The Ohio State University

Instructional Space Feasibility Study

FINAL REPORT April 2009 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. University Hall April 9, 2009 (FedEx)

Mr. Jason Kaplan Resource Planning Analyst, Real Estate and Property Management Facilities Operations + Development The Ohio State University 53 West 11th Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201-2013

RE: The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study, Project No. OSU-072242

Dear Jason:

Enclosed are three copies of the final report, Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study, dated April 2009. All pages are shown with the April 2009 date.

Prior to our exchange of emails today, this is the report that you asked be delivered by the contract termination date of April 10. As we agreed, instead please consider this final report as a draft.

As you Jack or others have an opportunity to review this report, and can provide comments, questions or corrections, we will gladly incorporate these items in a revised final report.

I still would appreciate if one of you could look at the photos and verify that the tag line as to building and room number are correct. We went through the Classroom Services web site, and for rooms we could not specifically identify, we listed only the building in which they were located. If you could provide the correct room numbers, we will add this information to the revised final report, along with the station counts.

This report has undergone another level of review and edit since the draft sent last week. Please look carefully at the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations section in particular. All sections have had some minor changes as well.. Again, it may be useful at some point to have aa conference phone call about the report. Please let me know. Thanks.

Sincerely, IRA FINK AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Ira Fink, Ph.D., FAIA Enclosure: Three copies of the Final Report, dated April 2009

The Ohio State University

Instructional Space Feasibility Study

FINAL REPORT April 2009

Prepared for: Mr. Jason Kaplan Resource Planning Analyst, Real Estate and Property Management Facilities Operations + Development The Ohio State University 53 West 11th Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201-2013 (614) 292-9402 and Mr. Jack Miner Associate Registrar, Office of the University Registrar The Ohio State University 730 Lincoln Tower 1800 Cannon Drive Columbus, Ohio 43210 (614) 292-5777

Prepared by: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. University Planning Consultants One Columbia Circle Berkeley, California 94708 (510) 843-1900 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Orton Memorial Library of Geology April 2009 i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents...... i

List of Figures...... iv

List of Tables...... vi

List of Persons Who Were Interviewed, Attended Meetings, or Assisted in This Study...... ix

Programming Sub-Consultants...... x

I . Introduction...... 1

A. Background ...... 3 B. Scope of Work...... 3 C. Campus Objectives...... 4 D. Classrooms as a Campus Space Use...... 4 E. Instructional Space Terminology Definition...... 5 F. Classrooms as a Campus Space Use...... 6 G. Current Conditions...... 7 H. Methodology – Policies, Procedures, and Organization...... 12 I. Methodology – Quantifying Data...... 13 J. Organization of the Report...... 16

II . Existing Policies and Resources...... 19

A. Background ...... 21 B. Current Availability and Accessibility of Data...... 24

III . Interviews, Meetings, and Forums...... 29

A. Overview ...... 31 B. Working Sessions...... 31 C. Scheduling Staff Open Forum...... 32 D. Faculty Open Forum...... 33 E. Undergraduate Student Government Forum...... 33

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. ii The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

F. Associate Deans Forum...... 34 G. Faculty/Space Coordinator Forum...... 34 H. Meeting with the Digital Union Staff...... 35 I. Meeting with the Office of Information Technology (OIT) Operations Staff . . . 36 J. Meetings with Council on Physical Environment (COPE) and the Department of Chemistry...... 36 K. Meeting with the Classroom Readiness Committee...... 37 L. Meeting with the Classroom Committee of the University Senate...... 37 M. Technology Enhanced Learning and Research (TELR) and Faculty and TA Development (FTAD)...... 38

IV . Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization...... 39

A. Ohio State Pool Classroom Space Data...... 41 B. Classroom Scheduling...... 49 C. Measuring Pool Classroom Use and Utilization...... 50 D. Projecting Additional Pool Classroom Need...... 69

V . Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization...... 71

A. Ohio State Department Classroom Space Data...... 73 B. Classroom Scheduling...... 81 C. Measuring Department Classroom Use and Utilization ...... 83

VI . Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization...... 103

A. Ohio State Department Class Laboratory Space Data ...... 105 B. Class Laboratory Scheduling...... 111 C. Measuring Class Laboratory Use and Utilization ...... 112

VII . Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories and Computer Laboratories. . 129

A. Background ...... 131 B. Unscheduled Department Class Laboratory Space...... 132 C. Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratory Space...... 133

VIII . Web-Based Classroom Survey...... 135

A. Background ...... 137 B. Recurrent Comments...... 139 C. Additional Comments...... 143 April 2009 iii

IX . Comparison Campuses/Best Practices ...... 145

A. Background ...... 147 B. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus ...... 147 C. Arizona State University...... 153 D. University of Washington...... 156 E. Pennsylvania State University ...... 160

X . Large Lecture Halls...... 165

A. Background ...... 167 B. Large Lecture Halls at Comparison Campuses...... 167 C. Seating Capacity Ranges of Large Lecture Halls...... 170 D. About Large Lecture Halls...... 171 E. Large Lecture Halls at The Ohio State University ...... 173

XI . Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations ...... 179

A. Instructional Space...... 184 B. Classroom Scheduling, Use, and Utilization...... 189 C. Classroom Space Management and Planning...... 196 D. Classroom Technical Services...... 206 E. Classroom Facilities Environment...... 213 F. Classroom Support...... 216

Appendices

A. Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database...... A-1 B. Scheduled Department Classrooms Database...... B-1 C. Scheduled Department Class Laboratories Database...... C-1 D. Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database...... D-1 E. Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories Database...... E-1 F. Sample Course Schedule Charts...... F-1 G. Responses to the Registrar’s Office Web-Based Classroom Survey...... G-1

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. iv The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

List of Figures

I-1 The Ohio State University, Standard Course Meeting Times...... 10 I-2 The Ohio State University, Standard Course Meeting Times...... 11

III-1 Organization Chart for The Ohio State University, Classroom Management Units ...... 35

IV-1 Pool Classroom Distribution by Station Count, Autumn 2007 ...... 45 IV-2 Comparison of the Pool Classroom Distribution by Station Count at Ohio State and Five Other Public Campuses ...... 47 IV-3 Number of Rooms in Use Simultaneously in Scheduled Pool Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007 ...... 54 IV-4 Cumulative Enrollment in Scheduled Pool Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007 ...... 54 IV-5 Pool Classroom Enrollments by Course Size...... 59

V-1 Department Classroom Distribution by Station Count, Autumn 2007 . . . . . 77 V-2 Comparison of the Department Classroom Distribution by Station Count at Ohio State and Five Other Public Campuses ...... 79 V-3 Number of Rooms in Use Simultaneously in Scheduled Department Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007 . . 85 V-4 Cumulative Enrollment in Scheduled Department Classrooms, by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007 ...... 87 V-5 Department Classroom Enrollments by Course Size...... 92

VI-1 Department Class Laboratory Distribution by Station Count, Autumn 2007. 110 VI-2 Number of Rooms in Use Simultaneously in Scheduled Department Class Laboratories by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007. . 114 VI-3 Cumulative Enrollment in Scheduled Department Class Laboratories by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007 ...... 116

VIII-1 Top 5 Survey Comment Topics, Pool Classrooms ...... 139 VIII-2 Top 5 Survey Comment Topics, Departmental Classrooms...... 140 April 2009 v

List of Figures

IX-1 Organization Chart for the University of Minnesota, Classroom Management Units ...... 148 IX-2 Organization Chart for Arizona State University, University Classroom Space Management Units...... 153 IX-3 Organization Chart for Arizona State University, Technology Units. . . . . 155 IX-4 Organization Chart for the University of Washington, Classroom Management Units ...... 156 IX-5 Organization Chart for Pennsylvania State University, Classroom Management Units ...... 161

X-1 Course Schedule Chart, McPherson Chemical Lab, Room 1000...... 175 X-2 Course Schedule Chart, Hitchcock Hall, Room 131 ...... 176 X-3 Course Schedule Chart, Independence Hall, Room 100...... 177 X-4 Course Schedule Chart, Hughes Hall, Room 100...... 178

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. vi The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

List of Tables

I-1 The Ohio State University, Classroom Coding...... 5 I-2 The Ohio State University, Class Laboratory Coding...... 6 I-3 Distribution of Academic, Administrative and Support Space at 16 Public Colleges and Universities, Excluding Housing...... 6 I-4 Summary of Instructional Space Data, Autumn 2007...... 8

IV-1 Distribution of Ohio State Pool Classrooms, Stations, and Square Footage by Building (In Order by Building Number)...... 42 IV-2 Pool Classrooms, Ohio State...... 44 IV-3 Pool Classroom Distribution by Station Count, Autumn 2007 ...... 45 IV-4 Ohio State and Five Other Public Campuses, Classroom Distribution by Station Count...... 46 IV-5 Use and Utilization of Three Large Auditoriums...... 48 IV-6 Ohio State Pool Classrooms for which Autumn Quarter 2007 Course Data was not Available...... 50 IV-7 Number of Rooms in Use Simultaneously in Scheduled Pool Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007 ...... 52 IV-8 Cumulative Enrollment in Scheduled Pool Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007 ...... 53 IV-9 Ohio State Enrollments, Classrooms, and Stations in Active Pool Classrooms by Specified Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Monday-Wednesday-Friday Only...... 55 IV-10 Ohio State Enrollments, Classrooms, and Stations in Active Pool Classrooms by Specified Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Tuesday-Thursday Only...... 56 IV-11 Pool Classroom Enrollments by Course Size...... 58 IV-12 Classroom Use, Enrollments by Station Count, Pool Classrooms by Size of Room and Size of Enrollments, Autumn 2007...... 60 IV-13 Average Enrollment per Course by Day of the Week...... 61 IV-14 Pool Classrooms – Use by Days of the Week ...... 62 IV-15 Summary of Classroom Utilization Factors...... 63 IV-16 Pool Classroom Utilization Summary, Ohio State, Autumn 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m...... 65 IV-17 Pool Classroom Use and Utilization, Ohio State, Autumn 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m...... 66 April 2009 vii

List of Tables

V-1 Distribution of Ohio State Department Classrooms, Stations, and Square Footage by Building (In Order by Building Number). . . . 74 V-2 Department Classrooms, Ohio State ...... 76 V-3 Department Classroom Distribution by Station Count, Autumn 2007 . . . . . 77 V-4 Ohio State and Five Other Public Campuses, Classroom Distribution by Station Count...... 78 V-5 Use and Utilization of Four Large Auditoriums...... 80 V-6 Ohio State Department Classrooms for which Autumn Quarter 2007 Course Data was Not Available...... 82 V-7 Number of Rooms in Use Simultaneously in Scheduled Department Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007 . . 84 V-8 Cumulative Enrollment in Scheduled Department Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007 ...... 86 V-9 Ohio State Enrollments, Classrooms, and Stations in Active Department Classrooms by Specified Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Monday-Wednesday-Friday Only...... 88 V-10 Ohio State Enrollments, Classrooms, and Stations in Active Department Classrooms by Specified Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Tuesday-Thursday Only...... 89 V-11 Department Classroom Enrollments by Course Size...... 91 V-12 Classroom Use, Enrollments by Station Count, Department Classrooms by Size of Room and Size of Enrollments, Autumn 2007...... 93 V-13 Average Enrollment per Course by Day of the Week...... 94 V-14 Department Classrooms – Use by Days of the Week ...... 95 V-15 Summary of Classroom Utilization Factors...... 96 V-16 Department Classroom Utilization Summary, Ohio State, Autumn 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m...... 98 V-17 Departmental Classroom Use and Utilization, Ohio State, Autumn 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m...... 100

VI-1 Distribution of Ohio State Scheduled Department Class Laboratories, Stations, and Square Footage by Building (In Order by Building Number). . . . 106 VI-2 Department Class Laboratories, Ohio State...... 108 VI-3 Department Class Laboratory Distribution by Station Count, Autumn 2007. 109 VI-4 Ohio State Department Class Laboratories for which Autumn Quarter 2007 Course Data was Not Available...... 111

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. viii The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

List of Tables

VI-5 Number of Rooms in Use Simultaneously in Scheduled Department Class Laboratories by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007. 113 VI-6 Cumulative Enrollment in Scheduled Department Class Laboratories by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007 ...... 115 VI-7 Ohio State Enrollments, Class Laboratories, and Stations in Active Department Class Laboratories by Specified Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Monday-Wednesday-Friday Only...... 117 VI-8 Ohio State Enrollments, Class Laboratories, and Stations in Active Department Class Laboratories by Specified Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Tuesday-Thursday Only...... 118 VI-9 Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Enrollments by Course Size. . . . 119 VI-10 Average Enrollment per Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Course by Day of the Week ...... 120 VI-11 Department Class Laboratories – Use by Days of the Week ...... 121 VI-12 Summary of Class Laboratory Utilization Factors ...... 122 VI-13 Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Utilization Summary, Ohio State, Autumn 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m...... 124 VI-14 Departmental Class Laboratory Use and Utilization, Ohio State, Autumn 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m...... 125

VII-1 Summary of Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories and Computer Laboratories ...... 133

VIII-1 Comment Classification Numbers and Faculty Response Rates...... 137

IX-1 University of Minnesota’s Functional Units of the Office of Classroom Management...... 149 IX-2 University of Washington’s CSS Services...... 158 IX-3 Pennsylvania State University’s Teaching and Learning with Technology Functional Units ...... 161

X-1 Comparison Campuses with Large Lecture Halls with a Seating Capacity Over 300...... 168 X-2 Comparison Campuses Large Lecture Halls Seating Capacity Distribution. . 170 X-3 Use and Utilization of Four Large Lecture Halls at The Ohio State University. 173 April 2009 ix

List of Persons who were Interviewed and/or Attended Meetings

David Andereck, Senior Associate Dean, College of Mathematical and Physical Sciences Tom Bell, Senior Systems Manager, Office of Information Technology Joanne Dehoney, Director of eLearning, Office of the Chief Information Officer Mark Garner, Program Associate, Department of Mathematics Victoria Getis, Director, Digital Union Liv Gjestvang, Program Manager, Digital Union David Hooker, Systems Administrator, Digital Union David Horstman, Senior Facilities Data Specialist, Business Management Bill Hoza, Director of Applied Technology Services, Office of Information Technology Jason Kaplan, Resource Planning Analyst, Real Estate and Property Management Shay Kennedy, Staff Assistant, Office of Scheduling, Office of the University Registrar Andrew Kuhar, Systems Developer/Engineer, Office of Information Technology Jack Miner, Associate Registrar, Office of the University Registrar Kathryn Plank, Associate Director, Faculty and TA Development Daniel Shapiro, Vice Chair, Department of Mathematics Mike Sherman, Vice Provost, Academic Administration Randy Smith, Vice Provost, Academic Programs Heather Staley, Project Manager, Facilities Operations and Development Kathy Starkoff, Chief Information Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer Tom Stone, Senior eLearning Consultant, Technology Enhanced Learning and Research Jerry Vance, Assistant Registrar, Office of the University Registrar Dawn Wallace-Pascoe, Registrar’s Office

Associate Deans Classroom Committee of the University Senate Classroom Readiness Committee COPE: Council on the Physical Environment Digital Union Faculty Faculty/Space Coordinator InformationTechnology (OIT) Operations Staff Scheduling Staff Undergraduate Student Government

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. x The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Programming Sub-Consultants

Ira Fink, Ph .D ., FAIA Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., University Planning Consultants Berkeley, California

David Bradwell, Ph .D . Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Emily Haug Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Paula Hudis, Ph D. . Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Annie Noah Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 1 Introduction

Background

Scope of Work

Campus Objectives

Classrooms as a Campus Space Use

Instructional Space Terminology Definition

Classrooms as a Campus Space Use

Current Conditions

Methodology – Policies, Procedures, and Organization

Methodology – Quantifying Data

Organization of the Report 2 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Schoenbaum Hall I. Introduction April 2009 3

I. INTRODUCTION

This section provides an overall introduction to The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study. It describes the objectives and methodology of the study, as well as the organization of this report.

A. BACKGROUND

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. (IFA) was contracted by The Ohio State University in 2008 to complete a study of instructional space. The purpose of the study was to enable the University and the Classroom Readiness Committee to plan for and guide future capital improvement and maintenance projects to ensure instructional facilities are meeting the needs of classroom users. This was an omnibus assignment that covered many aspects of classroom use and utilization. In addition, as information was gathered and provided to Ohio State, steps to improve classroom allocations took place, and the direction of the study was slightly altered to accommodate this new information. The following is a generalized summary of the study assignments.

B. SCOPE OF WORK

The study, broadly framed, covered four principal areas and had the following principal objectives:

• To identify where improvements in instructional space needs and practices can be made, based upon a review of written and unwritten institutional policies, regulations, and procedures relating to the classroom and class laboratory space inventory, space assignment, and space utilization.

• To conduct a comprehensive and separate use and utilization analysis for classroom pool rooms, department classrooms, and class laboratory rooms.

• To provide a benchmarking analysis of classroom and class laboratory facilities at The Ohio State University with other comparable peer institutions to identify best practices of activities that would be of practical use to OSU regarding instructional space.

• To review existing and future long-term technology demands for classrooms, suggesting potential improvements and/or alternatives to meet current and future technology demands, recognizing there are numerous existing campus units already engaged in this activity.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 4 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

C. CAMPUS OBJECTIVES

The primary campus objectives of the study were:

• To facilitate meetings with faculty, staff and students regarding enrollment projections, methods of instruction, proposed technology communication changes, and other factors affecting classroom use.

