Feb. 5, 2002
Wired Up
Modernized Classrooms Change the Learning Experience,
Putting Technology in the Hands of Faculty
By Greg Licamele
Designating classroom space might seem like a simple, secondary process
at a university. A professor receives a room based on class size, talks
about the topic for the day, then chalks some thoughts on the blackboard.
However, with the University’s new classroom modernization plan
set for implementation this summer, the “chalk and talk” method
of teaching, as well as the basis for how classrooms are assigned, will
change.
The modernization plan, shepherded by the Center for
Academic Technologies (CAT) and its Classroom Technology Services (CTS)
office, are redefining classrooms under four categories, meeting the
technological needs of faculty members and the growing student body.
“Chalk and talk no longer needs to be the dominant
modality,” says Philip Wirtz, professor of management science and
of psychology. “The technology allows you to engage the student
in the learning process — to become an active participant in his
or her learning rather than the passive recipient of information conveyed
by the instructor.”
GW’s classroom modernization plan addresses this
shift in the academy. All general purpose CAT-supported classrooms have
been surveyed and placed into four categories — multimedia, standard,
traditional, and seminar — says Lezley Galloway, CTS operations
manager. Of these categories, Galloway says the standard model will
constitute 50 to 60 percent of classrooms, complete with a wall screen,
mounted projector, and smart lectern with a Windows-based computer,
microphone, DVD, VCR, and rewritable CD-ROM/DVD.
Galloway says seminar rooms, with a capacity of 20
students, as well as traditional classrooms that hold 20–60 students,
will be equipped with an overhead projector, screen, and a network connection
for Internet access. Half of these rooms will have a TV/VCR/DVD package,
while multimedia rooms, such as those in the Media and Public Affairs
Building, have all of the “bells and whistles.”
“Once we start revamping the classrooms this
summer, Phillips and Rome halls will be among the first converts,”
Galloway says. Working with Facilities and Services, as well as audio-visual
vendors, CTS aims to complete this project over the next few years.
“Creating standards in CAT-supported general
purpose classrooms, matched with excellent faculty training programs,
yields a successful, cost-effective implementation program that we all
can be proud of,” says P.B. Garrett, CAT executive director.
In addition to renovating classrooms, CTS assists
with the planning for new facilities, working with architects in the
design phase.
“Up until this point, the University allowed
AV vendors to come in and design classrooms,” Galloway says. “Now,
we’re designing them and that’s what we’ve begun to do
with E Street (the new building that will house the Elliott School of
International Affairs).”
New facilities, such as the 1957 E St. building or
the new School of Business and Public Management building, will become
part of this standardized plan. All of the classroom technology also
will be in concert with the Faculty Workstation Initiative (FWI), an
ongoing effort since 1997 to replace full-time faculty member computers
with new ones every three years.
“One of the things we think highly of is compatibility
issues,” says Daniel Price, FWI project coordinator, referring
to installing the same software in offices and classrooms. “We
are working on lining up our policies.”
Currently, 767 full-time, FWI-approved faculty members receive new workstations
every three years with new hardware specifications and updated software,
Price says.
Wirtz says academia has come a long way with technology,
but further challenges lie ahead.
“Our challenge right now is to identify the right
combination of technology and ‘chalk and talk,’ ” says
Wirtz. “Undoubtedly, this will vary from class to class, and from
instructor to instructor. But having the technology in the classroom
permits this identification to occur; up to relatively recently, the
only option was chalk and talk.”
Beyond adding new technology, the modernization plan
will make it easier for GW to allot class space.
“Up until this point, classrooms were scheduled
based on the number of students registered for a class,” Galloway
says. “Now, we’re looking to schedule classes based upon the
professor’s technical need. You should not be in a classroom if
you’re not going to use that technology. For someone who uses overhead
projector transparencies, you can just be in a traditional classroom
because all of our classrooms are equipped with overhead projectors.”
This new planning methodology also will allow time
for sufficient classroom maintenance.
“If the classrooms are so booked, it doesn’t
give the equipment enough time to rest and cool down,” Galloway
says. “For example, it costs $700–$800 for a projector bulb.
The lamp life is about 1,200 hours. If you look at the amount of time
in the classroom — all day, 16 hours, six days a week — we’re
looking at replacing a bulb every semester. That can be costly.”
With training from the Instructional Technology Lab,
faculty members who are not familiar with the latest gadgets, gizmos,
and programs may learn how to incorporate technology in the classroom,
bringing a new dimension to their classes and helping GW plan more efficiently.
“By having the technology classroom based, it
removes the burden on the University of having to arrange specific technology
to be delivered to a classroom,” Wirtz says. “GW is, I believe,
at the cutting edge at both identifying where this technology is, and
is not, effective in achieving a primary University mission.”
Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu
