To Dick Roberts et. al.:

 

Thank you, and the architects, and AMS very much for presenting so clearly and so patiently the various design features of the new academic building. There are a number of very fine concepts in this plan and it is obvious that a lot of thought has already gone into it. Congratulations to the design team, to the architects, the administrative and faculty contributors, etc.

 

We are indeed conscious of the short time frame we are currently under and want to formalize our recommendations as quickly as possible so that they can be incorporated into the final designs. Most of our recommendations are small, but we believe important.

 

A. Three Fundamental Issues:

Ventilation: Do whatever you can to ensure good ventilation (and not loud ventilation).

If the air is bad ­ nothing else in the classroom design matters a bit.

 

Temperature Controls: Please ensure that there is an individual thermostat in each room allowing the professor the ability to control the classroom climate. Right after bad air in terms of impairing learning is classrooms that are too hot or too cold. Like the shutters, these could be set to be able to be manually overridden during class and then to automatically reset when the class is ended in case the instructor forgets to restore the earlier settings.

Soundproofing: This should be done as thoroughly as is possible without going as far as masonry. To that end we are curious as to why the interior door between the 40-

person classrooms and how that door affects sound traveling?

 

 

B. Fostering Diverse Teaching Styles:

 

A major goal is to have classroom designs that support and foster as much flexibility in teaching styles as possible. Faculty members do give lectures, but they also give lectures with breakouts into various size configurations, teach via small group work, or pairs work, manage discussions through circles or horseshoes or (for many of us) make use of almost all of these modalities at various times. Consequently we would like to see classrooms provide as many options as possible. It seems fine that some classrooms (like the 90 person lecture halls and the 35-student table/chair classrooms) are somewhat constrained in flexibility, because they themselves offer other kinds of diversity to teaching possibility (using laptops in class, for example). But other classrooms should be completely flexible so that teachers using the same rooms can employ very different teaching configurations. Our ideas to help with this goal follow:

 

Additional Breakout Rooms: On the first floor, instead of the three 2-person adjunct offices behind the 90 person classroom nearest the ³prow,² make two breakout rooms for 20 students each which, added to the three breakout rooms already planned on the basement level, would allow for the 90 students to break into small discussion sessions for a portion of the class time. This design could also allow two courses to be alternated ­ 1, for example, in the lecture hall on Mondays and the Breakout rooms on Thursdays and the other in reverse.

 

 

Reachability: Make sure all technology is reachable by short people ­ and that tall people don¹t end up hitting their heads on low overhangs. (This is a problem with projectors in A & B wings.)

 

Location of fixed desk: While we gather that you feel it critical to bolt down the desk in the room where the technology is fixed in the desk, it does make a circle discussion or horseshoe discussion very challenging in the room. Ditto for lecterns if they are going to be fixed in a location. Can they instead be put on some kind of a fixed track that allows them to be bolted but still moveable along that track from their standard location to backed up against the wall and the reverse?

 

Remote controls: For those classes where work is going on in the circle it would be desirable to have remotes also available to control the technology so the teacher doesn¹t have to hop up and down to get to the technology station.

 

Technology box and lectern: In the large classroom (if we understood what was said correctly) the lectern with technology controls will be at the front of the room while the technology box (generally, but not always adjusted only by AMS personnel) will be at the back so that if a teacher must make adjustments s/he must walk around all the students to do that. If that is correct could we please move the box close to the lectern so that adjustments can be made as needed quickly and without disruption?

 

Whiteboard ­ Wraparound and Illuminated: There doesn¹t seem to be a lot of whiteboard on the front classroom wall to write on while the screen is down for viewing. We would recommend that the whiteboard wrap around the non-window corner to expand the writing surface. We would also request a small light over the white board to illuminate it when the room is darkened for showing things on the screen. (Example: the art history room in the Berrie Center has such an illuminated whiteboard.)

 

Wi-Fi: We recommend that every classroom be at least wi-fi ready if not wi-fi outfitted.

 

Audiotapes: Make sure that the technology options include being able to play a simple audiotape as well as more recent forms like CDs.

 

Wireless Response Systems: The two lecture halls should be outfitted with wireless response systems (receiving units) (or at least the wiring which would allow them to be installed at a later point) so that the instructor can choose to use one of the wireless response systems, which are gaining in popularity. These allow instructors to request rapid feedback from the students to questions throughout the lecture. For some insights into this technology, if you are interested, a highly effective comparison of a lecture hall with a professor using the system and another without, was shown on the PBS documentary "Declining by Degrees" shown on Sunday. The response pad segment (on astronomy appears around 40 - 45 minutes into the program. The other lecture hall example is earlier (political science). Jefferson Sampson made a copy of the program.

 

Speaker expansion: We request that audio speakers not only be at the front of the room but also be supplemented with additional sets of speakers in the center and at the back of the room (and perhaps even one more set in the largest rooms) so that a/v can be played at moderate volume levels and still be heard by everyone in the room (and not by those in the next room)

 

Electrical floor outlets: We request that a floor outlet be placed in the center of each of the 8 40-student rooms so that equipment could be used in the center of the room when the room is set up in a circle. It is not safe that we now have to carry extension cords with us to be able to do this.

 

Locked doors: While we understand the reason for locking doors to protect expensive equipment it presents a real nuisance for people coming late or needing to leave the classroom and return. We would request that an override system be possible so that the instructor could manually unlock the door and then as with the shading the lock could automatically reset itself after the class is over in case the instructor forgets to return it to locked position.

 

C. Other issues:

Bioinformatics Lab(s): It was left that there is still some work to be done in the planning of the labs to ensure that the needs of bioinformatics are met as well as the needs of the computer science folks.

 

Bathrooms: We see on the plans an equal number of men¹s rooms and women¹s rooms ­ i.e. Basement, 3^rd and 5^th floor the larger bathroom is the Women¹s rooms, and on the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th the Men¹s room is the larger. Is this according to code?

 

Benches: Can we have more attractive and appealing benches ­ similar to the ones now by the Arch?

 

D. More substantial proposals

 

Solar Power: We ask that you revisit the recommendations for solar power for both the academic building and for the greenhouse made by Bill Makofske and other SBGC members. I know that you and Bill Alagna were not able to be at the meeting re: solar power that occurred recently but that meeting raised some excellent possibilities. I attach Carmela Federico¹s summary of that meeting as a starting place.

 

Commons: We propose that the 20-person seminar room on the third floor be replaced with a Commons similar to the Berrie Center Cafe that would have spectacular views and be a nice meeting place. The seminar room is oddly designed in any case and doesn¹t seem to add as much as a commons would ­ as badly as we need classrooms.

 

Thank you for your willingness to fill us in and to hear us out. It seems to me that we are well on the way to a fine addition to the campus. Please let me know if you have questions on any of our recommendations. I am copying this document to all those originally copied so that Linda P. or Eddie or Kwesi or anyone else can jump in to comment on these recommendations. I would very much appreciate hearing back from you on what is decided about these and being kept abreast about developments as we go. As further plans become available for posting etc. please forward these to me so that I can keep the faculty au courant with our exciting forthcoming building!

 

Cordially, Kay Fowler