• To measure the OSU classroom facilities (as defined by the Classroom Readiness Committee) against comparable peer institutions to identify best practices regarding instructional space.

• To analyze and compare the existing classroom supply in order to identify gaps or surpluses of space by size, location, and time.

• To assess existing and future long-term technology demands for classrooms, providing potential solutions and/or alternatives to meet current and future technology demands.

• To recommend classroom management structure, policies, and procedures for:

–– the development of future classrooms.

–– the oversight, scheduling, maintenance, repair, and renovation of existing classrooms.

D. CLASSROOMS AS A CAMPUS SPACE USE

Are Classrooms Being Well Used

Excluding residential facilities, which on some campuses represent one-half of all square footage, offices are the largest users of campus space. They are followed in the campus hierarchy of space use by research space, by special use facilities, including athletics and recreation, by support facilities, including central services, and by general use facilities, including assembly and food services. Then follows teaching or class laboratories, libraries, and, at the end of the list, classrooms.1

While classrooms and class laboratories are at the bottom of the campus hierarchy of space uses in terms of campus square footage, they are often a bellwether of whether or not campus space is being used well or is changing. If a university desires to improve its space use efficiency, then a classroom use and utilization evaluation is one component of a space needs analysis.

1 Ira Fink, “Classroom Use and Utilization,” Facilities Manager, Volume 18, No. 3 (May/June 2002), pp. 13-24. I. Introduction April 2009 5

E. INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE TERMINOLOGY DEFINITION

In this study, the following instructional space definitions are applied and used:

Classroom: A room for organized classes which does not require special-purpose equipment for student use.

Classroom Description: Included in this category are rooms generally referred to as general purpose classrooms. Classrooms are typically but not necessarily equipped with tablet-armchairs, tables with chairs, or similar types of seating.

At The Ohio State University, classrooms are further characterized by the type of room, as shown in Table I-1 below.

Table I-1 The Ohio State University, Classroom Coding

Room Code Description

1A Seminar Room 1B Classroom 1C Lecture Hall

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

At Ohio State, classrooms, as described above, are also classified as “pool classrooms,” which means they are centrally ”held” and scheduled by the Registrar’s Office, or they are classified as department classrooms, which means an individual department is responsible for their scheduling.

Class Laboratory: A room used for group instruction of regularly scheduled classes that requires special purpose equipment for participation, experimentation, observation, or practice by students in a field of study. (Room design and/or equipment typically identified the use of room with a particular field of study.)

Class Laboratory Description: Included in this category may be rooms generally referred to as teaching laboratories including: science laboratories, instructional shops, band rooms, choral rooms, and language laboratories.

NOTE: This category does not include laboratory rooms which serve as individual and /or independent study rooms. A class laboratory does not include rooms generally referred to as research laboratories. Class laboratories are used for regularly scheduled classes.

At The Ohio State University, class laboratories are further characterized by the type of laboratory, as shown in Table I-2 below.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 6 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Table I-2 The Ohio State University, Class Laboratory Coding

Room Code Description

2A Scheduled Teaching Laboratory 2K Unscheduled Teaching Laboratory 2P Scheduled Computer Laboratory 2Q Unscheduled Computer Laboratory

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

The class laboratories, both scheduled and unscheduled, are assigned by the departments which use the class laboratories. Only the scheduled class laboratories were included for use and utilization analysis in this study. Information about the unscheduled class laboratories and computer laboratories is included, but use and utilization analysis was not possible as the data needed for this type of analysis about these unscheduled rooms does not exist.

F. CLASSROOMS AS A CAMPUS SPACE USE

On average, classrooms represent about six percent of the space on campus, excluding housing. Based on data from 16 public universities, mainly large research campuses, classrooms range from a low of four percent to a high of 11 percent of academic, administrative and support space, as shown in Table I-3. Of the public university campuses in Table I-3, those with large amounts of research and support space have the smallest percentage of campus space in classroom use. Those campuses with less research and support space have a higher percentage of their space in classroom uses, but none exceeded 10.5 percent, or about one out of nine square feet on the campus.

Table I-3 Distribution of Academic, Administrative and Support Space at 16 Public Colleges and Universities, Excluding Housing

16 Public Universities NCES Room Codes and Room Type Average Range

100 Classrooms 6.2% 4.3 to 10.5% 200 Class Labs 9.3 6.1 to 13.0% 250 Research 15.6 6.9 to 20.5% 300 Office 29.3 21.5 to 37.1% 400 Library/Study 8.1 5.9 to 11.3% 500 Special Use 8.4 1.8 to 19.2% 600 General Use 12.7 9.1 to 16.5% 700 Support 9.2 3.5 to 13.2% 800 Health Care 1.2 0.3 to 3.4% TOTAL 100.0%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based upon data from 16 Public Universities, provided by UNLV. I. Introduction April 2009 7

G. CURRENT CONDITIONS

Instructional Space

All instructional space at Ohio State scheduled for use in the autumn quarter 2007 was evaluated for this report. This included space both on the general campus and in the health sciences. As noted above, three broadly defined areas of instructional space were analyzed: pool classrooms, departmentally-controlled classrooms, and departmentally-controlled class laboratories. In addition, the University asked that information about unscheduled departmentally-controlled class laboratories and computer laboratories be included as well.

A difficulty from the outset of the study was arriving at a consistent set of counts for these areas. Initially, the University’s records showed 113 separate buildings encompassing 1,113,355 assignable square feet of instructional space on the campus. The majority of these rooms (832) were categorized by OSU as departmentally-controlled instructional space (both classrooms and class laboratories), while 365 rooms were classroom pool controlled instructional rooms (centrally scheduled). Centrally scheduled rooms made up 332,707 assignable square feet, while departmentally-controlled instructional space made up 780,648 assignable square feet.

For purposes of this report, and because of small changes in the room counts, the data was “frozen” at an interim stage in order to run the analysis data and develop findings. This means the numbers may differ in comparison with how another Ohio State analysis taken at a different stage would show. Hence, for this study IFA has used the following data based on the instructional space database provided by The Ohio State University and shown as Appendices A (Pool Classrooms), B (Department Classrooms), C (Department Class Laboratories), D (Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories), and E (Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories).

Pool Classrooms

Of the 365 pool classrooms, there were 361 rooms with 328,667 assignable square feet whose function was instruction and support. The remaining four rooms were likely miscoded. While data from all 361 rooms were used for this study, course data was available for only 338 of these pool classrooms. Of the remaining 23 rooms, the database format for some was alphanumeric, which created difficulty in data tabulations, and they were excluded.

Departmentally-Controlled Rooms

According to the University’s space database, there were a total of 832 rooms that were coded as classrooms or class laboratories that were assigned to departments. Upon review of the space database, it appears that 51 rooms of these rooms had been inadvertently miscoded as they were not either scheduled department classrooms, scheduled department class laboratories, or unscheduled department class laboratories or computer laboratories. There were, in fact, 781 departmentally- controlled instructional spaces.

Altogether, there were 781 departmentally-controlled rooms with 748,432 assignable square feet whose function was instruction and support. This set of 781 departmentally-controlled rooms was

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 8 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study further separated to exclude rooms for which there was no scheduled use (i.e., class laboratory rooms with room type codes 2K and 2Q), which total 341,829 square feet.

As a result, the total number of departmentally-controlled classrooms and class laboratories used for this study was 338 rooms encompassing 406,603 assignable square feet, which were available to be departmentally scheduled. This included 146 departmentally-scheduled classrooms and 192 departmentally-scheduled class laboratories. Of these 338 rooms, the Registrar’s course data was available for only 121 of the 146 department classrooms and 166 of the 192 department class laboratories. This meant there were an additional 51 departmental instructional spaces, both classrooms and class laboratories, that were not scheduled in Autumn 2007.

Room Summary

Table I-4 shows a summary of the data used for this study. This table covers the classrooms and class laboratories that were available for scheduled use for the autumn 2007 quarter, including both the 361 Registrar (pool) classrooms and the 338 departmentally-scheduled classrooms and class laboratories, in addition to the 443 unscheduled department class laboratories and computer laboratories.

Table I-4 Summary of Instructional Space Data, Autumn 2007

No. of No. of ASF Rooms in Percent No. of Instructional Space Rooms in ASF per Inventory with Dist. Stations Inventory Station Course Data (Autumn 2007)

Scheduled Rooms Scheduled Pool Classrooms 361 328,667 30.5% 20,216 16.3 338 (1A, 1B, 1C) Scheduled Department Classrooms 146 149,266 13.9 7,964 18.7 121 (1A, 1B, 1C) Scheduled Department Class Laboratories and 192 257,337 23.9 5,929 43.4 166 Computer Laboratories (2A, 2P)

Total Schedulable Instructional Space 699 735,270 68.3% 34,109 21.6 625

Unscheduled Rooms Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories 315 251,852 23.4 4,895 51.5 (2K) Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories 128 89,977 8.3 2,672 33.7 (2Q)

Total Instructional Space 1,142 1,077,099 100.0% 41,676 25.8

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University. I. Introduction April 2009 9

Distribution of Rooms • Of the instructional space, there are:

–– 361 schedulable pooled classrooms (338 with autumn 2007 course data)

–– 146 schedulable departmental classrooms (121 with autumn 2007 course data)

–– 192 schedulable departmental class laboratories (166 with autumn 2007 course data)

–– 20,216 schedulable pool classroom stations

–– 13,893 schedulable departmentally-controlled stations

–– A total of 34,109 schedulable instructional spaces

–– 315 unscheduled department class laboratories

–– 128 unscheduled department computer laboratories

–– 7,567 unscheduled departmental class laboratory and computer laboratory stations

–– A total of 41,676 scheduled and unscheduled instructional stations

–– An average of 16.3 square feet per schedulable pool classroom station

–– An average of 18.7 square feet per schedulable department classroom station

–– An average of 43.4 square feet per schedulable department class laboratory station

–– An average of 51.5 square feet per unscheduled department class laboratory station

–– An average of 33.7 square feet per unscheduled department computer laboratory station

–– An overall total of 1,142 instructional spaces on The Ohio State University campus

–– An overall total of 1,077,099 square feet of instructional space, with an overall total of 41,676 stations (seats)

–– A total average of 25.8 square feet per instructional space station

Classroom Start and End Times

Ohio State classroom use is scheduled for 48- or 118-minute increments on Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. through 8:30 p.m. Throughout every day of the week the break time from the ending of one course to the beginning of the next is 12 minutes. For the purposes of this study, use and utilization occurring in the time from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. was analyzed.

This standard start and end time creates a potential of thirteen 48-minute class periods Monday through Friday.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 10 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Figure I-1 The Ohio State University, Standard Course Meeting Times

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

8:30 - 9:18 8:30 - 9:18 8:30 - 9:18 8:30 - 9:18 8:30 - 9:18 9:00 AM

9:30 - 10:18 9:30 - 10:18 9:30 - 10:18 9:30 - 10:18 9:30 - 10:18 10:00 AM

10:30 - 11:18 10:30 - 11:18 10:30 - 11:18 10:30 - 11:18 10:30 - 11:18 11:00 AM

11:30 - 12:18 11:30 - 12:18 11:30 - 12:18 11:30 - 12:18 11:30 - 12:18 12:00 PM

12:30 - 1:18 12:30 - 1:18 12:30 - 1:18 12:30 - 1:18 12:30 - 1:18 01:00 PM

1:30 - 2:18 1:30 - 2:18 1:30 - 2:18 1:30 - 2:18 1:30 - 2:18 02:00 PM

2:30 - 3:18 2:30 - 3:18 2:30 - 3:18 2:30 - 3:18 2:30 - 3:18 03:00 PM

3:30 - 4:18 3:30 - 4:18 3:30 - 4:18 3:30 - 4:18 3:30 - 4:18 04:00 PM

4:30 - 5:18 4:30 - 5:18 4:30 - 5:18 4:30 - 5:18 4:30 - 5:18 05:00 PM

5:30 - 6:18 5:30 - 6:18 5:30 - 6:18 5:30 - 6:18 5:30 - 6:18 06:00 PM

07:00 PM

08:00 PM

09:00 PM

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on information from The Ohio State University. I. Introduction April 2009 11

Figure I-2 The Ohio State University, Standard Course Meeting Times

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

8:30 - 9:30 8:30 - 9:30 8:30 - 9:30 8:30 - 9:30 8:30 - 9:30 9:00 AM

9:30 - 10:30 9:30 - 10:30 9:30 - 10:30 9:30 - 10:30 9:30 - 10:30 10:00 AM

10:30 - 11:30 10:30 - 11:30 10:30 - 11:30 10:30 - 11:30 10:30 - 11:30 11:00 AM

11:30 - 12:30 11:30 - 12:30 11:30 - 12:30 11:30 - 12:30 11:30 - 12:30 12:00 PM

12:30 - 1:30 12:30 - 1:30 12:30 - 1:30 12:30 - 1:30 12:30 - 1:30 01:00 PM

1:30 - 2:30 1:30 - 2:30 1:30 - 2:30 1:30 - 2:30 1:30 - 2:30 02:00 PM

2:30 - 3:30 2:30 - 3:30 2:30 - 3:30 2:30 - 3:30 2:30 - 3:30 03:00 PM

3:30 - 4:30 3:30 - 4:30 3:30 - 4:30 3:30 - 4:30 3:30 - 4:30 04:00 PM

4:30 - 5:30 4:30 - 5:30 4:30 - 5:30 4:30 - 5:30 4:30 - 5:30 05:00 PM

5:30 - 6:30 5:30 - 6:30 5:30 - 6:30 5:30 - 6:30 5:30 - 6:30 06:00 PM

07:00 PM

08:00 PM

09:00 PM

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on information from The Ohio State University.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 12 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

H. METHODOLOGY ­– POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND ORGANIZATION

The following is a detailed summary of the IFA data gathering process for this study.

Study Direction and Oversight

Direction and oversight for the study was provided primarily by Jack Miner (Associate Registrar) and Jason Kaplan (Resource Planning Analyst), along with review by Mike Sherman, Vice Provost for Academic Administration. A complete listing of those who were interviewed or involved is shown on page ix of the Table of Contents.

Interviews

Opportunities to visit one-on-one with members of The Ohio State University campus with responsibilities for instructional space provided a mutually beneficial means to understand issues, identify problems, and find resources. To that end, IFA met with and interviewed 21 university staff and four committees to help identify and review written as well as unwritten classroom and class laboratory space assignment and allocation policies, procedures, and priorities. This included a review of:

• Institutional policies, regulations, and procedures relating to the classroom and class laboratory space inventory, space assignment, and space utilization, to the extent they existed.

• The methods in place at the university for reporting and analyzing classroom pool instructional space and departmentally-controlled instructional space information.

• The availability of data, and persons who have custody of or responsibility for the information.

Faculty

As one means to gauge faculty interest in the study and their use of technology-enhanced classrooms, the IFA meetings with Ohio State committees included faculty who currently teach courses across campus, both in technology-enhanced and technology-deficient rooms. Moreover, faculty and students were queried as to their satisfaction with the features of these rooms and for their suggestions for changes to or improvements in this type of room. Since not every faculty and student member could be interviewed, communication was facilitated by invitations to attend open forums.

A summary of the findings of the IFA interviews can be found in Section III of this report. I. Introduction April 2009 13

I. METHODOLOGY ­– QUANTIFYING DATA

Analyzing instructional space on a campus results in quantifying data about instructional space use that is generally not developed or analyzed regularly in the course of regular university operations. Some of this data for this study is presented below, as it serves to frame the complexity of the study and of managing the space in which instruction takes place. This information was provided by The Ohio State University to Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. in the form of large databases, both for facilities and course enrollments. IFA in turn tabulated the data for use and analysis in the report.

Analysis of Course Records • In autumn 2007, a total of nearly 26,500 separate course records were generated and made available to IFA for the study.

• Of these course records, 16,300 showed the course time as “To Be Arranged” or TBA.

–– Many of these were individual study courses.

–– Because of the need for data about actual use, these TBA courses were excluded from the study.

• Excluding the TBA courses, there were a total of approximately 7,500 complete course records that formed the basis of this study.

–– This is an unusually large number of courses..

–– By comparison, in a recent study IFA completed for Virginia Tech, they had:

-- 35,000 students

-- 2,000 courses

–– The reasons for the large number of courses may partially be one of individual sections counting as a course.

Cancelled Courses • Another important early database finding of the study by IFA was that more than 600 of the 7,500 scheduled autumn 2007 courses were cancelled and did not take place.

–– Cancellations amounted to about 8 percent of all scheduled courses in autumn 2007, or about 1 in 16 courses.

–– While the cancellations took place across the board, large cancellations in scheduled courses occurred in Chemistry (38 courses, 6 percent) and History (36 courses, 6 percent).

–– Some of these cancellations were due to an expected enrollment not occurring. For example, Chemistry scheduled more discussion sections than were eventually needed.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 14 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Analysis of the Class Schedule • As a beginning point in the study, an early analysis was made by IFA of the distribution of courses across the day and evening.

• Of the 7,500 courses which make up the study, about 700, or nearly 10 percent, start at 5:00 p.m. or later.

• At the other end of the class schedule, early morning classes (i.e., those that start before 8:30 a.m.) totaled 285 classes (which equals 5 percent of all instruction).

–– Of these early classes, 121, or 42 percent, were scheduled to occur on only one day a week.

–– Another 32 percent of early (before 8:30 a.m.) classes met two days per week.

–– In other words, nearly three-quarters of all classes scheduled before 8:30 a.m. meet only two or fewer times per week.

Classroom Use and Utilization

The daily and weekly use and utilization of classrooms and class laboratories were analyzed by IFA for autumn quarter 2007. Enrollment and schedule information, along with room capacity data, was provided by the University. The IFA classroom space utilization analysis is based on the relational data base format.

Autumn 2007 OSU weekly room use hours (the number of hours per week the room is in use) and average student station occupancy percentage (the average percentage the seats are occupied during any given hour) were used to develop room use and utilization efficiency data for classroom pool controlled instructional rooms. To test utilization, IFA ran the data using the following classroom use and utilization factors:

• For pool and department classrooms, a scheduled use of rooms of 70 percent (i.e., classrooms in use 31.5 hours of a 45-hour week, Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.).

• For pool and department classrooms, a scheduled 67 percent occupancy of the stations in the room (e.g., 67 percent occupancy of all stations in a room means the classroom spaces are fully utilized). This is accounted for by measuring classroom contact hours in comparison to classroom capacity.

• For department class laboratories, a different set of use and utilization factors was used. Utilization rates of 22.5 weekly class hours per room, or 50 percent use over a 45-hour, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., nine hours, five days period, with 80 percent station (seat) occupancy were used as a guideline.

• “Use” is defined as the ratio of weekly hours a room is used in relation to the total hours available in the relevant time interval, independent of the number of stations (seats) in the rooms that are occupied. I. Introduction April 2009 15

• “Utilization” is defined as the ratio of actual weekly student contact hours to the maximum possible student contact hours assuming all stations were fully occupied, as described above.

A detailed summary of the findings of the IFA statistical analysis can be found in Sections IV (pool classrooms), V (department classrooms), and VI (department class laboratories) of this report.

Instructional Space Use and Utilization Factors • For analysis of use and utilization of the 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. pool classroom classes, a factor of 70 percent scheduled use and 67 percent station occupancy was used to meet Ohio Board of Regents requirements.

–– Analysis showed that, based on 70 percent room use target, the pool classroom use factor was 88 percent.

-- In other words, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., the 88 percent use factor meant that about 60 percent of all pool classroom space is scheduled for use throughout the day, in comparison to a target of 70 percent scheduled use.

–– Based on 67 percent of seats being occupied, pool classroom seat utilization was calculated to be at 90 percent.

• For analysis of use and utilization of the 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. department classroom classes, a factor of 70 percent scheduled use and 67 percent station occupancy was used to meet Ohio Board of Regents requirements.

–– Analysis showed that, based on 70 percent target, the department classroom use factor was 48 percent.

-- In other words, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., the 48 percent use factor meant that about 34 percent of all department classroom space is scheduled for use throughout the day, in comparison to a target of 70 percent scheduled use.

–– Based on 67 percent of seats being occupied, department classroom seat utilization was calculated to be at 39 percent.

• For analysis of use and utilization of the 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. department class laboratory classes, a factor of 50 percent scheduled use and 80 percent station occupancy was used to meet Ohio Board of Regents requirements.

–– Analysis showed that, based on 50 percent target, the department class laboratory use factor was 66 percent.

-- In other words, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., the 66 percent use factor meant that 33 percent of all department class laboratory space is scheduled for use throughout the day.

–– Based on 80 percent of seats being occupied, department class laboratory seat utilization was calculated to be at 57 percent.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 16 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Benchmarking

Four institutions were identified by IFA and The Ohio State University for the benchmarking of classroom and class laboratory facilities best practices. The identified institutions were as follows:

• Arizona State University

• Pennsylvania State University

• University of Minnesota

• University of Washington

The benchmarking process will identify best practices regarding instructional space, including management of instruction space, and other activities that could make the institution practices noteworthy and of practical use to The Ohio State University. This will include reviewing the University of Minnesota in particular because of its recent transition between the quarter and semester system, which is a prospect that is facing OSU.

J. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

This report is organized as follows:

• Section I, Introduction: This section provides an overall introduction to the objectives and methodology of this study, including findings on instructional space use and utilization.

• Section II, Existing Policies and Resources: This section identifies those policies and procedures which govern the scheduling of instructional space at Ohio State.

• Section III, Interviews, Meetings, and Forums: This section summarizes the observations of various members of the campus community on classroom space based on interviews conducted by IFA.

• Section IV, Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization: This section provides a detailed statistical analysis of the use and utilization of scheduled pool classrooms at Ohio State.

• Section V, Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization: This section provides a detailed statistical analysis of the use and utilization of scheduled department classrooms at Ohio State.

• Section VI, Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization: This section provides a detailed statistical analysis of the use and utilization of scheduled department class laboratories at Ohio State.

• Section VII, Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories and Computer Laboratories: This section describes what is known about unscheduled department class laboratories and computer laboratories at Ohio State based on information contained in the room database. I. Introduction April 2009 17

• Section VIII, Web-Based Survey: This section summarizes the comments given by the Ohio State faculty in the Registrar’s Office web-based classroom survey.

• Section IX, Comparison Campuses/Best Practices: This section presents the best practices that several universities have followed in reorganizing their internal classroom space management functions.

• Section X, Large Lecture Halls: This section presents and analyzes the data and trends regarding the number of large lectures halls at comparison universities, as well as at The Ohio State University.

• Section XI, Findings, Recommendations, and Conclusions: This section provides findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the data gathering, analysis, interviews, and research conducted as part of the study.

• Appendix A, Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database: This section contains the scheduled pool classrooms database, sorted by building and room number, and includes the room type.

• Appendix B, Scheduled Department Classrooms Database: This section contains the scheduled department classrooms database, sorted by building and room number, and includes the room type.

• Appendix C, Scheduled Department Class Laboratories Database: This section contains the database for scheduled department class laboratories and computer laboratories (2A, 2P), sorted by building and room number, and includes the room type.

• Appendix D, Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database: This section contains the database for unscheduled department class laboratories (2K), sorted by building and room number, and includes the room type.

• Appendix E, Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories Database: This section contains the database for unscheduled department computer laboratories (2Q), sorted by building and room number, and includes the room type.

• Appendix F, Sample Course Schedule Charts: This section shows the course schedule layouts for a selected sample of pool classrooms.

• Appendix G, Responses to the Registrar’s Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: This section provides a complete list of all comments received from the web-based survey.

In addition, the raw data used for calculating the use and utilization tables were compiled and previously provided to Ohio State as separate PDF documents as follows:

Pool Classroom Use and Utilization Analysis 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 792 pages

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 18 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Department Classroom Use and Utilization Analysis 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 287 pages

Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization Analysis 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 392 pages 2 Existing Policies and Resources

Background

Current Availability and Accessibility of Data 20 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Waiting for Class, Stillman Hall Waiting for Class, Stillman Hall II. Existing Policies and Resources April 2009 21

II. EXISTING POLICIES AND RESOURCES

This section identifies those policies and procedures which govern the scheduling of instructional space at The Ohio State University.

A. BACKGROUND

Policies that affect the scheduling, use, and utilization of instructional space at The Ohio State University have three sources: first, the written policies of The Ohio State University Board of Trustees as identified in the Rules of the University Faculty; second, the published policies of the University Registrar and the Scheduling Office; and third, the unpublished and unwritten, but accepted policies that have their basis in institutional practice and culture.

Rules of the University Faculty

The first of the policies of the University that affect classrooms are the identified duties of the University Registrar. As noted in Section 3335-3-19 of the Rules of the University Faculty, subject to the direction of the Executive Vice President and Provost, the “principle duties of the University Registrar shall be. . . the scheduling of classroom space, classes, and final examinations.”

Class Scheduling

The Rules of the University Faculty, as approved by the Board of Trustees, set the framework for instructional space scheduling at The Ohio State University. The following are of particular importance.

Policy Section 3335-8-11, Precedence of Scheduled Hours, states that regularly-scheduled class appointments shall have precedence over any special exams or exercises not provided for on the calendar or by faculty action.

Likewise, Policy 3335-8-12, Interval Between Classes, sets the time distance or interval between the close of one class period and beginning of the next at 12 minutes.

Changes in Schedules

Two other policies that have bearing include Section 3335-8-15(A), which states that “no instructor shall change the hour or place of meeting of any class to which the student has been assigned except with the approval of the Office of the University Registrar. Additionally, Section 3335-8-15(B) states that instructors who deviate from regular university schedules by holding special sessions or examinations must have received approval from their department chair, the regional campus dean and director or college dean to hold such special sessions or examinations.”

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 22 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Time and Place Requirements on University Facilities

All universities have requirements governing the use of university facilities known as time and place rules. These policies provide boundaries on the use of university facilities because of the potential for liability and the cost of operations.

Of particular importance is university policy Section 3335-13-03 which states unequivocally “the Office of the University Registrar shall be responsible for the scheduling and shall have the necessary authority to schedule all university facilities.” This policy further goes on to state that “the responsibility and authority of the Office of the University Registrar under this rule may be delegated by it to a member of the university faculty or of the staff of the university.”

Policies of the University Registrar

The policies of The Ohio State University Registrar are posted on the University’s website.

The website posting of the Scheduling Office of the University Registrar indicates that it is responsible for the placement of classes, events, and activities into classroom pool rooms, some non-classrooms, and outdoor spaces (with certain exceptions). The Scheduling Office is also responsible for overseeing and coordinating maintenance requests for the classroom pool classrooms.

Scheduling Office Goal

The Scheduling Office states it is their goal to schedule general classroom space in the most efficient, equitable, and accurate manner possible. They clearly indicate that the Scheduling Office will provide rooms as available with priority given for academic classes and other academic activities.

Need (Course) Based Room Assignments

The Scheduling Office, using Resource 25 and an internally-developed Ohio State classroom scheduling program, both scheduling algorithms, indicates that their procedure of need-based assignments falls into four categories:

• Location, the request for a certain room and a specified location.

• Room feature, request for a room based on the room-specific features.

• Seat capacity and physical size or shape, based upon a request for a room with particular number of seats and/or physical size and shape.

• Special room assignments, based upon the unique needs of the class being taught. The need must be academically based and approved by the Office of Academic Affairs.

The Scheduling Office further states that requests for need-based assignments must be submitted nine months in advance to the Scheduling Office for the autumn quarter and six months in advance for all other quarters. II. Existing Policies and Resources April 2009 23

Start Times of Classes

The Scheduling Office policies clearly indicate priorities for scheduling and for the start times of classes depending upon their length. They indicate that courses that require a two-hour time block need to follow a standard meeting pattern and be spread evenly throughout the day and week with start times at 7:30 a.m. and every two hours thereafter, 9:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., etc.

The Scheduling Office indicates that courses that are scheduled to extend for greater than two hours need to be scheduled beginning after 3:30 p.m.

Classroom Assignment Distribution Model

In order to affect an even spread of Registrar-scheduled pool (general assignment) classrooms throughout the day and week, the Scheduling Office policy is to schedule no more than 11 percent of meeting times in any one department at any half-hour from 9:30 a.m. through 2:30 p.m. Likewise, no more than 21.5 percent of departmental courses can be scheduled on any one day within a department and/or college. Both of these policies have the effect of spreading departmental course offerings through the day and throughout the week.

The Scheduling Office also indicates that, as a matter of policy, when 90-minute classes are scheduled on Mondays and Wednesdays, an equal number of classes need to be scheduled on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Unwritten, but Observed, Scheduling Policies

In addition to the written policies noted above, there are other operational policies followed by the Scheduling Office. These include, for example, that when a department schedules a course into a classroom, the scheduling system allows this room to be reserved at the same time and place in the next like quarter.

In addition, as a matter of new policy, before the Scheduling Office distributes the entire classroom schedule, a department can go online to identify a specific room for a course and keep it in the scheduling system for a two-week period. This is a policy that is yet to be enacted.

No Policies for Departmental Space

No policies for departmental use of space they control could be found. The departments who have both rooms that are classified by the University as departmentally-scheduled classrooms and departmentally-scheduled class laboratories, as well as rooms that are classified as unscheduled departmentally-controlled class laboratories and unscheduled departmentally-controlled computer laboratories are available for use to meet departmentally-identified needs.

Those departmentally-scheduled classrooms and departmentally-scheduled class laboratories are included in the University’s course catalog based on departmentally-provided information.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 24 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

B. CURRENT AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF DATA

The Ohio State classroom facilities record of classrooms identifies the type and number of classrooms and their station count. For this report, the Registrar’s course records were used to compute weekly room use hours (the number of hours per week a room is in use) and the average percentage of student station occupancy (the average percentage the seats are occupied during any given hour).

Background

Conducting the review of the use and utilization of classrooms and class (teaching) laboratories at The Ohio State University for the autumn quarter 2007 was a multi-step process. Enrollment and schedule information, along with room capacity data, was provided by the University.

Use and Utilization Analysis for Classroom Pool Controlled Instructional Rooms

For the Classroom Pool Controlled Instructional Rooms, IFA used the autumn 2007 OSU weekly room use hours (the number of hours per week the room is in use) and average student station occupancy percentage (the average percentage the seats are occupied during any given hour) to develop room use and utilization efficiency data.

These calculations were based on Classroom Pool Controlled Instructional Rooms in buildings as assigned by The Ohio State University registrar; these classrooms are used for courses generally limited to lecture courses or courses requiring a classroom.

Data on classroom scheduling was furnished to IFA by The Ohio State University. The file included, for each of the 361 centrally-assigned teaching spaces or rooms, the following information for each room:

Facilities Data Building Name (or Building Number) Room Number Room Type Code Room Assignable Square Footage (ASF) Room Inventory Station Capacity Departmental Ownership or Assignment as Applicable

For the autumn quarter 2007, IFA received a course schedule record that included the following, and much more:

Class Schedule Data Building Number Room Number Class Course Name and Number Course Section Number (if applicable) Total Enrollment II. Existing Policies and Resources April 2009 25

Class Start Time Class End Time Days of the Week on Which the Class Meets

Classroom Pool Controlled Instructional Room Utilization Model

To compute actual classroom use and utilization, IFA developed an Ohio State University specific classroom utilization simulation model based on data from the Registrar’s office as input. IFA completed a number of computer runs to generate estimates of daily and weekly use and utilization of each classroom, and to summarize this data for each building and for the entire campus as a whole.

The Registrar’s file was expanded to include a record for each day of the week for each room. This expanded file was sorted by day of the week and then tabulated to generate daily and weekly estimates of classroom use and utilization.

Use and Utilization Standards

To test utilization, IFA ran the data using the following classroom use and utilization factors. The first factor is a scheduled use of rooms of 70 percent, e.g., pool classrooms in use 31.5 hours of a 45-hour week (Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.). The second factor is a scheduled 67 percent occupancy of the stations in the room, e.g., 67 percent occupancy of all stations in a room means the classroom spaces are fully utilized. This is accounted for by measuring classroom contact hours in comparison to classroom capacity.

In this context, “Use” is defined as the ratio of weekly hours a room is used in relation to the total hours available in the relevant time interval, independent of the number of stations (seats) in the rooms that are occupied. “Utilization” is defined as the ratio of actual weekly student contact hours to the maximum possible student contact hours assuming all stations were fully occupied, as described above.

The model is as follows:

• Registrar’s Class Record: Each Registrar-scheduled classroom pool controlled instructional space course was entered into an IFA relational database from the Registrar’s electronic record for autumn 2007 which included Building Name and Number, Building Room Number, Room Code, Assignable Square Footage, Room Station Capacity, Course Number, Days of the Week of Course Meeting, Course Starting and Ending Time, Course Enrollment and Course Capacity.

• 24-Hour Clock: This digital file was then used as input to a second IFA program to convert the starting and ending class times to a 24-hour clock, calculate the elapsed time of each class and add 12 minutes or 18 minutes to account for class change times, or in other words, to make a 48-minute class equal one hour and a 72-minute class equal to one and one-half hours.

• Classroom Capacity: This second data file was then sorted to consolidate and aggregate or sum the information by individual classroom by day of the week. This allowed a computation to be made of the number of hours per day a classroom is

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 26 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

scheduled for use in comparison to the number of hours a room is available for use. This information was based on The Ohio State University Facilities Room Data Base, which included room size (area in assignable square feet) and room station capacity.

• Classroom Utilization: Next, a computation of utilization was made by IFA to compare classroom station utilization (course enrollments or contact hours) to classroom capacity. IFA divided the student contact hours by the total classroom hours available to arrive at classroom utilization.

Daytime Utilization

If the teaching space is fully utilized with the classrooms in use 70 percent of the time, and with the stations in each room occupied 67 percent on average, the Room Utilization would be 100 percent.

IFA prepared reports that contained critical data elements including: class size, room hours, contact hours, station utilization, time utilization, and net utilization by room, by building, by department, or by other variables of interest to the University.

Space Utilization

From the reports, the current space utilization practices at The Ohio State University were analyzed, including data on the percentage of student stations occupied, typical time bands (or assignment times) in use, and consistency with state scheduling standards. The intensity of room usage based upon scheduling, net utilization, and occupancy, both within a particular time band as well as throughout the day, was used to assist in the evaluation of teaching space sufficiency.

