All attendees joined remotely, via Zoom.

Attendees (11):
Jon Becker, Michael Cabral, Amita Chin (Vice Chair), Mark Crosthwaite, Andrew Ilnicki, Oscar Keyes, Kirk Richardson, Valerie Robnolt (Chair), Carmen Rodriguez, Jim Smither, Shanaka Wijesinghe

Also in attendance (11):
Ex officio members (4): Colleen Bishop, Alex Henson, Elaine Reeder, Jennifer Joy-Gaba
Scribe (1): Jana Avery
Guests (6): John Bogan, Houston Griffith, Jared Parker, Katie Shedden, Hannah Steighner, William Nelson, Jr.

At 2:00pm Valerie opened the meeting and welcomed everyone. One new ex-officio member, Jen Joy-Gaba, an alternate for Kim Case (CTLE) introduced herself. Valerie mentioned that several guests are attending today.

The September 12, 2022 meeting minutes were approved with no revisions needed.

Valerie reported that there were no nominees submitted via the form provided, but that she had asked Amita Chin to serve as Vice Chair, and she agreed.

Action Item: Need a representative for the position vacated by Kathryn-Murphy Judy. Valerie will email Catherine Ingrassia, the interim dean for Humanities.

Hannah Steighner gave a quick update on the status of this project. She shared her screen which showed the new website, https://itgovernance.vcu.edu/ redesign-project/ and walked us through where the project information is being stored and updated. Included on the website is a summary of the project purpose, goals and deliverables. This is a huge project, spanning months, and will involve major changes. They are currently in the development phase and are wrapping up their research. Presently, they are focused on identifying committees needed, what the process is for going through governance, and the workflows. They are also trying to determine how to separate the strategic review processes from the operational processes. Operational processes are security, accessibility and other compliance-related items. After they conclude the development phase, they will begin reaching out to the campus community to gather feedback. Next, they will review the plan and feedback, and prepare for launch in spring 2023.

Hannah agreed to share another update at our November 7th meeting, and will send some information in advance so FTAC can review. It was suggested to Hannah that they share a couple of scenarios for the project, since the term “IT Governance” doesn’t always convey why this is important to faculty. Hannah welcomed this suggestion and said she will share the draft email with FTAC for feedback, prior to sending it.

Action Items:

• Hannah Steighner will share a draft email for FTAC feedback before sending it to faculty.
• Hannah Steighner will attend the November 7th FTAC meeting and provide an update on the project.

FTAC participants in the classroom workgroup: Valerie Robnolt, Kirk Richardson, and Jon Becker. The workgroup toured six classrooms on 9/29/22 with John Bogan, Jared Parker and Houston Griffith. Locations toured were Temple 1164, Harris Hall 2114, Harris Hall 5182, MCALC 2201 and 4110, and Cabell B41. They also reviewed images of some MCV classrooms.

Images of these classrooms can be viewed in the October 2022 folder of the FTAC shared drive:
Photos - VCU Centrally Managed Classrooms

John Bogan gave an overview of the types of rooms and the different technologies the workgroup evaluated and shared their feedback on which are most important to instructors. Technologies discussed include (but not limited to):

• single and dual monitor podiums
• document cameras
• cameras (front & back)
• microphones (ceiling, podium, document camera)
• array microphones in the ceiling (which works well in large spaces)
• collaborative seating (round tables, rolling chairs; power outlets in the floor can inhibit movement)
• screens & projectors (2 screens can be used simultaneously with different content)
• video walls
• whiteboards

An open discussion took place throughout John’s report.

Displays and whiteboards

• Rolling whiteboards: Some faculty have used rooms with rolling whiteboards, but found that they are not always available (i.e. missing from the room). These boards are also much smaller so the viewing distance is limited.
• Classroom wall(s) painted with whiteboard paint: This would provide additional writing surfaces outside of the lowered screens, but there are maintenance concerns, as these are often hard to erase/clean.
• Projecting onto a painted whiteboard wall: The instructor can annotate on the whiteboard while projecting, but generally works best in very small spaces. The whiteboard projectors are usually mounted lower, and the projected image has to be small enough for the instructor to reach the top of the image for annotations. There would also be a hotspot glare from the projector that the user would have to contend with.
• Whiteboards on the side walls of a classroom are useless unless the audience can turn their chairs.
• Annotation using interactive podium monitors is not ideal for detailed annotation. Classroom Support previously used expensive interactive monitors that required licenses but found they were rarely used in the rooms that had them. These were replaced with affordable touch-enabled monitors. Labs and Classrooms Computing plans to note on the podium monitor’s background image that it is touch enabled, so instructors are aware of this capability.
• Rooms with multiple displays usually have the capability to show different content on different screens.
• There is some interest in the Kramer Wireless Presentation capability, which exists in some central classrooms.

