Making the case for Smart: as teaching technologies get slicker, the 'smart' campus is becoming an increasingly compelling competitive-edge argument.

It's late afternoon on a Friday in September, and John Meerts, VP of Information Technology at Wesleyan University (CT), is in Science Center 150, standing in the projection booth, admiring the technology arrayed before him.

An amphitheater-shaped hall housed in the Exley Science Center, the space has been architecturally outfitted to encompass the latest in projection, network, and communication technologies for its multiple use as classroom, lecture hall, and cinema. Embedded in the hydraulic lift central podium (designed to spare middle-aged backs) is a touch-screen via which the professor can adjust room lighting, sequence slides through an LCD projector, or run a DVD or VCR. A digital document camera that can project images of three-dimensional objects and papers sits to the left of the podium.

In addition to the array of projection equipment, the entire room is networked so that students can plug into the university network and download information while the class is in session. In some cases, they can interact directly via the network, and post answers and information to the class that may then be projected onto a giant screen. And (as if this isn't enough), the room is wired with a sound system that would satisfy a Hollywood producer.

Suddenly, the opening shots of Stanley Kubrick's 2002: A Space Odyssey splash onto three screens simultaneously. Strauss' famous "Also Sprach Zarathustra" theme booms from the speakers. Meerts grins. The room and the technology are "way cool," he declares. I'm thinking Kubrick in triplicate is beyond "way cool." But Meerts concedes the razzle-dazzle technology comes with a huge price tag not just for the original equipment, but for ongoing equipment purchases, upgrades, and maintenance, as well. For example, he's budgeting $350,000 annually for maintenance of new advanced technology equipment alone.

And at the University of Illinois at Springfield, Director of Educational Technology Farokh Eslahi estimates that maintaining existing equipment, new purchases, and training will cost close to $2 million a year. With financials like that, it's not surprising that IT managers at colleges and universities nationwide have to sell hard to nudge their institutions into the 21st century. They have to convince wary faculty and administrators that moving into the high-tech, wireless age makes financial and educational sense. The most common question they face is whether the money--no doubt tough to come by these days--is better spent on technology, or on more conventional teaching tools.

At Wesleyan University, the University of Illinois at Springfield, and a third school, the Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the technologies embedded in smart classrooms are the end result of strategic plans and decisions that date back to the 1990s. It was then, according to technology consultant Mike Tremble, principal of MA-based Valley Communication (www.valleycommunications.com), that the college audio/visual department began merging with campus IT, IS, and ITS departments. Joshua Kranz, Systems Designs and IT manager for Valley Communication, concurs. "The college ITS department got dragged into the A/V world. The A/V people started saying they wanted computer stuff, and IT people ended up in multimedia." Then, he says, A/V literally "came out of the closet," and started to have a major impact on campus technology and higher education.

Working with IHEs throughout New England on technology deployment, consulting, and training, Tremble has more recently witnessed the emergence of another trend: wireless-technology teaching tools. A major shift, says Tremble, is the transition from analog to digital transmission technology in video. "It provides the ability to capture more and do more, transmission-wise via a telephone," he says, adding, "It opens up use of devices from LCDs to traditional television monitors, and whole new projection abilities."

THREE STRATEGIC DRIVERS

From the ground up. Gino Sorcinelli, director of Computer Resources at the UMass Isenberg School of Management, addressed these technology shifts about five years ago when a major donor (Eugene M. Isenberg) provided funding to build an addition to the existing school of management. "One of the first things decided was that this was going to be a new, special facility and it would include high-tech equipment that reflected a broader pedagogy--meaning, it would enhance classroom teaching and research. That was the number one driver and focus," he explains.

But it was tricky in 1998, determining what technology would actually be available when the new building opened in 2002. According to Sorcinelli, administrators wanted to make sure all classrooms were hard-wired so students could plug in to network connections at their seats. "We also agreed that by 2003, wireless capabilities might be a happening, but held off until last fall to develop a strategy to allow the technology to evolve."

Providing faculty with an easy, user-friendly means of utilizing everything from LCD projectors to DVD players was considered "the basic level" of meeting teaching needs. "The next level," says Sorcinelli, "is to have the capability for students to have some sort of device with access to the Web. And depending on what the faculty wants to do, they can provide students with interactivity, or be able to carry on an audio conference or use multiple projection screens," he explains.