The Ohio State University Course Database

Using The Ohio State University course database proved to be a challenge. It took some time to understand the structure of this internally developed course schedule program, and to pare down the data to create a usable database to tabulate classroom use and utilization for analysis purposes.

The database provided to IFA by Ohio State had 24 distinguishable columns and contained nearly 26,500 row or course entries, of which 16,300 were for courses that were identified as “To Be Arranged.” The “To Be Arranged” courses were deleted from the database. The course database explanation provided by Ohio State, which illustrates the depth and complexity of the raw database, was as follows:

Column A – 5 characters. Call number. All characters must be numerical.

Column B – 1 character. Check digit. It can be either numerical or alphabetical. Parent sections are normally alphabetical, but students can only sign up for courses that have a numerical check digit. They will then automatically get assigned to the parent section. Typically in these situations it is a course with 1 lecture section and several recitations. The lecture section will have an alphabetical check digit. The recitations will have a numerical check digit. The students will sign up for the recitation and will automatically be enrolled in the lecture section. II. Existing Policies and Resources April 2009 27

Column C – 2 characters. Course quarter and year. The 2 stands for autumn quarter and the 2nd digit is the last digit of the year, 2007. All characters must be numerical.

Column D – 3 characters. Department code. All 3 characters must be numerical.

Column E – 1 character. Campus code. “1” is for Columbus.

Column F – 7 characters. Course number. It will generally be a 3 digit number but it can have alphabetical prefixes and suffixes. It can also have decimals. (Ex: 211, H211, 211N, 101.01, 101N01)

Column G – 5 characters. Credit hours. It will generally be 2 digits but it can be 5 digits if it’s a variable credit hour course. (Ex: 01-10, 01-05)

Column H – 3 characters. Section type. It will generally be 1 digit but it can be 2 or 3. (Ex: LR – Lecture/recitation combined)

Column I – 7 characters. Days of the week the course is being held. N – Sunday, M – Monday, T – Tuesday, W – Wednesday, R – Thursday, F – Friday, and S – Saturday.

Column J – 10 characters. Time the course is being held. If it says “ARR”, that means that section is an arranged time with the department.

Column K – 4 characters. Enrollment limit. The limit is the total number of students who can enroll in the course. This is always numerical.

Column L – 12 characters. Instructor’s name.

Column M – 4 characters. Building code. It will always be a 3 digit number.

Column N – 5 characters. Room number. 99% of the time it will be a 4 digit number. There are a few rooms that have the 4 digit number followed by a letter (alpha numeric).

Column O – 4 characters. Room capacity. This is always numerical.

Column P – 6 characters. Ohio State was not sure what this number is. They thought it was some sort of sequencing number.

Column Q – 2 characters. 2 letter building abbreviation. It is always alphabetical.

Column R – 6 characters. Codes for certain changes that were made to the course.

Column S – 4 characters. Enrollment. The first three characters are numbers and the last character is either a letter or “{“. The letter corresponds to its number in the alphabet. So for the first line it reads “006I”, that means the enrollment is actually “0069” since “I” is the 9th letter of the alphabet. The “{“ is for zero.

Column T – 8 characters. 8 character department abbreviation.

Column U – 1 character. Different room need types. Departments enter these room need types before rooms are assigned.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 28 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Column V – 20 characters. Different room features. Each digit stands for a different room feature and departments put a Y if they need that feature and an N if they do not care.

Column W – 4 characters. Capacity limit. 99% of the time this number will be the same as the limit (Column K). The enrollment limit is what the students see and can be adjusted by the departments as they see fit. But the limit can never be adjusted past the cap limit.

Column X – 4 characters. Department fiscal number. This is always numerical.

Course schedule databases are typically complex, as illustrated by that of Ohio State. The additions to this database format at Ohio State over the time it has been in use have made it more useful to the campus, but have also added complexity to the database, as has the building room numbering system, when a room had both numeric and alpha characters. 3 Interviews, Meetings, and Forums

Overview

Working Sessions

Scheduling Staff Open Forum

Faculty Open Forum

Undergraduate Student Government Forum

Associate Deans Forum

Faculty/Space Coordinator Forum

Meeting with the Digital Union Staff

Meeting with the Office of Information Technology (OIT) Operations Staff

Meeting with Council on Physical Environment (COPE) and the Department of Chemistry

Meeting with the Classroom Readiness Committee

Meeting with the Classroom Committe of the University Senate

Technology Enhanced Learning and Research (TELR) and Faculty and TA Development (FTAD) 30 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Scheduling Staff Open Forum Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Undergraduate Student Government Forum III. Interviews, Meetings, and Forums April 2009 31

III. INTERVIEWS, MEETINGS, AND FORUMS

This section summarizes the observations of various members of the campus community on classroom space based on interviews conducted by IFA.

A. OVERVIEW

An objective of this study was to facilitate meetings with faculty, staff and students regarding enrollment projections, methods of instruction, proposed technology communication changes, and other factors affecting classroom use. To that end, IFA visited the Ohio State University campus multiple times and spoke with a variety of individuals, groups, and committees to identify the existing resources and possible issues related to instructional space at the university. A list of those interviewed is contained at the end of the table of contents.

B. WORKING SESSIONS

At the initial working session, the goals of the instructional space study and analysis were outlined and included many of the objectives listed in Section I. Conceptual as well as pragmatic details of the methodology were discussed, including, for example, how to account for General Education Courses and the fact that space is reported to the Board of Regents every two years. How OSU and IFA planned to share data was reviewed and decisions were made as to future visits and the next steps in the study.

In a follow-up set meetings, IFA was able to discuss technology use on campus and clarify the duties of certain groups on campus that a concentrate on instructional technology. This was also the time frame for open forums with students, faculty and staff about instructional space.

The conceptual and more pragmatic problems with the location and management of instructional space on campus were also discussed at these working sessions. There was some uneasiness about the fact that every new building at OSU had classrooms built into it, perhaps resulting in too much diffusion of class space across the campus. It was suggested that the instructional space study take into consideration that the process of learning takes place both in and outside of the classroom, in places like the library, online, and faculty offices. Within the classrooms themselves, moreover, it was proposed that emphasis be placed on flexibility; for example, one suggestion was that furniture could be placed on wheels to the extent possible.

Department concerns were presented, including the possibility that too many courses were being squeezed into undesirable times, such as 7:30 a.m. or 3:30 p.m. The inadequate nature of some

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 32 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study of the classroom equipment was also discussed (e.g., deficient chalkboards) as well as a general unhappiness about the lack of communication between the Registrar’s office and departments.

Future issues were also raised, such as the shift of the academic calendar from the quarter to semester system, and how faculty might potentially be able to request the type of room and equipment they need and to receive their room assignments well in advance of their quarter (or semester) of teaching. Future pedagogical changes were also considered, such as the potential for using Teaching Assistants more often, moving away from big lectures, and the increased use of technology. How the surveying of institutional space should be conducted was also discussed.

In the meeting with the Associate Registrar, it was noted that the Ohio State classroom website is being redesigned and departmental rooms could be assigned centrally. The university is integrating PeopleSoft software in January 2009 for scheduling of courses starting in June 2009, while the Legacy system will continue to be run and used for scheduling in winter and spring 2009.

C. SCHEDULING STAFF OPEN FORUM

On October 14, 2008, scheduling staff at The Ohio State University were provided the opportunity to offer their observations about classrooms on campus.

Most of the issues were centered around specific departmental concerns, with the lack of dedicated space and the inadequate availability of rooms being frequent complaints. There was also some confusion over how to find and interact with the online resources for data on existing classrooms, which was explained by Jack Miner.

Technological problems were also spelled out, including the perception that there is weak or no communication between the Classroom Services units and instructors. For example, staff showed a desire for Classroom Services or the Registrar’s office to give notice to instructor regarding what instructional space they were scheduled to use prior to the start of a course and how it is technologically equipped. This suggestion was adopted and put into place prior to the winter 2009 quarter.

Staff liked the idea of faculty completing an end-of-the-quarter survey for short- and long-term planning and improvements. There were also concerns about the fact that there does not seem to exist definable standards for technology in the classrooms, and the database listing room characteristics was also said not to be up-to-date. By a show of hands, the attendees overwhelmingly voted that equipping rooms with a minimal set of technology resources (i.e., with projector, A/V, and a PC/ Mac) was preferable to equipping fewer rooms with fuller technology.

Furthermore, some of the same concerns that had been brought up in the earlier interviews were again presented here. This included apprehension over the future shift from quarters to semesters, and the worry over whether the university has enough large auditoriums to handle the transition. The perception that classroom are underutilized on Friday was also raised multiple times, and the suggestion that equity in course distribution should be enforced. It was emphasized that classes taken as electives need to be scheduled at convenient times, or students will not enroll in them. It was stressed that having flexible furniture for rearranging rooms was important. III. Interviews, Meetings, and Forums April 2009 33

D. FACULTY OPEN FORUM

In an open forum held on October 14, 2008, The Ohio State University faculty were invited to offer their observations about classrooms on campus. As far the physical spaces of the university, there was interest in whether OSU considers graduate space differently from undergraduate instructional space, especially since it was difficult to recruit graduate students once they see the graduate spaces. Movable furniture was once again cited as a priority.

There was also much discussion over Distance Learning, and whether it can be better supported by the University since departments lacked the resources to provide it.

With regard to technology concerns, faculty noted that Information Technology support at the college and department level does not provide for new technologies or innovative teachings and only focuses on existing software and hardware issues. Some faculty thought it hard to seek solutions to technology.

E. UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT GOVERNMENT FORUM

In a forum held on October 14, 2008, the Undergraduate Student Government at The Ohio State University was asked to offer their observations about classrooms and instructional space on campus.

With regard to the scheduling of classes, some students suggested that because their weekend de facto starts on Thursday, classes on Friday are undesirable. They noted that if the university wanted better classroom utilization on Fridays, it should make sure that General Education Curriculum (GEC) courses are scheduled on those days. They also noted that if a GEC class is outside of their focus, they are not as interested in attending.

Moreover, the students introduced an unofficial attendance policy of OSU, in that unexcused absences can result in a lower course grade. They also thought that attendance should be tracked for laboratories and smaller classes, but it should be left up to the faculty for large lectures.

The students also had a lot to say about the use of technology in their classrooms. Many students stressed that for many professors, technology simply meant using PowerPoint, which is often improperly used less as a tool than as a crutch. In those cases, the students preferred the traditional use of blackboards/whiteboards and engagement from the professor rather than technology. The students also wanted to see WiFi everywhere and movable furniture. They also thought there were not enough informal meeting places on campus for them to socialize and discuss course work.

Furthermore, when it came to selecting classes, students admitted to using websites like “ratemyprofessor.com” to evaluate professors prior to settling on a schedule, and to that end wanted to see courses posted with instructors names listed beforehand when the course catalog is made available. Students also worried that the large lectures made it difficult to get to know their professors, and that office hours were used less than scheduled appointments.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 34 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Finally, when asked whether these observations could be applied to the entire student body despite the fact that this group consisted of higher achieving students, the students said yes.

F. ASSOCIATE DEANS FORUM

On October 15, 2008, Ira Fink, along with Jack Miner and Jason Kaplan of OSU, met with a number of Associate Deans of the university. One concern of the Deans was that pedagogy be linked to facilities, including that the technology needs of courses be considered in scheduling. Whether there was a connection between Classroom Pool and Department classrooms was considered, and therefore whether a push for decentralization should be enacted. To that end, it was suggested that department classrooms be placed under their College control rather than department or central control.

The Deans thought that OSU is below the curve for technology in the classroom, and noted that the faculty who could not figure out the technology in classrooms simply gave up. There was also faculty confusion over whether the laptops they brought to class were compatible with the OSU software, and they liked the idea that there be IT staff in the building. There was also a desire for a phone in every room. Moreover, with regard to students, the Deans wondered to what extent wireless technology was a distraction in the classroom.

There was also discussion over the preference of faculty to have teaching spaces in proximity to their offices, and the suggestion that back-to-back scheduling be examined since faculty cannot get across campus and still have time to set up for class.

The utilization of Fridays were once again brought up, with an interest in seeing it happen for sustainability.

G. FACULTY/SPACE COORDINATOR FORUM

On October 15, 2008, Ira Fink, along with Jack Miner and Jason Kaplan of OSU, met with a number of space and facility coordinators of The Ohio State University. A central concern of the space coordinators was the lack of a technology culture at OSU For example, it was mentioned that there is no centralized resource for new technology, making it difficult for College IT departments to keep up with existing software and hardware issues. In fact the Engineering department must rely on Physics or graduate students for its support. Moreover, there are no funds for future support of classroom technology.

The coordinators thought that centralized classroom management was positive and would like to see data on classroom utilization regularly. The attendees also suggested that conference and office technology be considered as well as classroom technology. III. Interviews, Meetings, and Forums April 2009 35

H. MEETING WITH THE DIGITAL UNION STAFF

The Digital Union is one of four Ohio State units, in addition to the Registrar’s Office, that provides services, primarily technology, to classrooms and to students, faculty, and staff. These four units, shown in Figure III-1, include: Digital Union, Technology Enhanced Learning and Research, Applied Technology Services, and Faculty and TA Development. As shown in Figure III-1, all are sub-units of the Provost’s Office, but each has a separate reporting responsibility.

Figure III-1 Organization Chart for The Ohio State University, Classroom Management Units

Office of Academic Affairs (Executive Vice President & Provost)

University Libraries Chief Information Faculty & TA Office of Enrollment (Director of Libraries) Officer Development (FTAD) Services and (Chief Information (Director) Undergraduate Officer) Education (Vice Provost & Dean)

Digital Union Technology Enhanced Office of Information University Registrar (Director) Learning & Research Technology (TELR)

Applied Technology Services

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on The Ohio State University website.

The Digital Union, a part of the Office of Technology Enhanced Learning and Research (TELR), provides innovative technology and multimedia solutions to Ohio State’s faculty, staff, and students. The Digital Union in particular has researched and helped introduce faculty, staff, and students to such programs as Second Life and podcasts. To what extent the faculty are as ready or receptive as the students to engage technology in the learning process, however, was questioned. With regard to technology and instructional space at OSU, the intention to include the minimum technology in every classroom (e.g., projector, A/V, laptop hookup, WiFi) was voiced.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 36 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

I. MEETING WITH THE OFFICE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (OIT) OPERATIONS STAFF

The Office of Information Technology unit is also one of the four units that provides a number of services related to technology on The Ohio State University campus, also as shown in Figure III-1. In the meetings with representatives from OIT Operations and those involved with technology installation, design, deliveries, and classroom operations, a resistance of some faculty to integrating technology in the classroom was mentioned. For example, the difficulty of receiving meaningful feedback from faculty was presented as a problem.

The idea that all faculty could have computers in the classroom was registered as positive, but there was a concern over the lack of infrastructure and funding to achieve long-term goals of integrating technology. For instance, the lack of available staff was cited (26 rooms per technician to service). One solution that was posited was levying a technology fee. The attendees said they would like to see technology uniformity, standardization, and convenience.

J. MEETINGS WITH COUNCIL ON PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (COPE) AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY

In a meeting held on October 14, 2008, Ira Fink, along with Jason Kaplan and Jack Miner of OSU, met with representatives from the Council on Physical Environment (COPE) as well as faculty from the Department of Chemistry. COPE is a division of the University Senate and proposes and reviews policies and actions regarding projects that affect the academic enterprise and quality of life for the university community.

During this meeting, most of the discussion centered around the Department of Chemistry’s concerns. Further concerns were subsequently addressed by email to Jason Kaplan as well. It was suggested that energy consumption be examined, and sustainability issues addressed.

A major part of the discussion also centered on a desire for equity in the use of classrooms and class labs to be enforced. It was claimed that one department had to move their classes to less ideal times to get a large room, and consequently lost $50,000 in capitation revenue due to the less popular course time. There was also a concern that too many units underutilize Fridays.

As for the practical matters of space, it was observed that there may not be enough classrooms on campus to handle over 200 students, and the technology updates to classrooms was deemed to be poor. There was again a preference for movable furniture in the classrooms, and a genuine concern that laboratory space for teaching is at a premium.

A concern over how the quarter-to-semester conversion would affect instructional space was also raised. III. Interviews, Meetings, and Forums April 2009 37

In a second meeting with COPE, it was observed again that the effects of the conversion to a semester calendar had to be included in the report. There was also concern that the data could be skewed due to the closing of the Student Union. It also emphasized its interest in sustainability, green practices for classes and the overall OSU environment.

K. MEETING WITH THE CLASSROOM READINESS COMMITTEE

The Classroom Readiness Committee was developed out of the Classroom Coordinating Council, a high level committee which includes the Provost, Registrar, and VP. The Committee noted that a large auditorium had not been added to the campus in 25 years, and that flexible equipment in classrooms should be a priority. It also discussed how to reduce distractions to engage students with faculty. It also decided to perform a Post-Occupancy evaluation of classroom facilities.