Cameras

• It was determined that audience cameras are important during class, even in smaller classrooms. A preference was expressed to have the capability to zoom in on students through the audience camera from the podium control panel.
• In some non-hybrid classrooms, instructors are using the integrated document camera, portable systems like The Owl, and even cell phones.
• It was also noted that wall-mounted cameras be at least 7’ off the floor to accommodate pedestrian areas.

Microphones

• Instructors don’t always know if audience microphones turn on by default, or remember to cut them off if they do.
• Wireless presentation, having the ability to connect to the network and display wirelessly from a tablet, phone, etc. without having to use the podium computer or physically connect your laptop to a computer was discussed. Some faculty do have an interest in wireless presentation, as long as they have tablets or laptops. The only current limitation is not being able to project audio from Android devices.

Conferencing and other Software

• Zoom: Feedback received that Zoom is not really set up for hybrid classrooms, and maybe we should consider other options like “Zoom Class”. Zoom recently purchased “Class”, which is an add-on to Zoom. John Bogan shared that Zoom has been very responsive to our needs and has customized some things for us. Zoom is continuously adding new features and shows no signs of slowing down (like some vendors do when they are slowly dying off).
• Technology management assistant in the classroom: The workgroup expressed that running a modern Hybrid class requires a “Video Production” of sorts, and it would be good to have an assistant to help manage this process during the class. This person could manage things like source switching between lecture, whiteboard, document camera and address issues and questions. This assistant could possibly be a TA, and maybe there could be some sort of technology recognition or certification awarded for their service. FTAC members in attendance today seemed very interested in this.
• Hybrid learning solutions: The workgroup discussed whether there is an all-in-one software solution for hybrid learning with different views, camera toggling, and polling. Perhaps something like a combination of Top Hat and Zoom. Google Classroom was also mentioned, but it does not integrate with Canvas. Hopin was also mentioned.
• Easy startup option: The technology in the classrooms needs to be easy for faculty, so they can just “show up and teach”. Something like one or two buttons that gets all the technology ready to use. This would definitely be beneficial to instructors, especially for a hybrid class. Academic Technologies will look into this and determine if this could be streamlined, without introducing complexities and issues behind the scenes.

Other Considerations

• Classrooms should be properly planned and provisions be made for its use. For example, after the Academic Learning Commons (ALC) was built, the rooms did not have enough power outlets for plugging in laptops and other mobile devices. This should be a priority, but avoid floor boxes, which inhibit chair movement.
• The workgroup discussed seating layouts, lighting, color and general room conditions, which should be optimized for zoom/recording.
• Suggestion was made that Room Scheduling and Facilities Management personnel should be invited to an FTAC meeting and William Nelson as well.
• Class enrollment could be large if some or a majority of students would agree to be only virtual. This may be difficult to manage between on-premises and virtual classes. Teaching technology typically is not as good in non-central spaces.
• For instructors that teach outside of VCU spaces, they would like mobile wifi hotspots if possible.
• In a situation where there are small, on-site breakout groups, it would be nice to have a mobile “virtual person display” to participate in the activity.
• Suggestion was made that Academic Technologies needs its own budget for hybrid classroom upgrades, especially to get away from the HEETF constraints.
• VCU needs a champion for Hybrid learning.

Valerie asked if there was anything we missed or didn’t discuss yet. There were no additional comments or questions so she invited William Nelson to share his thoughts.

Discussion with William Nelson Jr., Executive Director of Academic Finance and Administration in the Office of the Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs.

William provided excellent details about the VCU’s role as a hybrid university, expanding to include additional virtual opportunities in the future, but stressed that VCU would remain committed to face-to-face education. Below are summarized statements. To hear the details in context, view the meeting recording, beginning at the 54:32 minute mark.

