Monash University

In November 2000, staff in the Teaching Facilities Support Unit (TFSU) were transferred from the Centre for Learning and Teaching Support (CeLTS) to the Information Technology Services Division (ITS). As a result, the responsibility for supporting and managing teaching facilities in centrally-supported teaching spaces at all Victorian campuses was transferred to ITS. The Executive Director of ITS took this opportunity to instigate a review of operational and support procedures for lecture theatres and tutorial rooms, and this report is the outcome of that initiative.

In the course of the review, the following activities took place:

1. Lecturers were invited to complete an on-line questionnaire which was designed to gain feed-back concerning the useability, quality and appropriateness of the teaching equipment (eg overhead projectors, personal computers, audio-visual facilities and communications equipment) and support provided in the centrally-funded lecture theatres and tutorial rooms.

2. Lecturers were invited to attend focus groups at all campuses to provide comments and advice concerning the useability, quality and appropriateness of the educational technology equipment and support provided in lecture theatres and tutorial rooms.

3. Individual meetings were held with staff with particular interests.

4. Visits were made to a representative sample of teaching spaces at all campuses, and discussions were held with TFSU support staff at each campus to review operational procedures.

5. Information regarding the utilisation of teaching spaces during semester was reviewed and analysed.

As a result of these activities, over 60 recommendations have been made. These recommendations have been drawn together into logical groups and appear in the following section of this report.

The review sought to concentrate on those teaching spaces, which have been supported “centrally” by TFSU. As individual faculties manage some teaching spaces, this demarcation highlights the confusion, which arises regarding the “owner” of some teaching spaces. For example, a teaching space may be used mainly by a particular faculty, and the teaching facilities may be supported on a day-to-day basis by staff in that faculty. From that point of view, the space is deemed to be owned by the faculty. However, when additional support is required (perhaps to resolve a complicated technical issue), then it is provided by TFSU. And, when the equipment needs to be replaced, then the space is seen to be centrally-funded with the expectation that the University should fund the upgrading of the equipment. One consequence of this confusion is that the equipment in the space is not upgraded when it should be because of confusion over funding responsibilities. Accordingly, it is recommended that responsibility for all of the University’s teaching spaces be clarified. In particular, it is recommended that TFSU should become responsible for supporting, maintaining and acquiring equipment in all lecture theatres, and that the similar responsibility for other teaching spaces (tutorial rooms, etc) should be assigned to faculties.

Notwithstanding the above issue over the lack of ownership of teaching spaces (lecture theatres and tutorial rooms) and the consequential delay in upgrading equipment therein, the review has highlighted the following concerns regarding the scope of the University’s on-going plan to upgrade all of its lecture theatres:

1. The University has 87 lecture theatres.

2. As a result of an investment over a period of years, 64 theatres have been converted to “high-tech” status. This includes 9 tele-teaching theatres, which can also be used as high-tech theatres.

3. There is an on-going demand from lecturers to have the remaining 23 “low-tech” theatres converted to the high-tech standard because there is a perceived need for more high-tech theatres.

4. Funds are not readily available to complete the conversion process in the foreseeable future.

5. The educational technology equipment, which was installed in the first of the high-tech theatres, is now old. (That is to say, it is either at the end of its natural life [over 10 years old] or it has been overtaken by new technology.)

6. Funds are required to replace old equipment in the existing high-tech theatres.

7. Utilisation of the University’s 87 lecture theatres is low (about 40% at all campuses except Caulfield, where it is 64%).

8. By time-tabling more effectively and increasing the utilisation factor of theatres to 70%, the existing stock of 64 up-graded lecture theatres will suffice.

9. Much needed funds, which would have been spent on upgrading the remaining 23 theatres, can be re-directed to maintaining and replacing the equipment in the existing high-tech theatres as it becomes out-of-date.

10. In theory (i.e. ignoring time-tabling clashes), if all 23 low-tech theatres were excluded from the time-tabled pool of theatres, and high-tech theatres were used more effectively, the average utilisation factor would approach 70%.

11. Decommissioned low-tech theatres could be put to more appropriate uses, as there is a demand for space on most campuses. There is also a demand for space for trial new, student-centred approaches to teaching and learning.

While decommissioning 23 lecture theatres is an extreme case, the above analysis demonstrates that there is a significant opportunity to rationalise the use of lecture theatres and to eliminate the apparent requirement to upgrade the University’s existing stock of 23 low-tech theatres to high-tech standard, thus saving $966,000 per year, every year on equipment costs and maintenance agreements. (This figure does not include additional savings associated with building renovations.)

To ensure that the educational technology equipment in the University’s (reduced) stock of lecture theatres is kept up to date, it is recommended that a five-year rolling investment plan is developed and funded. As an initial guide, it is anticipated that a budget of about $1.4 million per year would facilitate achieving this target if equipment is leased rather than purchased.

In order to gain feedback from the users of the University’s teaching spaces, an on-line questionnaire was developed to give lecturers an opportunity to contribute their experiences and expectations regarding the useability, quality and appropriateness of the educational technology equipment. Two hundred and five responses to the questionnaire were received, and they indicate that, while TFSU staff are generally helpful and supportive, perform well and are appreciated, there are many opportunities for improving the quality and useability of the educational technology equipment in centrally-supported teaching spaces. The following table summarises respondents’ views on the three main measures used in the survey:

Item	Very Unsatisfied	Unsatisfied	Satisfied	Very Satisfied
Quality and useability of teaching spaces	16%	32%	47%	5%
Satisfaction with day-to-day support	10%	22%	53%	14%
Satisfaction with training	15%	27%	52%	7%

The table implies that there are ample opportunities for making improvements in all areas measured. It should be noted, however, that some respondents took the opportunity, during the survey, to make adverse comments on aspects of teaching spaces (eg furniture, cleanliness or air-conditioning), which are outside the control of TFSU. As a result, it is probable that the above results are unfavourably influenced by these comments.

Focus groups were held at most campuses. In all cases, attendance was relatively poor because of the time of the year. However, each focus group was constructive. While some common issues were apparent, specific campuses have their own particular issues. Attendees indicated their appreciation for having been given the opportunity to express their experiences and concerns about the teaching spaces, which they used. Comments have contributed to the recommendations below.

Finally, a new organisational structure for the ITS Client Services Department has been recommended, with the aims of capturing benefits from the integration of overlapping skill sets, and improving both day-to-day support and strategic planning for the educational technology facilities in the University’s centrally-supported teaching spaces.

Recommendations

All recommendations in this report have been brought together in this section. In addition, there are numerous recommendations in this section, which do not appear in the body of the report, as they are self-evident or self-explanatory here.

Group A: Training

A1. That the current ambiguity concerning who is responsible for providing training courses (and material) on how to make optimal use of the University’s educational technology be resolved. There is significant ambiguity about who is responsible for training lecturers[1] in the use of educational technology equipment – especially the equipment in the University’s tele-teaching theatres. It appears that both TFSU and CHED (now HEDU) could be responsible for the provision of training courses and material. Indeed both have provided training. One option is that TFSU should be responsible for training lecturers in how to operate the technology, and that HEDU should be responsible for training lecturers in the pedagogical aspects of how best to deliver content using the technology (on the assumption that the lecturer can drive the technology).

A2. That Electrosonics, the company which provides the control facilities for tele-teaching and high-tech theatres, be engaged to train TFSU staff in the operation and maintenance of their equipment, and to provide written operational procedures for use by lecturers.

A3. That several short, hands-on training sessions on the use of the equipment in tele-teaching and high-tech theatres be offered by TFSU to lecturers at various times throughout the semester. In particular, hands-on training sessions are required near the beginning of semester, and should be offered at various times of the week to suit individual lecturers’ timetables. Where possible, a lecturer who is a keen user of the University’s educational technology facilities should be invited to carry out the training, and the fact that the trainer will be a lecturer should be well publicised.

A4. That lecturers are informed that they should not leave files on the hard drives of the PCs in lecture theatres, because the files could be deleted or modified, or the hard drive could fail and be replaced, or the PC could be replaced.

A5. That lecturers are informed that they each have space to store files on their own, personal, central disc (U-drive). This has several advantages. For example, a PowerPoint file which is stored on the lecturer’s central disc is available to the lecturer at any lecture theatre which has a PC and a network connection. In addition, the central files are backed-up each night, whereas lecturers’ PC are normally not backed-up on a regular basis.

A6. That specific TFSU staff be trained to manage the new TFSU web site and keep the information on it up to date and relevant.

A7. That simple, step-by-step instructions showing a lecturer how to connect a lap-top to the University’s data communications network point in a teaching space be developed, tested, disseminated and placed on the TFSU web site.

A8. That simple, step-by-step instructions showing a lecturer how to connect a lap-top to the equipment in a teaching space (and switch the PC screen to display on the wall) be developed, tested, disseminated and placed on the TFSU web site.

Group B: Operational Effectiveness – Short Term

B1. That the daily and weekly checks performed by TFSU staff on technical equipment in teaching spaces at each campus be documented; that existing and new staff are instructed in how to carry out the checks quickly yet effectively; and that a log of daily and weekly check results be prepared at each campus and forwarded to the Manager of TFSU on a weekly basis.

B2. That a log of all failed and repaired equipment be kept so that trends may be identified. For example, if the same piece equipment or the same type of equipment needs to be repaired frequently, the plans should be made for alternative equipment to be acquired.

B3. That a standard, one page, set of instructions be developed and placed on the consol of every high-tech theatre to assist lecturers in the operational aspects of the equipment in these teaching spaces. As this has already been done at Caulfield, it should be a simple matter to duplicate the information for high-tech theatres at other campuses.

B4. That a log book be located in each lecture theatre so that lecturers can report problems with the equipment in the theatre; and that TFSU staff read each log book once per day (a) to take note of recently reported problems, (b) to enter notes regarding the status of outstanding problems, and (c) to close off problems which had been reported earlier and fixed, so that the reporting lecturer can see that the problem has been attended to – and that reporting the problem had been worthwhile.

B5. That telephones (or intercom facilities) be installed in all high-tech theatres so that a lecturer, who is having difficulty operating equipment, can call TFSU for instant support. This call should not go through to the ITS Help Desk in the near future, as this would result in a longer response time. In each lecture theatre, a permanent notice should be displayed near the telephone outlining this procedure and indicating the relevant contact telephone numbers.

B6. That relevant TFSU staff be provided with mobile phones so that they can be contacted, no matter where they are, to respond immediately to support a lecturer, in a high-tech theatre in front of a class, who has requested immediate support.

B7. That lectures start at 5 minutes past the hour, and finish 5 minutes to the hour, to ensure a ten minute break between lectures to allow technical staff time to install and test educational technology equipment, or to dismantle and remove it.

B8. That an email list is set up for each lecture theatre. The recipients will be the lecturers who use that lecture theatre. This will enable the TFSU staff member who is responsible for a specific lecture theatre to communicate with all lecturers who use that lecture theatre, so that, for example, if a change is being made to the equipment, relevant lecturers can be informed, and lecturers will have the ability to communicate with the support person.

B9. That ITS audit data communications facilities to/from all teaching spaces which have data communications facilities, to ensure there are no bottle-necks, and to ensure that lecturers have confidence that they can access central disc drives, the intranet, etc. effectively.

B10. That a simple, standard procedure is introduced to allow any lecturer in a lecture theatre on any campus to use his or her lap-top PC to logon to the network and access his or her personal, central disk drive (U-drive) and the internet. Lecturers have expressed a desire for a practical method for connecting to the network from any lecture theatre – and using a simple, standard procedure. First, lecturers need to have access to their files on their U-drive from any lecture theatre. Second, a number of lecturers teach at more than one campus, and wish to be able to logon on to the network without having to be aware of the local conditions (eg server name) at any campus. Lecturers need to log on to the network to get to their U-drive to access PowerPoint files which are larger than 1.44 MB – otherwise they would use a 3.5 inch disk.

B11. That the same simple, standard procedure is used to allow any lecturer in a student PC laboratory on any campus to use his or her lap-top PC to logon to the network and access his or her personal, central disk drive (U-drive) and the internet.

B12. That a process be introduced to ensure that the hard drives in all PCs in teaching spaces can be rebuilt quickly and confidently from a central server. This would be more effective than the present procedure for rebuilding a failed PC which involves having to find the relevant CDs (possibly containing an image of the hard drive) and rebuilding the hard drive manually – application by application.

B13. That the seating capacity information contained on the new teaching spaces web page be checked for accuracy and completed where necessary.

B14. That the Monash visual identity be brought up to date in relevant lecture theatres.