L. MEETING WITH THE CLASSROOM COMMITTEE OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

The University Senate acknowledged that consumer technology provides distractions for many students in the classroom (iPods, phones, laptops), but that students always have had classroom distractions (daydreaming). The Senate Committee emphasized that instruction needs to be engaging on a personal level since there was the potential for technology to waste students’ time. They were also wary of any ‘one size fits all’ solutions. The Senate did, however, recommend examining CARMEN as an alternative learning source. CARMEN is the University’s online learning management system that is used by instructors, staff, and TAs to create and share materials.

The Senate Committee thought that all buildings should have classrooms so that faculty offices can be within proximity of instructional space. Furthermore, like the students, the Senate thought there were not enough informal meeting spaces on campus.

When it came to scheduling, the Senate Committee thought that the study should examine whether 7:30 a.m. classes should be avoided, and to rather start classes across campus at 8:30 or 9:00 a.m.

The Senate also recommended looking into local high schools since that is where students are coming from and develop expectations with regard to pedagogy and space.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 38 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

M. TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING AND RESEARCH (TELR) AND FACULTY AND TA DEVELOPMENT (FTAD)

The other two units that provide technology services on the campus, Technology Enhanced Learning and Research (TELR) and Faculty and TA Development (FTAD), were not separately interviewed, although staff of these units participated in group meetings to discuss the study. Both are units within the Provost’s Office, as shown in Figure III-1. 4 Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization

Ohio State Pool Classroom Space Data

Classroom Scheduling

Measuring Pool Classroom Use and Utilization

Projecting Additional Pool Classroom Need 40 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Knowlton Hall, Room 250, 213 Stations (Note the left-handed student sitting at a seat with a left-handed tablet arm. All of the seats with left-handed tablet arms are on the left side of this room.) IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 41

IV. SCHEDULED POOL CLASSROOM USE AND UTILIZATION

This section describes the use and utilization of scheduled pool classrooms at The Ohio State University for the autumn quarter 2007. Schedule information, along with room capacity data, was provided by The Ohio State University to Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. (IFA) for conducting a statistical analysis of the data to determine weekly use and utilization of classrooms.

Pool classrooms at Ohio State are defined as classrooms that are centrally assigned, and thus are not in departmental control. These rooms cover the whole range of classroom instructional space in terms of room size and station count. A complete inventory of these pool classroom spaces is shown in Appendix A. Appendix A also identifies those pool classrooms that are technology equipped.

The results of the instructional space use and utilization portion of the study are described in Sections IV, V, and VI that follow. This Section IV centers on the use and utilization of pool classrooms. It includes a recommendation on adding pool classroom space.

A. OHIO STATE POOL CLASSROOM SPACE DATA

Sources of Classroom Space Data

To understand how well classrooms are being used, accurate and comprehensive data is needed. The information and analysis of pool classroom use at Ohio State is based on two sources. The first is the Ohio State campus facilities record of classrooms used to provide baseline data about the classroom inventory. The second source is the campus Registrar’s course record.

The Ohio State facilities room database identifies the type and number of classrooms and their station count. The Registrar’s records are used to compute weekly room use hours (the number of hours per week a room is in use) and the average percentage of student station occupancy (the average percentage the seats are occupied during any given hour). These two records, when taken together, are used to measure classroom utilization.

The Ohio State room database, which provided the baseline data about instructional space, was straightforward and easy to use. The Registrar’s course record was another story. Because it is a homegrown, or internally developed, software, the course record information has many nuances which made developing a working or operational file for purposes of this study difficult and time consuming. Once the course data was recast by IFA into a workable format, the process of tabulating and running the data for analysis was less problematic.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 42 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Pool Classroom Space

Altogether, excluding classroom service space, there are 361 pool (Registrar-scheduled) classrooms, with 20,216 stations, totalling 328,667 assignable square feet devoted to pool classroom (non- laboratory) space at Ohio State, as shown in Table IV-1.

Table IV-1 Distribution of Ohio State Pool Classrooms, Stations, and Square Footage by Building (In Order by Building Number)

Bldg Bldg No. of ASF per Building Name ASF Stations No. Abbr Rooms Station

3 Agricultural Administration Building AA 3 2,569 136 18.9 4 209 West 18th Avenue EA 6 7,932 459 17.3 11 Arps Hall AP 10 6,011 422 14.2 14 Jennings Hall JE 8 8,284 442 18.7 17 Knowlton Hall KN 3 5,898 313 18.8 18 Campbell Hall CM 5 6,655 463 14.4 24 Postle Hall PH 2 3,309 295 11.2 25 Derby Hall DB 10 5,487 266 20.6 26 Caldwell Laboratory CL 14 9,479 556 17.0 30 Denney Hall DE 13 9,735 412 23.6 36 Aviation Building AV 10 5,531 330 16.8 37 Hagerty Hall HH 13 10,398 552 18.8 39 Hayes Hall HA 3 1,395 72 19.4 41 Lazenby Hall LZ 6 5,539 340 16.3 46 Journalism Building JR 10 6,781 408 16.6 53 McPherson Chemical Lab MP 11 12,495 857 14.6 54 Mendenhall Laboratory ML 10 9,210 635 14.5 60 Orton Hall OR 1 1,343 70 19.2 61 Page Hall PA 3 4,368 228 19.2 63 Cockins Hall CH 4 3,047 175 17.4 65 Smith Laboratory SM 11 9,326 748 12.5 66 Plumb Hall PL 1 968 54 17.9 67 Pomerene Hall PO 4 3,564 200 17.8 72 Central Classroom Building CC 32 16,835 1,017 16.6 84 Stillman Hall SH 6 6,566 393 16.7 85 Enarson Hall EN 2 1,096 80 13.7 87 Townshend Hall TO 2 2,165 160 13.5 90 Ramseyer Hall RA 7 7,062 366 19.3 106 Sullivant Hall SU 1 6,065 299 20.3 107 Watts Hall WA 3 1,579 84 18.8 110 Boyd Laboratory BL 3 2,624 192 13.7 144 Psychology Building PS 3 4,798 240 20.0 145 Koffolt Laboratories KL 5 3,788 249 15.2 146 Bolz Hall BO 15 10,064 623 16.2 148 Scott Laboratory SO 14 17,391 782 22.2 149 Hopkins Hall HC 5 4,902 269 18.2 150 Evans Laboratory EL 5 5,557 450 12.3 151 Fontana Laboratories FL 1 645 40 16.1 156 Animal Science Building AS 2 1,746 107 16.3 245 PAES Building PE 4 3,700 120 30.8 251 Schoenbaum Undergrad Program Bldg SB 13 18,595 931 20.0 265 Macquigg Laboratory MQ 6 5,376 379 14.2 IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 43

Table IV-1 (continued) Distribution of Ohio State Pool Classrooms, Stations, and Square Footage by Building (In Order by Building Number)

Bldg Bldg No. of ASF per Building Name ASF Stations No. Abbr Rooms Station

273 Parks Hall PK 6 6,195 518 12.0 274 Hitchcock Hall HI 5 9,938 971 10.2 276 Biological Sciences Building BI 3 2,304 109 21.1 279 Dreese Laboratories DL 8 7,422 456 16.3 280 Baker Systems Engineering BE 13 9,176 523 17.5 293 Cunz Hall CZ 4 2,359 130 18.1 295 Howlett Hall HT 1 1,177 140 8.4 298 Agricultural Engineering Building AE 3 4,538 198 22.9 337 Dulles Hall DU 5 1,968 144 13.7 338 Independence Hall IH 1 7,047 728 9.7 339 University Hall UH 14 9,235 590 15.7 340 Kottman Hall KH 6 6,591 445 14.8 371 Celeste Laboratory of Chemistry CE 2 839 50 16.8

Total Pool Classrooms 55 361 328,667 20,216 16.3

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Pool Classroom Distribution

Of the 55 buildings on the Ohio State campus with pool classroom space, the highest number of classrooms are in: Central Classroom Building (with 32 classrooms); Bolz Hall (with 15 classrooms); Caldwell Laboratory, Scott Laboratory, and University Hall (with 14 classrooms each); and Denney Hall, Hagerty Hall, Schoenbaum Undergraduate Program Building, and Baker Systems Engineering (with 13 classrooms each). These eight buildings have a total of 141 pool classrooms, or 39 percent of all pool classroom space on campus. The 361 identified pool classrooms have a total of 20,216 stations.

As shown in Table IV-1, of the total pool classroom station capacity at Ohio State, 30 percent is contained in seven buildings: Central Classroom Building, Hitchcock, Independence Hall, McPherson Chemical Lab, Schoenbaum Undergraduate Program Building, Scott Laboratory, and Smith Laboratory. These seven buildings also contain 28 percent of the total pool classroom square footage on campus.

Pool Classroom Station Size

Another important inventory item is the number of stations (seats) in an instructional space. The data on number of stations is used to review the distribution of rooms by station (or capacity) and to measure the space per station in terms of square footage per stations. This is done by dividing the number of stations contained in a room into the square footage of the room to determine area (square footage) per station.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 44 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

The size of a classroom, when measured in area per station, is a function of the type of furniture in the room. Lecture halls, with fixed seating and defined aisle ways, take up the least amount of square footage per student station. Movable tablet arm chair classrooms also take up a modest amount of space per station, but more so than lecture halls. Seminar rooms with fixed tables, or even movable tables and loose chairs, take up the most square feet per student station. The size or square footage area of a student station in a classroom is an important measure to know and understand when programming new classroom space or reallocating existing space.

As shown in Table IV-2, pool classrooms on the Ohio State campus had an average of 56.0 stations per room and an average area of 16.3 square feet per station. This low square footage per station and high station count is due to the inclusion of three large auditorium type spaces in the database, one with 356 seats (McPherson Room 1000), one with 640 seats (Hitchcock Room 131), and one with 728 seats (Independence Room 100). These three rooms have an average of 11.4 asf per station, 8.1 asf per station, and 9.7 asf per station, respectively. A further discussion of large lecture halls on campus is contained in Section X in this report.

Table IV-2 Pool Classrooms, Ohio State

Range of Average Range of Total Room Type and No. of Assignable No. of Total ASF per No. of No. of NCES Code Rooms Square Footage Stations ASF Station Stations Stations (ASF) per Room Per Room

Classrooms (110) 361 235 – 7,047 11 – 728 20,216 56.0 328,667 16.3

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Distribution of Ohio State Pool Classrooms by Number of Stations

Classroom station count has considerable importance in the utilization of classrooms and use of faculty resources. If the instructional program and pedagogy allows for large enrollment courses, and if rooms with large seating capacity are available, large enrollment classes are generally offered for introductory or survey type courses. If the rooms to accommodate the large enrollments are not available, a course is divided among smaller rooms, with a replication of the course in smaller sections, and with more faculty resources devoted to teach the course.

The distribution of pool classrooms by the number of stations at Ohio State is shown in Table IV-3. As shown in this table, only four percent (14 classrooms) of all the Ohio State pool classrooms have 19 or fewer stations. Another 22 percent (79 classrooms) have 20 to 29 stations, 20 percent (74 classrooms) have 30 to 39 stations, 25 percent (89 classrooms) have 40 to 49 stations, and 15 percent (55 classrooms) have 50 to 74 stations.

Among larger pool classrooms at Ohio State, five percent (17 classrooms) have 75 to 99 stations, three percent (11 classrooms) contain 100 to 149 stations, two percent (9 classrooms) have 150 to 199 stations, three percent (10 classrooms) have 200 to 299 stations, and one percent have 300 or more stations (one classroom with 356 seats, one with 640 seats, and one with 728 seats). Overall, nearly one-half (46 percent) of the Ohio State pool classrooms have 39 or fewer stations. IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 45

Table IV-3 Pool Classroom Distribution by Station Count, Autumn 2007

Classrooms Stations Classrooms (Percentages)

0 to 9 0 0.0% 10 to 19 14 3.9% 20 to 29 79 21.9% 30 to 39 74 20.5% 40 to 49 89 24.7% 50 to 74 55 15.2% 75 to 99 17 4.7% 100 to 149 11 3.0% 150 to 199 9 2.5% 200 to 299 10 2.8% 300 to 499 1 0.3% 500 or more 2 0.6% TOTAL 361 100.0%

Total Rooms 361 Total Stations 20,216 Stations/Room 56.0 Total Square Footage 328,667 Full-Time Headcount (UG+GR) 46,075 Stations/Full-Time Student 0.44

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Figure IV-1 Pool Classroom Distribution by Station Count, Autumn 2007

100

80

60

40

Number of Rooms 20

0 0 to 9 more 500 or 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 74 75 to 99 100 to 149 150 to 199 200 to 299 300 to 499 Number of Stations

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 46 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Comparison with Other Campuses

For comparison purposes, Table IV-4 describes the distribution of pool classrooms at Ohio State by the number of stations, along with information from five other public universities. As noted earlier and as shown in the table, of the 361 pool classrooms at Ohio State, there is an average of 56.0 stations per room. This is an indication that the Ohio State classrooms are generally large and capable of accommodating medium to large enrollment classes. Among the 940 classrooms in the table at the other five campuses, there is an average of 49.4 stations per room, or about 12 percent smaller than the Ohio State average of 56.0 stations.

Among the other five campuses shown in Table IV-4, the average classroom size varies from 34 stations per room to 66 stations per room. Overall, almost 48 percent of the classrooms have 39 or fewer stations at the five public university campuses, with an average of 49.4 stations per room across all five campuses.

Table IV-4 Ohio State and Five Other Public Campuses, Classroom Distribution by Station Count

A B C Pool Classrooms – Ohio State Classrooms – 5 Public Classroom Stations Number Percentage University Campuses

0 to 9 0 0.0% 4.0% 10 to 19 14 3.9% 11.4% 20 to 29 79 21.9% 12.5% 30 to 39 74 20.5% 19.6% 40 to 49 89 24.7% 20.3% 50 to 74 55 15.2% 20.3% 75 to 99 17 4.7% 4.8% 100 to 149 11 3.0% 2.2% 150 to 199 9 2.5% 2.2% 200 to 299 10 2.8% 2.1% 300 to 499 1 0.3% 0.4% 500 or more 2 0.6% 0.2% TOTAL 361 100.0% 100.0%

Total Rooms 361 940 Total Stations 20,216 46,481 Stations/Room 56.0 49.4 F-T Headcount (UG+GR) 46,075 72,200 Stations/Full-Time Headcount 0.44 0.64 Median Size Classroom 40 to 49 40 to 49

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

As an example of the average distribution of rooms by number of stations (seats) in classrooms, in comparison with Ohio State, data from five campuses described in Table IV-4 shows 15 percent of the rooms at these five campuses have 19 or fewer stations, 13 percent have 20 to 29 stations, 20 percent have 30 to 39 stations, 20 percent have 40 to 49 stations, and 20 percent have 50 to 74 IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 47 stations. Among larger classrooms, there is an average of five percent with 75 to 99 stations and seven percent have 100 or more stations.

As indicated in Table IV-4, the distribution of pool classrooms at Ohio State shows a lower percentage of classrooms (15 percent) that have 50 to 74 stations, compared with 20 percent at five other campuses. At the same time, only four percent of the Ohio State pool classroom inventory has 19 or fewer stations, compared to 15 percent at the five other public campuses.

While there is no right or wrong yardstick by which to judge this data, the pool classroom inventory at Ohio State clearly favors larger classes and class sections than would occur on the five other public university campuses – Georgia Tech, the University of Missouri at Kansas City, the University of North Dakota, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and Virginia Tech, whose data is shown in Table IV-4.

Figure IV-2 Comparison of the Pool Classroom Distribution by Station Count at Ohio State and Five Other Public Campuses

30

25

20 Ohio State 15 Other 10 Campuses

Percentage of Rooms 5

0 0 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 74 75 to 99 100 to 149 150 to 199 200 to 299 300 to 499 500 or more Number of Stations

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Classroom Station Capacity Analysis

Classroom station capacity data illustrates three main points about pool classrooms on the Ohio State campus: first, the largest percentage of rooms, about 46 percent, seat 39 or fewer students, which means that not all rooms are meant to serve large classes; second, there are a relatively large number of rooms (33) on campus that seat 100 or more (about nine percent of all pool classroom space) and will be important to replace should they be lost through conversion to other uses or replacement; and third, the ability to schedule lectures or other assembly activities of 300 or more persons is facilitated by the existence of three large auditoriums, one with 356 stations, one with 640 stations, and one 728 stations. These three rooms are well scheduled, as shown in Table IV-5.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 48 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

These rooms, and the one large lecture hall scheduled by the School of Music, account for about one percent of the entire classroom inventory at The Ohio State University. The need for one or more large lecture hall is considered important by scheduling staff and some faculty in the belief that there are not enough places for large classes on campus.

Table IV-5 Use and Utilization of Three Large Auditoriums

Room ASF per Actual Contact Building ASF Stations Use Utilization No. Station Hours Hours

McPherson Chemical Lab MP 1000 4,051 356 11.4 32 7,967 101.6% 106.0%

Hitchcock Hall HI 131 5,163 640 8.1 32 12,330 101.6% 91.3%

Independence Hall IH 100 7,047 728 9.7 28 10,492 88.9% 68.3%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

While the demand for large rooms is not continuous during the week, there is usually a level of interest in having programs with a sizeable audience and thus a demand for some large rooms.

Station Count per Student Headcount, Classroom Utilization, and Classroom Deficiency

To help gauge classroom efficiency and utilization, IFA developed a measure of station count per student headcount and compared this result to campus classroom utilization. As shown in Table IV-4, the station per full-time headcount student at Ohio State is 0.44. At the five public institutions in the table, the ratio is 0.64 stations per headcount, meaning these other campuses have approximately 31 percent more stations per student than at The Ohio State University.