• There are a lot of inclusion pieces that we need to take into account when talking about these spaces. For example, there are small spaces and furniture that do not take into consideration the physical size of individuals or accommodations for left-handed individuals. So we need to keep these in mind as we plan our spaces.
• William elaborated on use of the term “hybrid” teaching, where some people are in the room and some are remote. The setups we currently have do not quite support that type of interaction. We need to think about all of our classrooms, and whether they will be hyflex and support teaching in this type of environment. He shared two images of hyflex classroom concepts. Image 1 is a classroom space labeled as hyflex, which is similar to what we have except that it also provides the panels on the wall for folks who are not in the room, so they can be seen and participate in a similar learning experience. These could be the type of rooms that we want to have in the future. Students definitely want this type of environment, but it does require an additional amount of course design, teaching and technical support. We may need to consider having a PA (production assistant) or some other support available to engage with those students who are remote, as well as the students in the room. Image 2 shows a larger active learning space that provides collaboration tables for folks who are in the room and wall panels so the remote students can also participate in the classroom collaboration. We need to understand the type of teaching and courses that are going to be designed in the future, because these are some of the classrooms that we may need if we want to go beyond the type of environment that we have today.
• William addressed the classroom space committee that Jared mentioned earlier. We want our physical spaces to have better utilization. We know that some of our students have a great experience at VCU with the newest classrooms, technology, etc., but some of our students don't quite get exposed to that same type of experience.
• There are ongoing discussions about how we rate spaces and technology, and the teaching and learning experience in these spaces. Grading our spaces should include the entire space--not just technology, but also the lighting, paint, ceiling, furniture. This is how we get a better feel for what the learning experience is, in the total space.
• William stressed the importance of having academic vision drive what we put in the classroom. Technology decisions should be driven by the pedagogy, teaching and faculty feedback about future teaching plans. The classroom space committee is anxious to see a written plan that allows us to seek out the best technology to deliver the experience that our faculty are looking for in the classroom.
• William clarified some details about a “hybrid university”. VCU will have online instruction, but we are a hybrid university, committed to face-to-face education. Adding virtual options will be a big part of our future. The future will be driven by the modality that professors come up with in their courses. We want to create an environment that allows us to support those modalities. It might be that faculty do not teach a class in the same room every time. The rooms would be scheduled, but based upon what is being taught at a particular point in the course--let the space support what and how you need to teach.
• We may only need specific technology in certain rooms and this will be a moving target that will evolve over time.
• We have to be committed to “a” plan in order to make these adjustments year-to-year.
• He shared that most of the centrally supported classrooms, by definition, belong to the provost. Crystal Williams and others that schedule these spaces, in addition to the spaces that are unscheduled, belong to the provost's office as well.

Funding Challenges

• Discussion began about funding needed for the classroom spaces. HEETF is restrictive and has many challenges. Can there be a budget line item just for technologies outside of HEETF? Are there any considerations given to staffing needs, which are not covered by HEETF?
• William shared the ideas he has for funding, and that HEETF is one part, but not the only solution or sole source. He is in discussions with the Provost and the Budget Committee on these issues and they understand that the funding is not just the technology, but also the support resources and more.
• Plans are underway to transition to a new HEETF model that would allow for investing in academic technology rather than individual technology projects, which is a strategic approach that will result in a larger impact to university.
• Other funding opportunities are being explored, such as freeing up classrooms that are currently scheduled, managed and supported by individual schools and moving them to the central pool, allowing more students access to these spaces, and results in improved overall utilization of these spaces.
• They have had discussions with the state about being able to spend HEETF money sooner. He will be announcing in the next three weeks that we will be able to start spending that money, which is five or six weeks sooner than we could before. So these timeline and backlog issues are being addressed to speed up access to funds.
• Funding will be planned for increased staffing needs, software, etc. as the technologies are increased in the classrooms.
• Faculty have made it very clear about the stress incurred since the pandemic and the lessons learned. As we advance our technology, there may be some expectations for faculty to teach in a different way, but we understand that there will need to be additional support in place for the classrooms and virtually. He emphasized that they listened to faculty feedback and that part of any plan going forward is that when technology is advanced, we cannot walk away with having a support structure in place for the classroom. This does not mean that someone will always be in your classroom if you need support, but administration understands that they have to balance the actual time faculty spend teaching versus the time of doing technology-aided processes. They will address this.

Valerie asked about the PA (production assistant) that William mentioned earlier. He described this role as someone who engages with the folks online, making sure the technology is working so the professor can focus on instruction. This need has been identified and is currently being discussed.

William reiterated that faculty feedback is critical. The administration is making decisions about a lot of money and they want to be sure they are making the right decisions to provide what is needed (and where).

Action Item: Valerie will invite Crystal Williams, Kayla Watt and Allison Jones to the November meeting. Crystal who handles classroom scheduling.

Next Meeting: November 7, 2022 at 2:00-3:30 p.m. on Zoom.

Meeting adjourned at 3:30pm