that there are several guests joining the meeting today.

The October 3, 2022 meeting minutes were shared, reviewed and approved with one revision needed. The date that the Classroom Technology workgroup toured classrooms equipped with varying technology was changed to 9/29/22.

Hannah Steighner gave the following update on this project:

• Work has begun on a matrix for deciding whether a full governance review is needed or not, based on the level of impact. Previously the determining factor was based on a financial threshold of $50,000 or more, which excluded many high-impact projects just because they were less than $50,000.
• They are also working on a fast-track review, for things that are below the threshold that do not need a full, time-consuming committee review. This would still include a security review. An accessibility review would also be done for anything that would have a high-impact to our user base.
• They will be developing an updated structure for the IT Governance committee to include three specific areas: teaching/learning, administrative/operational, and research. This will allow more folks to participate in governance across the university who are subject matter experts.
• Focusing on decentralizing the process, by identifying for each business unit at the university, if there is an IT person that we can train to be their governance consultant. This will help everyone, by having people throughout campus, who know their departments/schools and also understand the IT governance process serve as the main points of entry into the process, with an awareness of what's being purchased, implemented, and needs to be supported long-term in their departments.

Hannah gave the group a peek at the governance process, which includes critical components like impact assessment, pilot results, scorecard matrix and more. She will share a package of information once they finish everything. She answered a few questions about piloting solutions, piggybacking on other VA universities’ usage to reduce costs for all, and what processes are being used during the interim. (Still submit the governance proposal form, which will have less requirements, but enough to keep things moving along on a case-by-case basis.)

They are currently on track for opening up the process for feedback in December or January, and she encouraged us to monitor their progress on their website. The site dashboard shows what is currently under review and what has recently been approved.

Valerie suggested that when looking for feedback and committee members, they reach out to the Academic Technology and the Admin Resource Technology committees, who are more faculty-based. Also, reach out to deans and the Faculty Senate. Hannah shared that advice they received from other universities was not to ask for volunteers, but specifically seek out subject matter experts.

Action Item: Hannah will share a package of information about these processes as soon as they are finalized. Because FTAC doesn’t meet again until mid-Spring, she will share it with Valerie and Colleen.

Valerie introduced two guests from Records and Registration - Crystal Williams and Kayla Watts. Crystal does the scheduling for the Monroe Park campus and Kayla does scheduling for the MCV campus.

Valerie summarized the workgroup’s assessment of classroom technology needs. Jon Becker elaborated on the need for scheduling classrooms that fit an instructor/class needs to improve efficiency (fit the classroom assignments with technology needs for a class/instructor).  Valerie summarized the two primary needs:

1. Determine what technology is needed in the classrooms.
2. Understand how the rooms are scheduled, in order to maximize the space for classes that might be using these modalities.

Scheduling Classrooms
Valerie opened the discussion with the example of having instructors assigned to classrooms equipped with technology to facilitate hybrid teaching and they are not using the technology. We need to determine how we become more efficient in getting faculty assigned to the rooms that meet their physical and technological needs. She asked about a way to flag classrooms that have the hyflex capabilities, so that faculty could request those specific rooms.  Crystal and Kayla were asked to share their thoughts about this. 

Scheduling Challenges
Crystal stated that she is not aware of the differences in the rooms, but that it was her understanding that the centrally scheduled classrooms do have the capability to do hybrid, but she is not sure.

Regarding the suggestion about flagging rooms with hyflex capabilities, Crystal said that this is not feasible, or something that her team would be able to manage. She said that instructors should immediately review the assigned classroom for what their course needs are and initiate maintenance funds. Meanwhile, scheduling folks can look at switching rooms if at all possible. Seating capacity is very important and there are a lot of other variables that must be considered. They have limited resources which makes it very difficult to make sure that everyone has exactly what they need.