B15. That a concerted, team approach is applied, during the “off season” to debug the tele-teaching facilities between Berwick and Gippsland (two theatres at each campus). The tele-teaching facilities at Berwick and Gippsland are the most heavily used, but are very unreliable – and have demonstrated the same unreliability since their introduction 4 years ago. This unreliability has contributed to the fact that the tele-teaching facilities at three other campuses – with 5 theatres containing equipment worth $1.4 million (5 * $280,000) – are rarely, if ever, used for tele-teaching purposes. It is likely that the future directions for the uptake of tele-teaching at other campuses depends on the early success of tele-teaching between Berwick and Gippsland.

Group C: Operational Effectiveness – Longer Term

C1. That a one-stop-shop be established to enable lecturers to contact one group who would be responsible for ensuring that all aspects of every teaching space in the University is maintained in a satisfactory condition. It is a continuing source of irritation to lecturers that different groups support teaching spaces. As a result, it is never clear to a lecturer who should be contacted to manage the resolution of an issue concerning a teaching space. The relevant contact person depends on (a) which room is involved and who it “belongs” to, and (b) whether the issue concerns the building and fabric (eg seating, cleanliness or air-conditioning) or the educational technology facilities (eg projector or network connection). There should be a one-stop-shop for lecturers to contact one group who would be responsible for ensuring that all aspects of every teaching space throughout the University is maintained in a satisfactory condition.

C2. That a process be introduced and published to enable lecturers to report problems with the equipment in any teaching space to the ITS Help Desk. The problem should be recorded as a job in the Help Desk system, and assigned to a member of TFSU to manage. When the problem has been resolved, the job should be closed and the original reporter should receive an email notification that the problem has been fixed. If the job is not closed within a reasonable period of time, it should be escalated, and an email should be sent to the relevant supervisor for investigation. Statistics of new, resolved and escalated jobs should be reviewed monthly by the TFSU manager. Such a review should also include a review of trends and a review of specific teaching spaces which are causing a high number of calls to the Help Desk. (This process is not appropriate in the case of a lecturer who has a problem with educational technology equipment during, or immediately before a class.)

C3. That the equipment in theatres be standardises as much as possible. At present, there is a notional standard for a high-tech theatre. However, not all high-tech theatres contain all of the equipment which a high-tech theatre is expected to have. This makes it difficult, for example, for a lecturer, in an emergency situation or in the evening, to relocate a class quickly into another theatre – because that theatre may not have a necessary piece of equipment.

C4. That a formula is developed to measure the size of the TFSU task at each campus, and that the formula is applied to determine the fraction of the TFSU staffing budget which should be allocated to each campus. This will guide the task of allocating the appropriate number of staff to each campus, with the objective of ensuring that TFSU support is provided equitably across the University. The formula should be simple to apply, and easy to articulate. One or more of the following input parameters may be considered: the number of teaching spaces supported, the number of students supported, the number of lectures supported during the year.

C5. That TFSU support is provided outside the normal “9 to 5” period, and particularly during the busiest or riskiest periods at campuses such as Caulfield where full fee paying students attend campus in bulk in the evenings and at weekends. Normally there is no TFSU cover after 5 pm on weekdays, and there is normally no TFSU cover at weekends. When TFSU staff know that specific teaching spaces are to be used in the evenings or at weekends, they attempt to ensure that the facilities are operating satisfactorily before they leave. Nevertheless, if a piece of educational technology equipment does fail after 5 pm, it cannot be fixed or replaced until 9 am on the next working day. In the worst case scenario, if the failure occurs on a Friday evening, the equipment will be unusable all weekend. In addition, as all teaching spaces are locked unless they are in use, it is not practical to move the class into another teaching space.

C6. That consideration be given to replacing portable data projectors with more modern versions which are easier to set up. Modern data projectors have a “plug-and-play” design which eliminates the need for the user to set various parameters to suit the lap-top. By replacing the older equipment with these newer models, lecturers should be able to set them up without the need for support from TFSU. TFSU should continue to provide a loan service, but with the introduction of newer projectors, the demand for hands-on support will decline. This will assist in the aim of reducing the load and stress on TFSU staff at the beginning and end of lectures.

C7. That a second projector be installed in the ceiling of high-use theatres where there is already a single projector attached to the ceiling. This will reduce the risk of a lecture (or, more likely, a series of lectures) being disrupted when a bulb fails in the existing ceiling-mounted projector. The task of replacing the bulb in a ceiling-mounted projector, if performed according to acceptable health and safety practices, normally requires the erection of scaffolding. Consequently, this process can only be carried out at certain times, is disruptive and takes considerable time.