The Isenberg School had the advantage of being able to work from scratch with architects to design amphitheater rooms like Science 150 at Wesleyan--rooms optimal for multiple projection because they don't have visual interferences such as posts or columns. And like Wesleyan, the Isenberg team quickly learned that providing the right combination of traditional teaching toots--chalkboards, for example--had to be balanced with the new projection screens and technologies. By the time the doors opened in 2002, Sorcinelli's team had implanted permanently fixed overhead projectors; constructed spaces for moveable screens, adjustable chalkboards and whiteboards; and had equipped certain rooms with special light-blocking shades.

From shuttling to "smart." Similar efforts were taking place at just about the same time, at the University of Illinois at Springfield. By 1999, the school's audio/visual demands were creating so much confusion that Eslahi was near the end of his tether. He was coping with what seemed like "an army of people delivering audio/video equipment to classrooms," he remembers. Between the high demand for equipment, the servicing of the machines, and the time and effort spent troubleshooting faculty needs, his department had "reached saturation," he admits. Finally, almost out of desperation, Eslahi and his team put together a proposal to see equipment such as projectors, computers, and VCRs stationed in the classroom. The proposed initiative was welt received by the central administration in Champagne. Thirty classrooms were equipped with technology by the summer of 2000.

"Then, every year after that, we added more classrooms and more technology," Eslahi says. "Amazing types of technology have been added as we have come to understand the needs and requirements of faculties and students," he explains. Today, 90 percent of the Springfield campus classrooms are "smart."

Multilevel rehab. Wesleyan's strategy also dates back five years when the administration allocated $8 million to rehab 82 classrooms across the Connecticut campus. Meerts explains that white the physical work was under way, there was agreement to embed networking and projection technology in "six or seven" pilot classrooms. But since the beginning of the process, Wesleyan has actually created three levels of smart classroom.

Mike Roy, director of Academic Computing Services, explains. First, he says, there's the "media-friendly" room, designed for sporadic technology use. It contains a live network connection to the campus network, which in turn connects to the Internet. The room has manual screens and overhead projection, and boasts special lighting controls to allow for zoned tight during projection and presentations. LCD projectors aren't embedded, but can be provided, along with laptops for student presentations or interactive participation.

"Multimedia rooms" represent what Roy calls the next level up. They include data projectors installed in the room, two computers (a Mac and PC) wired to the campus network, a DVD and VCR, a sound system that includes amplifiers and ceiling-mounted speakers, an electronically controlled screen, a document camera (in some rooms), and multiple projection (in certain rooms) to allow for comparative examples as teaching tools.

Finally, there is the "interactive computer classroom," which Roy says will boast a computer for each student. "It looks like a computer lab, but it's actually a classroom in which a professor can move from a mini lecture to a hands-on teaching session."

Five years after Wesleyan began planning for smart classrooms, all 82 have been connected to the Internet, says Meerts. There are 36 media-friendly classrooms, 44 multimedia rooms (Science Room 150 is the largest), and two interactive computer classrooms.

THE BIG SELL

Valley Communication's Tremble makes a living, in part, by helping IT managers make their case to administrators for the funding of smart classrooms and presentation halls. This is the business of education, he says. To survive and be competitive on the admissions front, he argues, IHEs must implant wide varieties of advanced technology. Students now expect to learn in a networked, Web-based, and even wireless world, he maintains.

"The students are accustomed to this technology and if you can't supply it from the dorm room and classrooms to the outside world, they won't be attracted to your institution. Advanced technology is woven into the fabric of our lifestyle, which is why you're seeing dorm rooms wired across the U.S., networked classrooms, online learning, and networked educational systems," he asserts. It is the smart school--not just the smart classroom--that is also a lure for the younger, more technologically attuned faculty members, he points out. Like students, they're used to working with advanced technology and expect to be able to use it as a teaching tool, Tremble says.

Meerts and Roy have both had to make the "big sell" to senior administrators, and their arguments were similar. They concur that technology can really ramp up teaching, particularly in the arts and sciences where the ability to project comparative images can be a major teaching asset. (Not surprisingly, these are fields that have traditionally relied on audio/visual support.) The ability to bring the Web into the classroom means, essentially, downloading the real world into the classroom, they say. And networked computers allow for student participation in visual and written form-and in real time--that was not possible to this degree or with this ease. Technology, say the two systems experts, makes the professor more productive, and also helps faculty with their academic research--all of which bolsters education.