• limited classroom space
• limited personnel resources
• room seating capacity is a critical factor
• enrollment is also a factor
• 170 scheduled rooms
• the schedules roll-over to the next semester/year
• rooms are first come, first served
• they process thousands of requests each semester
• change requests can be submitted after the draft schedule “goes live”

If the type of room needed is not available, Crystal’s team could reach out and try to get a better idea of rooms that are rarely used, but most likely the instructor would remain in  the room they were assigned.

Options are restricted by seating capacity and enrollment (i.e. can’t take an available room that seats 70 and assign it to a class of 30 who needs a specific technology; if no other room that seats 70 is available, then they will remain in the room they were initially assigned.

Technology in the Classrooms
Valerie asked if it would be possible to get a list of the classrooms and their technologies to Crystal and Kayla, which could also be shared with other schedulers. Jared stated that the list currently exists on the classroom support website. His team directs faculty to this information, and Crystal and Kayla have access to it as well. It gives a breakdown of what technology is in each classroom, on each campus. Valerie asked if everyone knows this information exists. She also asked how often the classroom database is updated with the technology changes? Crystal says they have the form available, and they share forms submitted with the schedulers. Jared said his team is responsible for maintaining the information on the classroom support website.

Colleen confirmed that we are working towards the idea of making sure all the centrally supported classrooms have a certain standard configuration that allows for hyflex instruction. Any additional technology recommendations from FTAC, would be passed forward to determine if they should be added to our standards.

Classification Scheme
Amita Chin shared the following: Using the classroom support website, if she is trying to find a specific technology, it’s difficult to locate. She suggested having some kind of classification scheme that would define the technologies in the rooms. Every centrally scheduled classroom would be assigned a classification, which would allow faculty to locate rooms with specific technologies and then submit their request. Understanding that you have to be able to fit a class into the room and have enough seats, but from a technology aspect, a classification scheme would certainly help convey technology and classroom size needs. (i.e. The technologies I need are covered under classification “xyz”, could you find me a room that seats “x” number of students that has this classification?)

Jared spoke more about the classroom support website, and mentioned the “Zoom Room capable” option that was added after COVID started. This section lists the technologies and what rooms are “Zoom Room capable.” This is the type of resource that Amita was describing--see the technology, find which rooms. He explained that all classrooms have a microphone and that a document camera could be used for some form of hyflex. The current standard is two cameras, ceiling microphones and a microphone for the podium. There are a few rooms that MSS is currently working on, to upgrade to this current “standard”.  MSS did not attempt to equip all rooms with multiple hyflex-capable technologies, because we need faculty to define what the needs are for the different modalities. It takes time, funding, resources, availability of equipment (from vendors), and scheduling time to upgrade the classrooms.

Houston said that because this is an optimization problem, to try and figure out who matches the right room at the right time based on their needs, maybe we should include this as a survey to faculty to see what types of classes they teach, not only by modality, but also by technology capability. Use that feedback and cross reference the schedule we currently have (all courses and rooms assigned). Overlaying those two with what those preferences by faculty are might yield something that's a little more useful.

System/Software for Scheduling Optimization
Kirk Richardson asked if scheduling system/software is something we need to purchase or upgrade, and would this address the problem. Houston explained that we are using EMS which outputs to Banner. He’s not sure if it has the capability to algorithmically or otherwise define which match, or what the matching threshold would be. Something that could provide a “best guess” at what the best matches are going to be. Beyond that, just to be able to output what your ability-to-actually match against the total number of rooms that have capabilities that can do what the faculty need. Then we could determine what the threshold should be. i.e. If we have a 38% match (correctly matched technology needs to classrooms), what percentage is our goal? Assess if the threshold achieved is good enough to meet our goal, or do we need to upgrade more classrooms to make that match a higher percentage?

Kayla shared that a few years ago, the university had looked at the room schedules and capacity. She remembers the capacity percentage being pretty high. Even if we were to get an optimization program, we probably wouldn't solve this issue because we don't have enough classrooms to switch people in and out of. Maybe a better solution would be to look at what we can do to fix the classrooms. We have to make them more optimal for these classes.