As a rule of thumb, if a campus classroom station count exceeds one station per student, there is too much classroom space. If a campus had, in inventory, one classroom station for every full-time enrolled student, then every student could be in class at the same time. If this were to happen, all instruction would be complete in a few hours per day, a few days per week, and the classrooms would be empty the remainder of the time.

A measure of classroom station count in the range of 0.70 classroom stations or fewer per full- time daytime enrollment would indicate opportunities for a better allocation of classroom space on a campus. If a campus greatly exceeds the range of 1.0 stations per full-time student, or even 0.70 stations per full-time student, it is possible to reallocate classrooms to other uses, especially if there is a space crunch.

In the case of The Ohio State University, its 0.44 classroom stations per full-time student is an indication of a very tight classroom supply, and generally an indication of the need for additional IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 49 classrooms. However, at Ohio State there is also an additional 0.17 stations per student in departmentally controlled and scheduled classrooms. Added together, this means there are 0.61 classroom stations per student at Ohio State. This indicates two factors: first, a relatively abundant, but still lacking, number of classroom stations per student, and second, an opportunity, through better scheduling, to obtain a higher use and utilization of departmentally controlled classrooms, thus reducing a classroom and classroom station shortage.

B. CLASSROOM SCHEDULING

Classroom Scheduling

Classroom scheduling at most campuses begins with the process of distributing instructional rooms for use in an upcoming term based upon their distribution and use in a prior like term. Today there are proprietary computer algorithm programs available to assist campuses in allocating and scheduling classrooms. At Ohio State, a homegrown classroom scheduling program is used, as well as Resource 25, a proprietary scheduling software. The self-developed Ohio State program was elaborated on in Section II.

Generally, an academic department reviews its prior like term scheduling (including room and building) in comparison to their upcoming course offerings and advises the Registrar of any needed change. The requesting faculty identifies the maximum number of students to be accommodated in the course they are offering, the type of room, and their preference for course time of day and days of the week.

Where there is an apparent need for change of a classroom, the classroom allocation schedule is revised; where there are no changes, the classroom allocation generally stays in place from one semester to the following like semester. And, with it, remains the built-in scheduling inefficiencies based on what can be considered a human desire to travel the shortest distance from office to classroom and to teach at a time and place of one’s choosing.

Room Scheduling Policy

One important policy for a campus to enforce, if it seeks to have efficient use of its classrooms, is that of standard course meetings times. Classes would be expected to start on the hour and extend for 50 minutes at most campuses, or 48 minutes at Ohio State. At Ohio State, the practice of having standard course meeting times is generally well-followed.

Due to the long travel distances between buildings on the Ohio State campus, the class break between classes is 12 minutes, resulting in an average class length time of 48 minutes. Thus, a course that begins at 30 minutes past the hour is over at 18 minutes past the next hour.

Standard course start times at Ohio State are as follows: 8:30 a.m., 9:30 a.m., 10:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 12:30 p.m., 1:30 p.m., 2:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m., 4:30 p.m., and 5:30 p.m.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 50 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Pool Classrooms Without Course Data

Of the identified 361 pool classrooms at The Ohio State University, course data was available for 338 classrooms, or all but 23 of the classrooms. Whether these 23 classrooms were actually used as classrooms is not known. It is possible that they are shown in the facilities record with a classroom code but could be some other room type. This list of 23 classrooms for which no course data was available are shown in Table IV-6. As shown, most of these rooms have alphanumeric room numbers, which made them difficult to identify and compute for the use and utilization analysis.

Table IV-6 Ohio State Pool Classrooms for which Autumn Quarter 2007 Course Data was not Available

Building Room ASF Stations

Smith Laboratory 5024 606 37 Plumb Hall 216 968 54 Scott Laboratory* E0001 2,542 150 Scott Laboratory* E0004 1,676 85 Scott Laboratory* E0024 1,859 85 Scott Laboratory* E0040 1,814 85 Scott Laboratory* E0103 733 24 Scott Laboratory* E0105 754 30 Scott Laboratory* E0125 1,582 72 Scott Laboratory* E0241 633 22 Scott Laboratory* E0245 730 25 Scott Laboratory* N0044 492 18 Scott Laboratory* N0048 1,262 50 Scott Laboratory* N0050 1,175 50 Scott Laboratory* N0054 1,156 50 Scott Laboratory* N0056 983 36 PAES Building* A0103 914 30 PAES Building* A0105 905 30 PAES Building* A0109 1,024 30 PAES Building* A0111 857 30 Biological Sciences Building 668 650 38 Biological Sciences Building 676 592 35 Kottman Hall 112 482 26

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

* Due to a coding difficulty, courses were in fact held for the autumn quarter 2007 but use and utilization information was not computed.

C. MEASURING POOL CLASSROOM USE AND UTILIZATION

Understanding Classroom Utilization

In reality, it is not possible to use classrooms every hour of the day. First, classroom capacity on all campuses, when simply measured by the multiplication of rooms times the number of stations in the IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 51 rooms, times the number of hours available for classroom use, would greatly exceed the demand for instructional space. Second, the use of classrooms on many campuses is a market commodity. Unless the campus is highly restrictive in its scheduling, students and faculty show preferences for the times of day or evening, and days of the week, they want to be in the classroom. When a campus which is experiencing growth has a shortage of classroom space, or simply wants to reallocate classroom space to other uses, a careful look at the utilization and scheduling of existing classrooms becomes necessary and important. Even if classrooms were in use every hour of the day, the impact on space needs on campus would be negligible.

Classroom Use and Classroom Utilization Analysis

The Ohio State classroom data for autumn quarter 2007 was collected by Ohio State and provided to IFA. This record was assembled into a database and merged with the Registrar’s record to gauge both classroom use and classroom utilization.

Classroom use means simply that the room is occupied. This can occur through scheduled instructional use, such as a credit course, or can be unscheduled, such as drop-in study or a meeting. At Ohio State, only the scheduled assignment of classrooms is recorded and was used in this classroom utilization analysis.

Classroom utilization is a measurement of the number of stations occupied in relation to the total number of stations contained in the room.

Classroom utilization is commonly expressed in hours per week a classroom is in use, or in relationship to state required standards of utilization. Utilization data in hours per week pertains only to regularly scheduled class activities in classrooms and class laboratories identified in the Registrar’s record. Other means of assessing utilization apply to offices, libraries, graduate laboratories, or other instructional facilities not subject to assignment on an hourly basis.

Pool Classroom Use

As noted above, classroom use means simply that the room is occupied. The use of classrooms on the Ohio State campus varies by day of the week and hour of the day.

As shown in Table IV-7, the number of pool classrooms in use at 8:00 a.m. averages 7 classrooms per day out of an inventory of 361 classrooms. The use of classrooms increases dramatically and by 9:00 a.m. there are an average of 160 classrooms in use per day. The peak use of classrooms occurs at 11:00 a.m. with an average of 253 classrooms in use each day. On the peak instructional day of Wednesday, 283 of the 361 Ohio State pool classrooms are in scheduled use at 11:00 a.m.

Pool classroom use declines slightly at 12:00 noon with an average of 234 classrooms in use per day at this time and a peak of 266 classrooms at 12:00 noon on Wednesday.

Pool classroom use declines continuously from 1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. when there is an average of 207 classrooms in use. Classroom use then declines more dramatically from an average of 73 classrooms in use at 6:00 p.m. to 13 classrooms in use at 9:00 p.m.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 52 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

After 6:00 p.m., classroom use declines but there is still a substantial number of pool classrooms being scheduled for use throughout the evenings up to 8:00 p.m.. For example, and including the fact that there are few scheduled evening courses at 7:00, 8:00, and 9:00 p.m., there are an average of 64 classrooms in use at 7:00 p.m., 31 at 8:00 p.m., and 13 at 9:00 p.m. When measured by a 4-day week the extra number of classrooms in use in the evening could be 20 percent higher.

Table IV-7 Number of Rooms in Use Simultaneously in Scheduled Pool Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007

Average Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Total Rooms/Hour

8:00 a.m. 9 6 10 6 6 37 7.4

9:00 a.m. 174 159 180 155 130 798 159.6

10:00 a.m. 256 276 270 282 148 1,232 246.4

11:00 a.m. 271 281 283 284 145 1,264 252.8

12:00 noon 253 260 266 262 130 1,171 234.2

1:00 p.m. 244 256 256 253 129 1,138 227.6

2:00 p.m. 252 264 266 259 103 1,144 228.8

3:00 p.m. 220 253 228 250 83 1,034 206.8

4:00 p.m. 182 193 193 192 68 828 165.6

5:00 p.m. 133 133 143 144 24 577 115.4

6:00 p.m. 88 83 102 88 4 365 73.0

7:00 p.m. 79 74 88 78 1 320 64.0

8:00 p.m. 30 45 35 45 -- 155 31.0

9:00 p.m. 7 24 9 23 -- 63 12.6

Total 2,198 2,307 2,329 2,321 971 10,126 2,025.2

21.7% 22.8% 23.0% 22.9% 9.6% 100.0%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Note: If a course meeting is longer than one hour, the room would be counted as being in use for each hour the course spans. Thus, rooms shown are counted as a snapshot in time.

Note: Of the 361 pool classroom inventory, course data was available for 338 rooms. IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 53

Cumulative Pool Classroom Enrollment

Table IV-8 provides indication of the total number of students who are in pool classrooms by hour of the day and day of the week. Consistent with the data in Table IV-7, the peak hours for instruction occur at 10:00 a.m. and continue through 4:00 p.m.; classroom instruction then declines continuously through the end of the day. The single highest peak enrollment during the week occurs on Tuesdays at 11:00 a.m., when more than 11,000 students are in class simultaneously.

Table IV-8 Cumulative Enrollment in Scheduled Pool Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Total Percent

8:00 a.m. 856 201 880 200 722 2,859 0.7%

9:00 a.m. 7,275 6,591 7,460 6,299 5,475 33,100 8.4%

10:00 a.m. 9,462 10,124 9,749 10,297 5,428 45,060 11.5%

11:00 a.m. 10,385 11,013 10,725 10,932 5,854 48,909 12.5%

12:00 noon 9,546 9,980 9,712 9,735 5,419 44,392 11.3%

1:00 p.m. 10,030 10,048 10,306 9,534 6,267 46,185 11.8%

2:00 p.m. 10,118 10,771 10,417 10,500 4,343 46,149 11.8%

3:00 p.m. 8,698 9,251 8,905 9,040 3,708 39,602 10.1%

4:00 p.m. 7,907 7,076 8,300 6,815 3,608 33,706 8.6%

5:00 p.m. 4,539 4,621 4,727 4,891 1,137 19,915 5.1%

6:00 p.m. 3,451 2,828 3,836 2,756 228 13,099 3.3%

7:00 p.m. 2,951 2,806 3,282 2,945 24 12,008 3.1%

8:00 p.m. 746 1,450 915 1,636 -- 4,747 1.2%

9:00 p.m. 172 902 219 909 -- 2,202 0.6%

Total 86,136 87,662 89,433 86,489 42,213 391,933 100.0%

22.0% 22.4% 22.8% 22.1% 10.8% 100.0%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Note: If a course meeting is longer than one hour, the enrollment would be counted in each hour the course spans. Thus, enrollments shown are a snapshot in time.

Note: Of the 20,216 pool classroom station inventory, there are a total of 19,124 available stations.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 54 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Figure IV-3 Number of Rooms in Use Simultaneously in Scheduled Pool Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007

300

250

200 Monday Tuesday 150 Wednesday Thursday 100 Friday Number of Rooms 50

0 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Hour of the Day

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Figure IV-4 Cumulative Enrollment in Scheduled Pool Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007

12,000

10,000

8,000 Monday Tuesday 6,000 Wednesday Thursday 4,000 Friday

2,000 Cumulative Enrollment

0 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Hour of the Day

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University. IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 55

Monday-Wednesday-Friday

Of the 361 pool classroom inventory, course data was available for 338 of the rooms. The uses of these rooms, as identified by simultaneous course enrollment, by the number of classrooms in use, and by the number of stations in classrooms that are committed for use on Monday-Wednesday- Friday, are shown in Table IV-9. The enrollment, classroom, and station counts are shown for the University’s regularly-scheduled time blocks, as identified earlier in Figures I-1 and I-2. For courses, classrooms, and stations in use on Tuesdays and Thursdays, this data is shown in Table IV-10.

Table IV-9 Ohio State Enrollments, Classrooms, and Stations in Active Pool Classrooms by Specified Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Monday-Wednesday-Friday Only

Total Classrooms 338 Total Stations 19,124

Classrooms in Use

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm

Monday 9 174 256 271 253 244 252 220 182 133 88 79 30

Wednesday 10 180 270 283 266 256 266 228 193 143 102 88 35

Friday 6 130 148 145 130 129 103 83 68 24 4 1 0

Average 8 161 225 233 216 210 207 177 148 100 65 56 22

Course Enrollments

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm

Monday 856 7,275 9,462 10,385 9,546 10,030 10,118 8,698 7,907 4,539 3,451 2,951 746

Wednesday 880 7,460 9,749 10,725 9,712 10,306 10,417 8,905 8,300 4,727 3,836 3,282 915

Friday 722 5,475 5,428 5,854 5,419 6,267 4,343 3,708 3,608 1,137 228 24 0

Average 819 6,737 8,213 8,988 8,226 8,868 8,293 7,104 6,605 3,468 2,505 2,086 554

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

As shown in Table IV-9, the number of pool classrooms in use at 8:00 a.m. ranges between 9 rooms on Monday, 10 rooms on Wednesday, and 6 rooms on Friday, out of an inventory of 338 classrooms. The claim that courses are forced to start at 7:30 a.m. is not borne out by the pool classroom data. The use of classrooms increases dramatically and by 9:00 a.m. there are, on average, 161 classrooms in use on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The peak Monday-Wednesday-Friday use

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 56 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study of classrooms occurs at 11:00 a.m., with an average of 233 out of 338 pool classrooms in use, or about 69 percent of pool classrooms.

Pool classroom use on Monday-Wednesday-Friday declines slightly from 12:00 noon through the end of the day, with an average of 216 classrooms in use per day at this time, to 2:00 p.m., with an average of 207 rooms in use. Average classroom use further declines throughout the day from 177 rooms in use at 3:00 p.m., to 100 rooms in use at 5:00 p.m., and to 22 rooms in use at 8:00 p.m. on Monday-Wednesday-Friday.

Tuesday-Thursday

As shown in Table IV-10, on the peak instructional day of Tuesday, 281 of the 338 Ohio State pool classrooms are scheduled and in use at 11:00 a.m.

On Tuesdays and Thursdays, as shown in Table IV-10, classrooms in use remain quite high starting at 10:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m., then declines slightly at 4:00 p.m., and declines rapidly starting at 6:00 p.m.

Table IV-10 Ohio State Enrollments, Classrooms, and Stations in Active Pool Classrooms by Specified Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Tuesday-Thursday Only

Total Classrooms 338 Total Stations 19,124

Classrooms in Use

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm

Tuesday 6 159 276 281 260 256 264 253 193 133 83 74 45

Thursday 6 155 282 284 262 253 259 250 192 144 88 78 45

Average 6 157 279 283 261 255 262 252 193 139 86 76 45

Course Enrollments

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm

Tuesday 201 6,591 10,124 11,013 9,980 10,048 10,771 9,251 7,076 4,621 2,828 2,806 1,450

Thursday 200 6,299 10,297 10,932 9,735 9,534 10,500 9,040 6,815 4,891 2,756 2,945 1,636

Average 201 6,445 10,211 10,973 9,858 9,791 10,636 9,146 6,946 4,756 2,792 2,876 1,543

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 57

Cumulative Classroom Enrollment

Tables IV-9 and IV-10 and Figure IV-4 also indicate the total number of students who are in pool classrooms by hour of the day and day of the week. This data is consistent with the number of classrooms in use. As shown in Table IV-9, the peak hours for Monday-Wednesday-Friday instruction occur at 10:00 a.m. and continue through 4:00 p.m.; classroom instruction declines continuously after 5:00 p.m.

The single highest peak enrollment during the week occurs on Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., when more than 11,000 students are in class; this is followed in terms of peak enrollment on Thursdays at 11:00 a.m., when enrollment is slightly above 10,900 students. Other peak enrollment periods include Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. (10,800 enrollment), Wednesday at 11:00 a.m. (10,700 enrollment), Thursday at 2:00 p.m. (10,500 enrollment), Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. and Monday at 11:00 a.m. (10,400 enrollment), and Wednesday at 1:00 p.m. and Thursday at 10:00 a.m. (10,300 enrollment). Enrollment spikes at 11:00 a.m., declines slightly at the noon hour, and spikes again at 1:00 p.m. before continuously declining through the end of the day.

Students Taking Courses

What is quite interesting about the data in Tables IV-9 and IV-10 is that at peak periods of enrollment, about 24 percent of the total full-time undergraduate and graduate students at Ohio State are in class in pool classrooms. This relatively modest percentage of students in class at a peak hour is an indication that the Ohio State course day is quite spread out, as the data in Tables 9 and 10 illustrate. A byproduct of this evenness in class schedule is that it also likely reduces pre-8:00 a.m. peak hour traffic to campus as well as noon time peak hour meal activity in comparison to campuses where 50 percent or more of students might be in class at peak morning times.