C8. That a review of possible options for the replacement of LiveShare[2] is carried out in the second half of 2001 to identify a strategic direction for its replacement. The PCs in tele-teaching theatres have to use the Windows 95 operating system because LiveShare will not operate under later versions of Windows. This causes problems when lecturers wish to use modern versions of software such as PowerPoint. The problem has arisen because LiveShare software was acquired by Microsoft, and discontinued. Although Microsoft has included some features of LiveShare in Windows 98, critical features – for Monash’s operations – have been dropped. A recent review of options (including a review of alternative software) by ITS[3] indicated that there was no suitable alternative. Hence, it is recommended that another review of possible options is carried out in the second half of 2001.

C9. That a maintenance audit of all educational technology equipment be performed on an annual basis. Although maintenance is carried out on a regular basis, this audit should concentrate on maintenance which requires planning and significant funds, and will include preventative maintenance. The information gained from the audit should be used to develop an operational plan for maintaining the equipment over a period of time, and should contain target dates for completion.

C10. That a proposal be put forward by TFSU staff at Gippsland and Clayton (in particular) for the acquisition (by leasing) of educational technology equipment to be permanently located in specific teaching spaces, and that the proposal be funded. The demand, by lecturers, for educational equipment to be delivered to teaching spaces has grown significantly. As a result, TFSU staff spend considerable time wheeling equipment between their store and lecture theatres. It is now more effective to acquire equipment for permanent location in specific teaching spaces, thereby reducing the need for additional staff to perform this work.

Group D: Dissemination of Information

D1. That a web site for TFSU be established within the ITS web site to provide (a) TSFU’s vision, mission and objectives, (b) contact information about TFSU staff, (c) a list of teaching spaces and seating capacities, (d) a list of educational equipment in each teaching space, (e) who time-tables the teaching space, (f) who is responsible for providing support for the equipment in the space, (g) who to contact if additional equipment is required on a temporary basis, (h) how much notice is require to ensure that the additional equipment can be provided, installed, tested and demonstrated to the lecturer, (i) who is responsible for acquiring and replacing equipment in the teaching space when necessary, and (j) information giving any changes, developments or upgrades which are planned for each teaching space.

D2. That the existence of this web site be publicised (a) in each teaching space, (b) by email, (c) in ITS’s publicity material.

D3. That the identity of each faculty server be listed on the TFSU web site and distributed to all TFSU support staff to assist in the process of reconfiguring any lecturer’s lap top PC so that it can be connected to the University’s data communications network in any teaching space – and to assist in reconfiguring it after the lecture so that it can be used in the lecturer’s office.

D4. That teaching staff, faculty time-tablers and central time-tablers be informed that surveys of lecture theatre usage will take place on a regular basis, at all campuses. The reason for the surveys is to facilitate the planning process for the continuing upgrade and maintenance (if relevant or necessary) of the University’s teaching spaces.

D5. That an article be written to explain the underlying principles involved in designing a new theatre which contains educational technology, and that this article be published in a medium which is frequently read by lecturers – and also placed on the TFSU web site. Such an article would inform lecturers as to the reasons why theatres are designed as they are, and may reduce the negative comments about newly refurbished theatres which may arise more out of lack of knowledge of the painstaking effort which goes into designing a high technology theatre.

D6. That a paper be prepared by TFSU for submission to next year’s South Pacific Users Services Conference (SPUSC-2001), to showcase how Monash manages its lecture theatres.

Group E: Space Utilisation

E1. That classes be allocated to lecture theatres in a manner which increases the utilisation of a reduced number of lecture theatres. Currently, lecture theatre usage is running at about 40% of availability, on average, across the University. If the allocation of classes to lecture theatres were to be carried out in a manner which increases the usage rate, a smaller number of theatres will be required. This, in turn, will reduce costs. (The introduction of the use of Syllabus Plus will significantly facilitate this process, and its implementation across the University is to be commended and should be supported.) Assuming no change to the number of tele-teaching theatres, and assuming that the projected number of fully equipped high-tech theatres can be reduced from 78 to 55 (thus increasing the utilisation rate from 40% to 70%), the University would not be required to invest the equivalent of $966,000 per year, every year, to convert the remaining 23 low-tech theatres to high-tech specifications and maintain them at high-tech standards. See Appendix A for details.