Elaine asked about using a “shared classroom” plan, like we now have for “shared office space” due to remote working. Andrew said they have managed their lab spaces this way, depending on what software is needed and when, but the spaces end up being underutilized.

Next Steps
Colleen and her team are working with William Nelson’s office on identifying the technology needed to bring all the centrally supported classrooms to a minimum, standard level that supports hyflex instruction. Any additional technology recommendations from FTAC, would be passed forward to determine if they should be added to our standards. The report is almost finalized and will be sent to William’s office within the next week. She reminded everyone that there are more factors involved like furniture, layout, etc. that are managed by areas outside of Technology Services.

There have been no discussions about cost yet.

William Nelson spoke about teaching modalities, funding to support them and his expectations of faculty and FTAC.

Classroom Centralization

• limited number of classrooms in the centralized pool
• a number of classrooms controlled by the various colleges and schools that are not in the pool
• need more of campus spaces under the centrally managed environment to better optimize our space
• faculty input is critical in conversations about the classrooms; FTAC can help with looking into moving towards centralization of classrooms
• Centrally controlled spaces are part of the provost's office.
• The registrar's office with Crystal and Kayla do the best they can with the scheduling, with  limited spaces and resources. If there are other software solutions out there that we need to acquire, we need to know.

As more spaces are moved into the centralized pool we can begin to optimize and have more specialized spaces. This is already on our radar.

Advanced Teaching and Learning at VCU

• What type of spaces do we need? This will be determined by what type of teaching VCU faculty will be doing.
• He wants to hear from faculty, very clearly--exactly what is needed for the teaching modalities, and also if it is a 5-year solution, 1-year solution, etc.
• Be more sensitive with the terminology used when talking about what we want in a classroom. There are a lot of classroom solutions, but FTAC needs to focus their discussions on what type of teaching VCU faculty will be doing. (i.e. dig deeper than current discussions about two cameras and a microphone, or Zoom rooms.)
• hybrid & hyflex are two very different things
• hybrid - bringing virtual reality into math and science courses; anatomy software acquired to facilitate/simulate is a good example
• hyflex - not Zoom; students are physically in the room and some students are remote;  furniture and layout is also a consideration

Funding

• William confirmed that another revenue source, besides HEETF, is needed. HEETF has been a challenge, but some changes are coming, and HEETF is only one of several funding sources (as he mentioned at the October FTAC meeting).
• They will no longer entertain individual school requests going forward. They want to make strategic purchases campus-wide.
• We have plenty of money to invest in technology for teaching and learning, but are also looking for other investments beyond technology (i.e. physical space).
• He is working with facilities on classifying rooms, not just for the available technology, but the actual physical space. Then we will be able to clearly see the quality of our spaces and easily target areas that need upgrades.
• "Funding is not something FTAC needs to address." As previously stated, work is going on behind the scenes to address funding.
• Alex reiterated that FTAC can help with defining the standards that ensure we make smart decisions based on the faculty needs. We are currently in a position to deploy other technologies, and want to maintain that focus.

There was a brief discussion among attendees about hybrid and hyflex teaching; and a mention of augmented reality.

VCU Online for Faculty

Elaine explained the new mission for VCU Online and removal of the former ”ALTLab”. They have realigned their mission, and will expand their focus on faculty support and instructional design. The department name is now “VCU Online for Faculty”, and all references to “ALTLab” should be removed from websites, etc.  She also shared that Rampages will still exist, but that a cleanup is underway (more than 30,000 pages that haven’t been used in 5 years or more).  Faculty will be encouraged to do more innovative things in their classes, but there could be unique situations where some instructors stick with Rampages.

Their new website is https://online.vcu.edu/faculty, and new email is onlinefaculty@vcu.edu.

Meeting Schedule
Valerie suggested meeting in March instead of May. To avoid spring break, she proposed the meeting be the following Monday, March 13.  Everyone was in agreement.

Next Meeting: February 6, 2023 at 2:00-3:30 p.m. on Zoom.

Meeting adjourned at 3:36pm