Another interesting result of this analysis is that while peak course enrollments are about 24 percent of total full-time enrollment, the total number of stations in classrooms that are in use often reaches 58 percent of all available stations at peak times.

Pool Classroom Enrollments by Course Size

Not only does instruction vary by days of the week and hours of the day but also by the number of students per course. Table IV-11 shows the distribution of students by course and the cumulative enrollment for courses of a particular size in pool classrooms. Because of the manner by which the course record is kept, a course in this table is counted only once regardless of the number of times the course meets. For example, a course which meets three times per week would be counted just once. Using this course counting mechanism, Table IV-11 provides a relative measure of courses by number of students enrolled, the cumulative course enrollments generated, and the distribution of each.

As shown in Table IV-11, there is a wide distribution of courses by enrollment or course size. For example, there are 209 courses, nearly six percent of the 3,590 pool classroom courses taught, that have enrollment of nine or fewer students. These courses, however, represent only one percent of cumulative course enrollment. Another 18 percent of courses enroll between 10 and 19 students

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 58 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study and 37 percent enroll 20 to 29 students. In effect, more than one-half of the courses at Ohio State have enrollments of 29 or fewer students. Although the pool classroom courses that enroll 29 or fewer students account for 61 percent of courses, they represent only 32 percent of enrollment.

At the upper end of the scale in course enrollments, three percent of the pool classroom courses have enrollments between 100 and 149 students, one percent enroll 150 to 199 students, and another one percent enroll 200 to 299 students. At the highest end of the scale, there are 18 out of 3,590 courses at Ohio State, or less than one percent, that have enrollments of 300 or more students. At the same time, these 18 courses that enroll 300 or more students have a cumulative course enrollment that is only 3,000 students less than the total of the 840 courses that have an enrollment of 19 students or less. Courses with an enrollment of 300 or more account for six percent of cumulative course enrollment.

Table IV-11 Pool Classroom Enrollments by Course Size

Number of Cumulative Courses Percent Percent Students Course Enroll a

1 5 0.1% 5 0.0% 2 to 9 204 5.7% 1,393 1.0% 10 to 19 631 17.6% 9,382 6.8% 20 to 29 1,348 37.5% 32,857 23.9% 30 to 39 526 14.7% 17,784 12.9% 40 to 49 306 8.5% 13,613 9.9% 50 to 74 254 7.1% 15,124 11.0% 75 to 99 92 2.6% 7,941 5.8% 100 to 149 120 3.3% 14,452 10.5% 150 to 199 50 1.4% 8,462 6.2% 200 to 299 36 1.0% 8,549 6.2% 300 to 499 12 0.3% 4,513 3.3% 500 or more 6 0.2% 3,421 2.5% TOTAL 3,590 100.0% 137,496 100.0%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University. a: This column shows cumulative course enrollment, not credit hours.

Based on Table IV-11, Figure IV-5 below summarizes how the number of students generates cumulative course enrollments. In summary, and as shown in Table IV-11, courses that enroll between 20 and 29 students generate nearly 33,000 cumulative course enrollments. Courses that enroll 30 to 49 students generate more than 31,000 cumulative course enrollments. Courses that enroll 50 to 99 students generate more than 23,000 cumulative course enrollments. Courses that enroll 100 to 200 students generate almost 23,000 course enrollments. Courses that enroll 200 or more students (primarily survey and introductory courses) generate another 16,500 cumulative course enrollments. The 18 courses taught in the three pool classrooms with a capacity of 300 students or more generate a total of 7,934 cumulative course enrollments; this is nearly the same as generated in the 631 cumulative course enrollments in pool classroom courses with only 10 to 19 students (9,382 cumulative enrollments). IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 59

Figure IV-5 Pool Classroom Enrollments by Course Size

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000 Cumulative Course Enrollment

0 1 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 200 200 or more Number of Student Enrollment

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Enrollment by Size of Classroom

As a general rule, course enrollments are smaller than the number of stations in the rooms to which the courses are assigned. While there is a desire to match classroom sizes to course enrollments, classroom capacity needs to exceed enrollment so that a course can take more students if needed, so that space is available to provide extra room during exams, and, in some instances, so that the furniture can be reconfigured. In general, a room that has 20 percent more stations than the expected enrollment is a good planning target.

Based on this criteria, a review of the pool (general assignment) classrooms shows, on balance, that the course enrollments do not match the capacity of the pool-scheduled rooms to which they are assigned. Table IV-12 shows course enrollments in increments of ten (10–19, 20–29, 30–39, etc.) in comparison to the size of the room (measured in stations) in which the course was taught. The mismatch is evident, regardless of the size of the course enrollment.

For example, among the 617 pool classroom courses that enrolled 30 to 39 students, less than 70 percent were in rooms that held 30 to 49 students, 12 percent in rooms that held 50 to 59 students, and 18 percent were in rooms that had a student capacity ranging from 60 to 200 or more.

The same is true for courses of any size. Of the 1,751 pool-scheduled general assignment courses with an enrollment of 20 to 29 students, 40 percent were conducted in rooms that had a capacity of 40 students or more.

Part of the reason for this is that the Scheduling Office is aware of how courses are assigned and works diligently to be fair and equitable.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 60 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 33 250+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 21 35 200-249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15 44 13 74 150-199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 81 30 14 176 100-149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 4 24 11 50

90-99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 8 3 9 22 53 80-89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 4 1 12 19 20 68 70-79 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 6 15 23 13 18 21 103 60-69 0 0 0 0 2 6 8 0 1 Table IV-12 Table 40 74 32 20 15 198 50-59 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 90 44 31 19 17 11 120 340 40-49 0 0 0 6 1 0 2 98 77 48 14 21 19 331 617 30-39 Classroom Use, Enrollments by Station Count, Use, Enrollments Classroom 0 0 6 3 6 5 0 1 1 71 30 479 572 577 20-29 1,751 0 9 3 1 2 0 0 0 1 69 28 433 233 152 931 10-19 Pool Classrooms by Size of Room and Size of Enrollments, Autumn 2007 by Size of Room and Enrollments, Pool Classrooms 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 52 65 39 <10 115 281 Size of Course Enrollment Enrollments that are shown above the stepped line are scheduled into classrooms that have approximately desirable. Those shown below the stepped line are scheduled to rooms whose seating capacity is 30 percent or more than course enrollment. 20 to 30 percent greater seating capacity than enrollment. This is No. of Stations per Room <10 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-149 150-199 200-249 250+ Total Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Note: IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 61

Average Enrollments by Course Per Day of the Week

Accompanying the fluctuations in enrollments by hour of day and day of the week, which illustrated the peak classroom days to be Tuesday and Thursday, the average enrollment of courses in classrooms also varies by day of the week. As illustrated in Table IV-13, the largest average enrollment in classroom courses occurs on Fridays with an average of nearly 45 students per course. On Mondays, the average enrollment is 41 students per course. The lowest enrollment day is on Thursday with an average of less than 37 students per course. It is interesting that there are less courses on Friday, but the average enrollment is highest on that day.

Table IV-13 Average Enrollment per Course by Day of the Week

Enrollment/ Day Courses Enrollments Course

Monday 1,542 63,330 41.1

Tuesday 1,591 59,351 37.3

Wednesday 1,626 65,578 40.3

Thursday 1,602 58,649 36.6

Friday 830 37,267 44.9

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Patterns of Pool Classroom Use by Days of the Week

As noted above, instruction varies by day of the week, by hour of day or evening, and by average enrollment per course. One other major variation in instruction also occurs in the frequency with which courses meet throughout the week. The traditional pattern of the one-hour course meeting three times per week, or a one-and-a-half-hour course meeting two days a week is changing on many campuses, including Ohio State.

As shown in Table IV-14, only 12 percent of Ohio State courses are scheduled to meet on a regular Monday-Wednesday-Friday pattern. Another 30 percent meet on a Tuesday-Thursday pattern. What also is shown in Table IV-14 is that approximately one out of three (30 percent) courses at Ohio State meet only one day per week. It is possible that these one-day-per week classroom uses are for individual study.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 62 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Table IV-14 Pool Classrooms – Use by Days of the Week

Meetings Average Total Total Total Days of the Week Percent per Percent Enrollment Courses Meetings Enrollment Week per Course

Monday Only 158 4.4% 1 158 4,520 3.3% 28.6 Tuesday Only 251 7.0% 1 251 7,930 5.8% 31.6 Wednesday Only 232 6.5% 1 232 6,262 4.6% 27.0 Thursday Only 273 7.6% 1 273 7,624 5.5% 27.9 Friday Only 163 4.5% 1 163 5,787 4.2% 35.5 O 1 0.0% 1 1 440 0.3% 440.0 Sub-Total, One Day 1,078 30.0% 1,078 32,563 23.7% 30.2

Mon-Tues 4 0.1% 2 8 57 0.0% 14.3 Mon-Wed 711 19.8% 2 1,422 26,800 19.5% 37.7 Mon-Thurs 1 0.0% 2 2 9 0.0% 9.0 Mon-Fri 8 0.2% 2 16 192 0.1% 24.0 Tues-Wed 2 0.1% 2 4 89 0.1% 44.5 Tues-Thurs 1,080 30.1% 2 2,160 44,725 32.5% 41.4 Tues-Fri 4 0.1% 2 8 63 0.0% 15.8 Wed-Thurs 1 0.0% 2 2 72 0.1% 72.0 Wed-Fri 18 0.5% 2 36 518 0.4% 28.8 Thurs-Fri 4 0.1% 2 8 51 0.0% 12.8 Sub-Total, Two Days 1,833 51.1% 3,666 72,576 52.8% 39.6

Mon-Tues-Wed 11 0.3% 3 33 508 0.4% 46.2 Mon-Tues-Thurs 1 0.0% 3 3 15 0.0% 15.0 Mon-Wed-Thurs 2 0.1% 3 6 33 0.0% 16.5 Mon-Wed-Fri 418 11.6% 3 1,254 25,497 18.5% 61.0 Tues-Wed-Thurs 2 0.1% 3 6 26 0.0% 13.0 Tues-Thurs-Fri 10 0.3% 3 30 380 0.3% 38.0 Wed-Thurs-Fri 3 0.1% 3 9 46 0.0% 15.3 Sub-Total, Three Days 447 12.5% 1,341 26,505 19.3% 59.3

Mon-Tues-Wed-Thurs 30 0.8% 4 120 1,119 0.8% 37.3 Mon-Tues-Wed-Fri 7 0.2% 4 28 184 0.1% 26.3 Mon-Tues-Thurs-Fri 6 0.2% 4 24 125 0.1% 20.8 Mon-Wed-Thurs-Fri 6 0.2% 4 24 294 0.2% 49.0 Tues-Wed-Thurs-Fri 4 0.1% 4 16 153 0.1% 38.3 Sub-Total, Four Days 53 1.5% 212 1,875 1.4% 35.4

Mon-Tues-Wed-Thurs-Fri 179 5.0% 5 895 3,977 2.9% 22.2 Sub-Total, Five Days 179 5.0% 895 3,977 2.9% 22.2

TOTAL/AVERAGE 3,590 100.0% 7,192 137,496 100.0% 38.3

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Classroom Start and End Times

Ohio State classroom use is scheduled for 48- or 118-minute increments on Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. through 8:30 p.m. Throughout every day of the week the break time from the ending of one course to the beginning of the next is 12 minutes.

This standard start and end time creates thirteen 48-minute class periods Monday through Friday. IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 63

Classroom Utilization

Classroom utilization is assessed using two factors: the number of hours per week a classroom is occupied with classes, and the percentage of seats occupied during those hours. The factors must be considered together in judging classroom adequacy because difficulties in classroom scheduling arise from limitations on time and fit. If classrooms are generally so ample in size that problems are not encountered in finding rooms large enough for classes, the scheduling difficulties fall totally on time. Conversely, if room sizes are tightly tailored, alternatives in scheduling are restricted such that it is more difficult to accomplish a high utilization in weekly class hours per room.

For planning purposes, at The Ohio State University, classroom utilization rates of 31.5 weekly class hours per room, or 70.0 percent use over a 45-hour, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., nine hours, five days, with 67 percent station (seat) occupancy are used as the guideline.

Table IV-15 below summarizes the classroom utilization factors at Ohio State.

Table IV-15 Summary of Classroom Utilization Factors

% Stations Room Type Hours Available Hours Utilized % Hours Utilized Occupied

Classroom (110) 45 hours/week 31.5 hours/week 70.0 percent 67.0 percent

Calculating How Well Classroom Space Is Utilized

The calculation of classroom utilization is based on three factors:

• The number of hours the room can be assigned for use each week;

• The number of stations (seats) the room can accommodate; and,

• The number of stations actually in use each hour of the week.

On most campuses, full use of classrooms would see them scheduled for use 66.7 percent of the time from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (nine hours per day), from Monday through Friday (five days per week). This would mean there could be as much as 45 hours of scheduled classroom use per room per week, with 30 hours per week per room the norm. At Ohio State, classrooms are expected to be in use 70 percent of the time from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, resulting in a 45-hour week, with classrooms expected to be utilized an average of 31.5 hours per week.

At the same time, higher education recognizes it is not possible to schedule every instructional room for every hour of the day. It is necessary to allow for lower periods of classroom use, such as in late afternoons, or when the size or shape of a room creates a room that by its configuration may be in low demand. Furthermore, today’s “smart classrooms,” with technology equipment built-in, are extremely popular and heavily scheduled, while aging classrooms with blackboards only are losing favor; this too is affecting scheduling and utilization.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 64 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Classroom Utilization Model

To compute actual classroom use and utilization for Ohio State, IFA used a classroom utilization model based on data from a Registrar’s office for autumn 2007 as input. To test utilization, IFA ran the data using the utilization and use factors noted above. The first factor was a scheduled use of rooms of 70.0 percent, or classrooms in use 31.5 hours of a 45-hour week (Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.). The second factor was a scheduled 67 percent occupancy of the stations in the room, i.e., 67 percent occupancy of all stations in a room means the classroom spaces are fully utilized. This is accounted for by measuring classroom contact hours in comparison to classroom capacity. The model was as follows:

1. Registrar’s Class Record: Each Ohio State Registrar-scheduled course was entered into an IFA relational database from the Registrar’s electronic record for autumn 2007, including Building Name and Number, Building Room Number, Course Number, Days of the Week of Course Meeting, Course Starting and Ending Time and Course Enrollment. This data was merged with data from the Ohio State Facilities Room Database to provide Assignable Square Footage and Room Station Capacity.

2. 24-Hour Clock: In the running of the data, the digital file of starting and ending class times was converted to a 24-hour clock to calculate the elapsed time of each class and adding 12 minutes to account for class change times, or in other words, to make a 48-minute class equal one hour and a 78-minute class equal to one and one-half hours.

3. Classroom Capacity: This data file was sorted to consolidate and aggregate or sum the information by individual classroom by day of the week. This allowed a computation to be made of the number of hours per day a classroom was scheduled for use in comparison to the number of hours a room was available for use.

4. Classroom Utilization: Next, a computation of utilization was made by IFA to compare classroom station utilization (course enrollments or contact hours) to classroom capacity. IFA divided the student contact hours by the total classroom hours available to arrive at classroom utilization.

Pool Classroom Daytime Use and Utilization

The IFA computer models ran the Ohio State classroom data for one time period only: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. This daytime period had use and utilization factors applied. For use and utilization purposes, a 70 percent use, 5 days per week, and 67 percent station utilization were used as target values.

The results of the Ohio State pool classroom utilization analysis for the Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. class week using the 70 percent use and 67 percent utilization factors are summarized below in Table IV-16.

If the instructional space at Ohio State had been fully utilized with the classrooms fully scheduled for use 70 percent of the time, and with the stations in each room occupied 67 percent on average, the Room Utilization capacity would have been 100 percent. IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 65

As shown in Table IV-16, the 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. classroom use for the entire Ohio State campus was 87.7 percent. Also, as shown in Table IV-16, the 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. classroom utilization for the entire Ohio State campus was 90.3 percent.

What is important to note about the data in this table is that the hours a classroom is in use is not the only indication of utilization. As Table IV-16 shows, it is the actual weekly student contact hours in comparison to the available student contact hours that is the basis for the measurement of classroom utilization. The available student contact hours have been factored to account for guidelines noted above on the percentage of hours for classroom use and on the percentage of station use within a room.

Table IV-16 Pool Classroom Utilization Summary, Ohio State, Autumn 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

A B C D E F G I Total Actual Total Adjusted Total Weekly Room Times No. of Room Stations Classroom Hours Student Capacity of Use Rooms a Use Available Hours in Use Contact % Util. Available Hours

8:30 a.m. – 361 20,216 10,647 9,340 364,593 87.7% 90.3% 5:30 p.m.

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. a: Note: Course data was only available for 338 of the 361 Ohio State pool classrooms.

Classroom Use and Utilization Tabulations

Tabulations of data on classroom utilization, by room, by building, by course and by day of week are identified below. These three sets of computed data, dated December 5, 2008, are as follows:

Pool Classroom Use and Utilization Analysis 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 792 pages

Department Classroom Use and Utilization Analysis 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 287 pages

Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization Analysis 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 392 pages

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 66 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Summary of Pool Classroom Use and Utilization by Building

A summary of the pool classroom use and utilization by building for each of the 55 Ohio State buildings with classrooms is shown in Table IV-17.