E2. That consideration be given to accommodating the emerging requirements for more flexible teaching spaces which will be used for ‘student-centred’ learning as opposed to the current lecturer-centred teaching approach in tiered lecture theatres. As the University embraces the ‘flexible revolution’ more teaching will be based not in tiered lecture theatres but in level-floored rooms which can be reconfigured to suit a number of purposes. At least one teaching space should be set aside (and centrally-funded and booked), to support those lecturers (from any faculty) who wish to experiment with new teaching and learning methods. This space would be flexible and the furniture would be easily and quickly re-configurable to accommodate various teaching and learning environments.

E3. That a survey of space utilisation of lecture theatres be carried out periodically at each campus by TFSU staff. For every theatre, the survey should record when a theatre is timetabled, when there are “no shows”, and when the theatre was actually used. Actual utilisation data should be shown on a chart, with one line for each theatre, and a small rectangle allocated to each hour from 8 am on Monday until 10 pm on Friday. Each rectangle should be coloured to indicate whether or not the theatre was used during the hour. The survey should also record a measure of how full the theatre was when it was being used. Teaching staff, faculty time-tablers and central time-tablers should be informed that these surveys will be taking place, on a regular basis, at all campuses. The reason for the surveys is to facilitate the planning process for the continuing upgrade and maintenance (if relevant or necessary) of the University’s teaching spaces.

Group F: Time Tabling

F1. That the time-tabling process only allocates tele-teaching classes to tele-teaching theatres, whenever possible. The two tele-teaching theatres at Berwick are each used about 50% of the time for tele-teaching purposes. These tele-teaching theatres are also each used about 50% of the time for normal face-to-face (or on-campus) teaching purposes. Thus these theatres are among the most heavily used at Berwick. The situation at Gippsland is precisely the same. These four tele-teaching theatres are heavily used for on-campus teaching because of the apparent lack of suitable alternative accommodation at Berwick and Gippsland. As the two tele-teaching theatres are very heavily used, technical staff do not have the opportunity to have access to the equipment to set it up, to test it or to repair it. In addition, lecturers who are not aware of the delicate or intricate nature of the tele-teaching equipment occasionally leave the equipment in an unusable state. This causes significant problems for the following tele-teaching lecturer. In an ideal world, the tele-teaching theatres would only be used for tele-teaching purposes.

F2. That the time-tabling process makes use of the information gathered during recent lecture theatre surveys to continue to optimise the utilisation of these spaces.

F3. That the time-tabling group carries out a retrospective review using the 2000 requirements for teaching spaces at all campuses to investigate the practical issues which would have arisen had there been a constraint that all of the University’s low-tech theatres could not be used. Such an exercise would inform the implementation of the recommendations (a) to increase the utilisation of all existing high-tech theatres to 70%, and (b) to cease the current plans to convert all low-tech theatres to high-tech standards.

F4. That the current plan to introduce the electronic time-tabling system, Syllabus Plus, at the Caulfield campus be supported with the aim of ensuring success at that campus – and with the intention of introducing Syllabus Plus at all campuses (to manage all teaching spaces) in 2002. A successful implementation of Syllabus Plus across all campuses will facilitate the cost-effective management of teaching spaces. In particular, accurate information gained from Syllabus Plus will inform the process of upgrading teaching spaces – particularly in the situation where certain teaching spaces are under-used and do not need to be upgraded.

Group G: Planning and Budgeting

G1. That TFSU is assigned the responsible for supporting, maintaining and acquiring equipment in all lecture theatres, and that the similar responsibility for other teaching spaces (tutorial rooms, etc) be assigned to faculties. At present, the necessary replacement of equipment in many teaching spaces is delayed indefinitely because the financial responsibility for these spaces has not been defined and promulgated.

G2. That a survey of teaching/learning requirements is carried out as an essential first step in the continuous process of managing the University’s significant stock of teaching and learning spaces. The information gleaned from such a survey will guide and inform the on-going process of managing, upgrading and enhancing these spaces. At present, there is an in-built assumption that a lecture theatre (for example) must remain as a lecture theatre, and that, when its fabric and facilities are no longer fit for their purpose due to age, the theatre has to be upgraded so that it becomes a modern version of what it was. There does not appear to be a decision point (or an opportunity for consideration) in the University’s processes which enables the following questions to be asked: “Given the need to be cost-effective, does the University still need this type of teaching space?” and “Given the changes taking place in teaching and learning methods and practices, would it be more appropriate to use this space in a new way?” Consequently, there is a requirement, within the University, for an educationally-aware body to inform the process of designing new teaching and learning spaces. This body would take account of the new teaching and learning practices, evolving educational ideas, the increasing use of communication and information technologies, and the existing structural and security issues.

