1. Promoting Student Engagement Through Classroom Technologies Campus-Wide System Design, Implementation and Support. James Gregory, University of Minnesota jgregory@umn.edu

2. Pedagogical Premise The Software & Information Industry Association’s Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools consistently finds that the ultimate effectiveness of technology is determined by appropriate implementation of, rather than inherent features in the technology.

3. The Challenge: Advanced data-projection capability 300+ classrooms Easy-to-use systems Reduced maintenance costs Improved classroom uptime

4. OCM Technology Upgrade Plan: To bring laptop projection capability, internet access and student wireless networking to all centrally scheduled Twin Cities classrooms (approx. 300) at the University of Minnesota under a Classroom One-Stop umbrella.

5.  Includes basic tech infrastructure for teaching & learning fixed data/video projection capability internet connectivity at instructor station wireless student networking smart control system with networking option user friendly laptop interface standardized operating protocol familiar to UofM faculty standard input devices (VCR and DVD ) may have other modular “add-on” capabilities slide projectors, document cams, installed computers, special I/O devices “Hotline” phone for instructor accessibility features flexible growth potential - able to interface new devices  Baseline for UMTC general-purpose classroom technology Included in Facilities Construction Standards (Appendix DD) PROJECTION CAPABLE CLASSROOM STANDARD

6. Presentation One-Sentence Summary: Standardized, ubiquitous, easy to use, metacontrolled classroom technology systems will have a measure of success evident in the degree of faculty and student satisfaction, which has long term strategic and financial impact.

7. Control  fixed data/video projection capability  internet connectivity at instructor station  wireless student networking  smart control system with networking option Analyzing UofM Classroom Standard

8. Standardization  standard user friendly laptop interface  standardized operating protocol familiar to UofM faculty  standard input devices (VCR and DVD )  standard “Hotline” phone for instructor  standard modular “add-on” capabilities  slide projectors, document cams,  installed computers, special I/O devices  accessibility features Analyzing UofM Classroom Standard

9. Growth  flexible growth potential – extendibility to new devices  baseline for UMTC general-purpose classroom technology Analyzing UofM Classroom Standard

10. TECHNOLOGY

11. Introduction Networked Classroom Control Systems: A New Paradigm for Design, Operation and Support. Metacontrol = Control of control systems. CAMS = Classroom Automated Management System

13. Basic Tactile Control Panel Not “just a keypad” l Single User View l No Option Overload l Simplicity l Lower Cost l Lower Maintenance l ADA Friendly

14. Remote Control Features Remote Control of: –Projector (on/off) –Sources (laptop, VCR, DVD, Doc Cam) –Video/ Audio Mute –Volume Level –System Lock-out –Service Mode

15. Modular “add-on” capabilities Special I/O devices Add-on’s

16. UofM CTS CAMS Classroom Automated Management System Monitor classroom status Receive alerts on problems Hotline phone assistance Manual takeover of controls Compile data Remote lockout Schedule service Remote shutdown for service Theft alarms

17. AMX Netlinx Controller DATA/VIDEO PROJECTOR A/V Switcher Volume Control Audio Amp Laptop Network User Friendly Control Panel UofM Projection Capable Classroom System SOURCES VCR DVD Classroom System Data Additional I/O Wireless Hub Hotline NetworkPhone Central Classroom Network Classroom System Data Classroom Technical Services (CTS) OCM Management Server OCM System QA & Problem Response OCM Operator MonitoringHotline System QA & Problem Response © 2005 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota

18. Network Networked Control Classroom Management Server CTS Technical Staff Maintenance Fault Alert Classroom Technical Services UofM Central Classroom Automated Management System Campus Police Department Dispatcher Theft Alert OCM Operator System QA & Problem Response Classroom System Data 300 Networked Central Projection Capable Classrooms In 60+ Buildings System Monitoring & Reporting Classroom System Data Classroom System Data MonitoringHotline © 2005 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota

19. IMPLEMENTATION

20. OCM University of Minnesota Office of Classroom Management OCM is the central point of contact, and single point of responsibility, for all general purpose classroom issues on the three Twin Cities campuses

22. UofM Classroom Technology Growth

23. Diminishing “Help Line” Calls

24. “Help Line” Call Analysis

25. UofM Helpdesk for Instructors “Hotline” phone for instructor

27. Extensive Reporting for Efficient Planning

29. System Operation Normal

30. Theft Prevention –Real time monitoring by the Campus Police through CTS management system –Local alarm and siren activated by removal of projector or control lines –Password protection on classroom data projector

31. MANAGEMENT

32. Includes the obvious and not-so-obvious costs of operating and maintaining the technology systems. Total Cost of Ownership

33. Classroom Lifecycle and Maintenance Costs Technology Support Facilities

34. IT, Systems and Services in Higher Education (NACUBO document) The more standardized a technology environment is, the lower the costs of support. Faculty, students and even technology staffs scorned this notion for many years until the burdens of support and the consequences of poor support grew so intense they were impossible to ignore.

35. Technology Investment Strategic Priorities Standardization Ubiquitous Technology Ease of Use Help Desk Functionality Metacontrol of Classrooms

36. Financial ROI (Direct Financial Payback) Classroom Tuition $ –Efficiency –Economy –Return on tuition Risk Management –Security –Technology Risk Training –Controls Reduce Requirement Equipment Tracking –Minimize Equipment Checkouts

37. ROI (Indirect Financial Results) Matrices: –Increased Scheduling Efficiency –Higher Classroom Utilization –Reduction in Staffing Requirements –Reduction in Classroom Downtime –Provides Reports & Trend Analysis –Faculty Attraction/Retention –Increased Adoption of Technology –Promote Leveraged Partnerships

38. Technology System Conclusions – Classroom One-Stop Responsibility is Important – Standardization of Systems is Paramount – Ubiquitous Application to Classrooms is Necessary – Ease of Use of Faculty Interface is Required Continued….

39. Technology System Conclusions – Future Technology Demands will Continue to Grow – Lifecycle and Maintenance Budgets must be Obtained and Justified – Metacontrol of Classrooms is Essential – Investment in above will Pay for Itself http//:www.classroom.umn.edu

40. Promoting Student Engagement Through Classroom Technologies Campus-Wide System Design, Implementation and Support. James Gregory, University of Minnesota jgregory@umn.edu