Sorcinelli and Eslahi have made similar cases to their administrations. They report they are finding both faculty and administrators eager to beef up technology as a teaching tool for competitive advantage in the race for quality students and faculty, and because, simply put, the U.S. is a technology-driven society. Moreover, both feel colleges and universities need to prepare students for a networked, Web-based, wireless work world.

WHAT ABOUT THE DOLLARS?

Budget and funding processes vary widely from school to school. Eslahi at the University of Illinois had to funnel his technology proposal through a chain of command that started with the dean of his division, who then took it to the provost of the Springfield campus. From there, he says it was pushed into the central administration where he eventually gained funding approval

His $2-million-a-year technology purchase and maintenance budget, including faculty and student training, has "grown tremendously since the spring of 2000, when we didn't have any smart classrooms," he says, adding that it's grown with solid administrative support. At Illinois, he says, the administration sees the smart classroom as the first move to broad-scale online learning which will eventually "save on energy costs, faculty, and facilities."

At UMass, although it is a state school the funding for the Isenberg classrooms came largely from a single philanthropic donation, with some matching grants from the state and private donations ranging from $50 to $50,000, says Sorcinelli. All told, an estimated $1 million was spent on developing four smart classrooms. This subsidized not only the equipment, but the room configuration and design, room-darkening shades, and other devices needed to augment the equipment.

At Wesleyan, Meerts says, he has to move his budget through various administrative offices including the Office of Academic Affairs. Although he doesn't envision implanting much additional new technology in the near future, he says the administration is "wrestling" with the costs of merely maintaining smart classrooms.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

Moving into a wireless world is more of a priority for some campuses than others. The Isenberg School and Wesleyan already have wireless zones, and have ramped up network security to protect students and faculty from eavesdropping. Other areas of exploration for Wesleyan include moving into remote equipment maintenance handled right through the network, which Meerts believes would be tremendously cost-effective.

Eslahi, in Springfield, isn't working with any overarching strategy for the future, he says. "We see this as more of an evolving process," he explains. To become "a leader in online learning," he says, the school will need "infrastructure that combines video and audio. But it's the online learning approach, not the technology, that's driving our needs."

As for UMass--coping with record funding shortfalls of $40 million in fiscal 2003--Sorcinelli says that he and the management school dean are "looking at technology that will help maintain equipment. We're also looking at providing the faculty with wireless PC technology, which is portable. But that would be a major hurdle," he says, given the costs of equipment, infrastructure, and security, during a fiscal crisis.

Sorcinelli says UMass is also exploring a variety of online learning options that will free students from classrooms and possibly eliminate some faculty in the long run--as well as generate revenue as students worldwide participate. Again, he says, moving in this direction requires not only faculty approval, but an array of technologies such as steaming audio and video. And that means money.

The Details

From Farokh Eslahi, University of Illinois at Springfield, more of what the school is planning for its evolving smart classroom initiative:

* Classrooms and labs should be multipurpose, and flexible enough to support both technology-based learning and traditional classroom applications.

* A high-speed wired and wireless network should provide access points throughout the building: in classrooms, lounges, corridors, seminar rooms, breakout rooms, etc.

* All classrooms should be "smart"--equipped with instructor's podium, audio, video, computer, and network capabilities.

* Classrooms should be wide (instead of deep) with curved rows to facilitate eye contact with the instructor, and interactivity.

* Projection screen should be entirely visible from every seat.

* There should be dual display systems in large classrooms to allow an instructor to send images from two sources to two screens, in order to facilitate comparison and analysis.

* Interactive whiteboards and document cameras should be in all classrooms.

* Functional beard space, and adequate lighting are requisites.

* Lighting controls should be placed at the entrance of the room, and near the instructor station.

* Lighting should be designed and placed to facilitate screen viewing.

* Small technology-enhanced breakout rooms and practice rooms enhance learning; students can meet with an instructor or teaching assistant, work on projects, or prepare and practice presentations.

* Adequate sound control in classrooms and labs is a must.

* Ample "casual" space should be available throughout the smart building: atrium space, lounge space, and study areas.

Amy Zuckerman is a HA-based freelance writer specializing in higher ed business and technology issues. She writes for various publications including The New York Times, Fortune, and Business 2.0.