G3. That a policy of charging for each teaching space which is time-tabled (as opposed to used) is introduced, so that (a) teaching spaces are not reserved for possible use but are not actually used as happens at present (eg 24% no shows at Clayton), (b) teaching spaces are used more uniformly throughout the week, (c) the time-tabling process becomes more “honest” and fair, (d) the data gathered from this process will be accurate and will better inform the process of managing the University’s stock of teaching spaces.

G4. That a strategic investment plan be developed and funded to enable the replacement of educational technology equipment in the University’s centrally-supported teaching spaces. This plan should set out the University’s tactics for maintaining (only) the required number of teaching spaces in an acceptable manner. The plan should look ahead five years, and should itemise the funds required each year to maintain the equipment in good working order. The plan should be updated each year, with significant directional input from the Lecture Theatre Advisory Group. An outline plan can be seen in the section on budgets, below.

G5. That consideration be given to leasing the equipment in lecture theatres. For each item of equipment, the period of the lease should cover the anticipated useful life of the equipment – with the anticipated useful life being determined after taking account of the need for the equipment to be replaced because (a) it will not operate satisfactorily as it matures, and (b) it will need to be replaced before the end of its natural life to keep up with changes in technology (eg the need to project higher resolution images). From a budgeting point of view, leasing has the advantage that, once established, annual charges are much more constant (and hence predictable) than at present.

G6. That refurbishments to teaching spaces are planned with the involvement of CHED (now HEDU) and TFSU as well as with the funding sources (Facilities & Services and ITS) so that the refurbished teaching spaces can be student-centred rather than teacher-centred where appropriate.

G7. That the long-term requirements for tele-teaching theatres at Caulfield (where there are 2), Clayton (where there are 2) and Peninsula (where there is 1) be clarified, as the tele-teaching equipment in these 5 theatres is not being used for tele-teaching purposes. The cost of the equipment in a tele-teaching theatre is approximately twice the cost of the equipment in a high-tech theatre (approximately $280,000 compared with $140,000). While these theatres are used for other purposes, the tele-teaching equipment is growing old rapidly. If some or all of these theatres are not going to be used for tele-teaching purposes, then consideration should be given to using the redundant equipment to replace aging equipment in existing high-tech theatres.

G8. That all high-tech theatres conform to a standard configuration, and that the method which lecturers use to control equipment does not vary from theatre to theatre. The introduction of a standard will benefit lecturers who use various theatres (and on more than one campus), in that the controls will not vary between theatres. Sessional lecturers will find it easier to operate the equipment once trained on the standard environment, and a single set of instructions will suffice for all high-tech theatres. In addition, training will be more effective. Finally, it will be possible to replace failed equipment or components quickly, by using components from a nearby theatre; and a smaller inventory of spare parts needs to be held.

G9. That consideration be given to introducing a “medium-tech” standard for lecture theatres. Such theatres will satisfy numerous requirements when the full capabilities of a high-tech theatre are not required. Such theatres will be less expensive to refurbish than high-tech theatres, and may be produced by upgrading existing low-tech theatres or by down-grading existing high-tech theatres, as they require refurbishment. When “user-pays” is introduced for teaching spaces, the availability of medium-tech theatres with less expensive hourly rates will provide an alternative to high-tech theatres.

G9. That Graeme Ivey (TFSU) continues to provide advice to the University on the planning design, acquisition and installation of educational technology equipment, and that all redevelopments which involve teaching spaces – whether centrally-supported or not – involve and be approved by TFSU. The objectives of this recommendation are to ensure (a) that standards which have been developed by TFSU on behalf of the University for educational technology are applied uniformly across the University, and (b) that costs are minimised by utilising existing experience gain over a significant period of time.

G10. That TFSU develop and disseminate recommended time-lines associated with the major task of refurbishing a lecture theatre, with the objective of ensuring that such a project in completed when desired (often the start of a semester) in a cost-effective manner. For example, if a theatre is to be refurbished and made ready for use at the beginning of semester 1, then formal approval to commence the project – with funds released – should be given around the middle of the previous October. If approval is not given by that time, and access to the newly refurbished theatre is expected by the beginning of the following semester, then short-cuts may ha