Table IV-17 Pool Classroom Use and Utilization, Ohio State, Autumn 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Pool Classroom Space ASF/ Actual Contact Util- Building Rooms ASF Stations Use a Notes Station Hours Hours ization b

Agricultural Administration Building AA 3 2,569 136 18.9 56.5 1,237.0 59.8% 43.1%

209 West Eighteen Avenue EA 6 7,932 459 17.3 174.0 12,556.5 92.1% 129.6%

Arps Hall AP 10 6,011 422 14.2 243.0 7,666.5 77.1% 86.1%

Jennings Hall JE 8 8,284 442 18.7 207.5 8,737.5 82.3% 93.7%

Knowlton Hall KN 3 5,898 313 18.8 94.5 5,872.0 100.0% 88.9%

Campbell Hall CM 5 6,655 463 14.4 139.0 8,327.0 88.3% 85.2%

Postle Hall PH 2 3,309 295 11.2 54.0 5,728.0 85.7% 92.0%

Derby Hall DB 10 5,487 266 20.6 224.8 4,373.0 71.4% 77.9%

Caldwell Lab CL 14 9,479 556 17.0 382.0 9,952.5 86.6% 84.8%

Denney Hall DE 13 9,735 412 23.6 429.5 10,200.5 104.9% 117.3%

Aviation Building AV 10 5,531 330 16.8 241.0 5,062.0 76.5% 72.7%

Hagerty Hall HH 13 10,398 552 18.8 445.5 12,941.0 108.8% 111.1%

Hayes Hall HA 3 1,395 72 19.4 55.0 690.0 58.2% 45.4%

Lazenby Hall LZ 6 5,539 340 16.3 157.3 7,732.0 83.2% 107.8% IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 67

Pool Classroom Space ASF/ Actual Contact Util- Building Rooms ASF Stations Use a Notes Station Hours Hours ization b

Journalism Building JR 10 6,781 408 16.6 264.0 8,487.0 83.8% 98.6%

McPherson Chemical Lab MP 11 12,495 857 14.6 377.0 19,998.0 108.8% 110.6%

Mendenhall Laboratory ML 10 9,210 635 14.5 305.5 12,245.0 97.0% 91.4%

Orton Hall OR 1 1,343 70 19.2 32.5 1,463.5 103.2% 99.1%

Page Hall PA 3 4,368 228 19.2 89.5 5,290.5 94.7% 110.0%

Cockins Hall CH 4 3,047 175 17.4 106.5 3,239.5 84.5% 87.7%

Smith Laboratory SM 10 8,720 711 12.3 254.0 12,883.0 80.6% 85.9% *1 room

Plumb Hall PL *1 room

Pomerene Hall PO 4 3,564 200 17.8 80.5 2,698.0 63.9% 63.9%

Central Classroom Building CC 32 16,835 1,017 16.6 929.0 19,418.0 92.2% 90.5%

Stillman Hall SH 6 6,566 393 16.7 192.0 9,363.5 101.6% 112.9%

Enarson Hall EN 2 1,096 80 13.7 51.5 1,087.5 81.8% 64.4%

Townshend Hall TO 2 2,165 160 13.5 64.5 4,263.5 102.4% 126.3%

Ramseyer Hall RA 7 7,062 366 19.3 204.0 7,758.0 92.5% 100.4%

Sullivant Hall SU 1 6,065 299 20.3 23.0 1,754.0 73.0% 27.8%

Watts Hall WA 3 1,579 84 18.8 76.5 1,201.5 81.0% 67.8%

Boyd Laboratory BL 3 2,624 192 13.7 93.0 4,004.0 98.4% 98.8%

Psychology Building PS 3 4,798 240 20.0 105.0 5,924.0 111.1% 117.0%

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 68 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Pool Classroom Space ASF/ Actual Contact Util- Building Rooms ASF Stations Use a Notes Station Hours Hours ization b

Koffolt Laboratories KL 5 3,788 249 15.2 130.0 4,653.0 82.5% 88.5%

Bolz Hall BO 15 10,064 623 16.2 441.0 12,268.0 93.3% 93.3%

Scott Laboratory SO **14 rooms

Hopkins Hall HC 5 4,902 269 18.2 119.0 3,980.0 75.6% 70.1%

Evans Laboratory EL 5 5,557 450 12.3 138.5 7,952.0 57.9% 83.7%

Fontana Laboratories FL 1 645 40 16.1 22.0 620.0 69.8% 73.4%

Animal Science Building AS 2 1,746 107 16.3 58.5 1,421.0 92.9% 62.9%

PAES Building PE *4 rooms

Schoenbaum Undergraduate Program Building SB 13 18,595 931 20.0 422.5 22,693.0 103.2% 115.5%

MacQuigg Laboratory MQ 6 5,376 379 14.2 149.5 6,092.0 73.1% 76.2%

Parks Hall PK 6 6,195 518 12.0 143.0 9,533.0 75.7% 87.2%

Hitchcock Hall HI 5 9,938 971 10.2 156.0 19,247.0 99.1% 93.9%

Biological Sciences Building BI 1 1,062 36 29.5 30.0 442.0 95.2% 58.2% *2 rooms

Dreese Laboratories DL 8 7,422 456 16.3 232.5 9,568.5 92.3% 99.4%

Baker Systems Engineering BE 13 9,176 523 17.5 341.5 9,194.5 83.4% 83.3%

Cunz Hall CZ 4 2,359 130 18.1 66.0 1,544.5 52.4% 56.3%

Howlett Hall HT 1 1,177 140 8.4 22.5 1,966.5 71.4% 66.6%

Agricultural Engineering Building AE 3 4,538 198 22.9 59.0 1,996.0 62.4% 47.8% IV. Scheduled Pool Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 69

Pool Classroom Space ASF/ Actual Contact Util- Building Rooms ASF Stations Use a Notes Station Hours Hours ization b

Dulles Hall DU 5 1,968 144 13.7 126.5 2,453.0 80.3% 80.7%

Independence Hall IH 1 7,047 728 9.7 28.0 10,492.0 88.9% 68.3%

University Hall UH 14 9,235 590 15.7 375.0 11,813.5 85.0% 94.9%

Kottman Hall KH 5 6,109 419 14.6 88.0 3,682.0 55.9% 41.6% *1 room

Celeste Laboratory of Chemistry CE 2 839 50 16.8 39.0 827.0 61.9% 78.4%

TOTAL 338 304,278 19,124 15.9 9,340 364,593 87.7% 90.3%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Note: Final data. Data run DB:E:\ohio4.08c.fm

* No courses are shown in the course schedule for some rooms in this building.

** Scott Laboratory: Due to a coding difficulty, use and utilization information was not computed a: Classroom Use: Room use is computed based on a 45-hour week, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Full room use is based on the room being scheduled for use 70 percent of the 45-hour week, or 31.5 hours per week. b: Classroom Utilization: Station utilization is based upon the expectation that 67 percent of the stations in a room in use would be occupied during a scheduled course time.

D. PROJECTING ADDITIONAL POOL CLASSROOM NEED

Demand for Additional Classrooms

The demand for additional classrooms on a university campus is generally predicated upon an increase in enrollment, or upon data and information that shows existing classrooms are overscheduled or overutilized. The enrollment at The Ohio State University is not expected to change appreciably. And, as noted in this section, pool classroom room use indicates that there is still available schedulable classroom space. Likewise, the room capacity percentage utilization also indicates there is seating capacity available. While none of these indicators point to increasing pool classroom space, there are other factors to consider.

For example, one other measure to gauge the amount of and need for classroom space is the station count per full-time student. A benchmark measure for broadly estimating classroom capacity on a campus would be that there should be up to 0.70 stations per full-time student. Using this measure, The Ohio State University currently has 0.44 pool classroom stations per full-time student. As shown in the next section on departmental classrooms, there is an additional 0.17 classroom

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 70 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study stations per full-time student in departmentally-controlled classrooms. Taken together, The Ohio State University has a total of 0.61 schedulable classroom stations per full-time student.

Should Ohio State Increase its Pool Classrooms?

The question then arises: Should The Ohio State University increase its pool classroom capacity? Based on the station count per full-time student, the answer is yes. Adding additional pool classrooms, however, should be part of a reorganization of how classrooms and classroom spaces are allocated at The Ohio State University.

Overall, up to 2,000 new, additional pool classroom stations should be added to the inventory. These classroom stations should include, as noted later in this report, one additional large lecture hall, as well as additional classrooms of varying sizes that mirror the current distribution of classrooms on The Ohio State University campus.

The reasons for adding pool classrooms are multiple: First, it will ensure that new classrooms are available so that existing classrooms can, if necessary, be taken out of the classroom stock or temporarily removed during periods of renovation. Second, it will provide the opportunity for the creation of an additional central classroom facility that would both employ the latest in classroom technology and also provide flexible classrooms that can be easily reconfigured to match changes in classroom instructional pedagogy. Third, adding pool classroom seats would be part of a strategy to place more of the scheduled classroom use in central control, rather than in individual department control.

Because adding these seats will take a number of years, and can be accomplished only as new building projects come online, increasing the pool classroom station count is not a matter of urgency, but rather a matter of long-term classroom planning.

Since the current mix or distribution of pool classrooms provides an inventory that is consistent with course enrollments, the mix or distribution of the additional rooms or spaces should mirror the current inventory. The one exception is the need for one additional large lecture hall, which should become part of the increase in pool classroom supply. 5 Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization

Ohio State Department Classroom Space Data

Classroom Scheduling

Measuring Department Classroom Use and Utilization 72 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Hitchcock Hall, Room 031X, 123 Stations V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 73

V. SCHEDULED DEPARTMENT CLASSROOM USE AND UTILIZATION

This section describes the use and utilization of department classrooms at The Ohio State University for the autumn quarter 2007. Schedule information, along with room capacity data, was provided by The Ohio State University to Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. (IFA) for conducting a statistical analysis of the data to determine weekly use and utilization of classrooms.

The results of the instructional space use and utilization portion of the study are described in Sections IV, V, and VI. This Section V centers on the use and utilization of department classrooms. A complete inventory of these departmentally-scheduled classrooms is shown in Appendix B.

Department classrooms at Ohio State are defined as classrooms that are departmentally assigned, and thus are not centrally controlled. These rooms cover a wide range of classroom instructional space in terms of room size and station count.

A. OHIO STATE DEPARTMENT CLASSROOM SPACE DATA

Sources of Classroom Space Data

The information and analysis of department classroom use at Ohio State is based on two sources. The first is the Ohio State campus facilities record of classrooms used to provide baseline data about the classroom inventory. The second source is the campus Registrar’s course record.

The Ohio State facilities room database identifies the type and number of classrooms and their station count. The Registrar’s records are used to compute weekly room use hours (the number of hours per week a room is in use) and the average percentage of student station occupancy (the average percentage the seats are occupied during any given hour). These two records, when taken together, are used to measure classroom utilization.

Department Classroom Space

Altogether, excluding classroom service space, there is 149,266 assignable square feet devoted to department classroom (non-laboratory) space at Ohio State, as shown in Table V-1. As noted in Section IV, there is a total of 328,667 assignable square feet in pool classroom space at Ohio State. These two groups of classroom space together total 477,933 assignable square feet. Thus, departmentally-controlled and scheduled classrooms represent 31 percent of all classroom space on campus.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 74 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Department Classroom Distribution

Of the 48 buildings on the Ohio State campus with departmentally-scheduled classroom space, the highest number of classrooms are in: Drinko Hall (with 11 classrooms); Atwell Hall and Graves Hall (with 9 classrooms each); the Veterinary Hospital (with 8 classrooms); and Gerlach Graduate Programs Building (with 7 classrooms). There are also buildings that have few department classrooms, including 12 buildings that have only one department classroom, 14 buildings that have two, and seven that have three. The 146 identified department classrooms have a total of 7,964 stations, or an average of 55 stations each. By way of comparison, the pool classrooms have an average of 56 stations each.

As shown in Table V-1, of the total department classroom station capacity at Ohio State, 51 percent is contained in eight buildings: Atwell Hall, Drinko Hall, Gerlach Graduate Programs Building, Hughes Hall, Meiling Hall, Newton Hall, Postle Hall, and the Veterinary Hospital. These eight buildings also contain 46 percent of the total department classroom square footage on campus.

Table V-1 Distribution of Ohio State Department Classrooms, Stations, and Square Footage by Building (In Order by Building Number)

Bldg Bldg No. of ASF per Building Name ASF Stations No. Abbr Rooms Station

1 Bricker Hall BK 1 771 30 25.7 11 Arps Hall AP 4 2,174 100 21.7 17 Knowlton Hall KN 4 2,301 115 20.0 18 Campbell Hall CM 5 4,477 258 17.4 24 Postle Hall PH 4 9,320 594 15.7 25 Derby Hall DB 4 2,585 126 20.5 27 Haskett Hall HK 3 2,978 100 29.8 30 Denney Hall DE 1 402 22 18.3 37 Hagerty Hall HH 3 1,754 81 21.7 38 Hamilton Hall HM 2 3,387 216 15.7 41 Lazenby Hall LZ 1 391 18 21.7 42 Hughes Hall HU 2 6,188 462 13.4 46 Journalism Building JR 1 1,180 50 23.6 49 Drinko Hall DI 11 13,953 840 16.6 53 McPherson Chemical Lab MP 1 1,392 68 20.5 56 Converse Hall CV 4 3,518 144 24.4 59 Fry Hall FR 2 3,129 180 17.4 61 Page Hall PA 1 526 20 26.3 64 Parker Food Science and Technology FS 2 1,638 120 13.7 84 Stillman Hall SH 1 288 14 20.6 90 Ramseyer Hall RA 1 746 34 21.9 106 Sullivant Hall SU 2 1,014 50 20.3 113 Davis Heart & Lung Research Institute HR 3 4,363 299 14.6 136 Veterinary Medicine Academic Bldg 2 5,958 285 20.9 144 Psychology Building PS 3 1,231 48 25.6 146 Bolz Hall BO 2 1,403 70 20.0 149 Hopkins Hall HC 3 2,138 64 33.4 176 Starling Loving Hall SL 3 2,937 129 22.8 V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 75

Table V-1 (continued) Distribution of Ohio State Department Classrooms, Stations, and Square Footage by Building (In Order by Building Number)

Bldg Bldg No. of ASF per Building Name ASF Stations No. Abbr Rooms Station

245 PAES Building PE 4 3,143 153 20.5 250 Gerlach Graduate Programs Building GE 7 10,782 450 24.0 251 Schoenbaum Undergrad Program Bldg SB 2 1,694 75 22.6 259 Hale Hall HL 2 1,382 82 16.9 273 Parks Hall PK 2 1,488 85 17.5 275 Newton Hall NH 5 6,046 410 14.7 276 Biological Sciences Building BI 2 1,129 84 13.4 277 Graves Hall GR 9 8,547 279 30.6 281 Meiling Hall ME 2 9,232 508 18.2 282 Galbreath Equine Center 1 360 24 15.0 295 Howlett Hall HT 2 1,680 70 24.0 296 Drake Performance and Event Center DR 3 1,063 61 17.4 299 Veterinary Hospital VE 8 6,715 402 16.7 306 Atwell Hall AH 9 6,261 390 16.1 309 Pressey Hall PR 2 1,224 75 16.3 337 Dulles Hall DU 1 602 40 15.1 339 University Hall UH 3 1,331 75 17.7 340 Kottman Hall KH 4 2,983 110 27.1 373 1100 Kinnear Road KI 1 976 30 32.5 959 Kuhn Honors and Scholars House HN 1 486 24 20.3

Total Department Classrooms 48 146 149,266 7,964 18.7

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Department Classroom Station Size

Another important inventory item is the number of stations (seats) in an instructional space. The data on number of stations is used to review the distribution of rooms by station (or capacity) and to measure the space per station in terms of square footage per stations. This is done by dividing the number of stations contained in a room into the square footage of the room to determine area (square footage) per station.

The size of a classroom, when measured in area per station, is a function of the type of furniture in the room. Lecture halls, with fixed seating and defined aisle ways, take up the least amount of square footage per student station. Movable tablet arm chair classrooms also take up a modest amount of space per station, but more so than lecture halls. Seminar rooms with fixed tables, or even movable tables and loose chairs, take up the most square feet per student station. The size or square footage area of a student station in a classroom is an important measure to know and understand when programming new classroom space or reallocating existing space.

As shown in Table V-2, department classrooms on the Ohio State campus had an average of 54.5 stations per room and an average area of 18.7 square feet per station. This average square footage per station and high station count is due to the inclusion of four large departmentally-controlled auditorium type spaces in the database, two with 254 seats each (Meiling Hall 112 and Meiling

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 76 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Hall 160), one with 283 seats (Veterinary Hospital 1067), and one with 382 seats (Hughes Hall 100). These four rooms have an average of 18.2 asf per station, 18.2 asf per station, 15.7 asf per station, and 12.5 asf per station, respectively.

Table V-2 Department Classrooms, Ohio State

Range of Average Range of Total Room Type and No. of Assignable No. of Total ASF per No. of No. of NCES Code Rooms Square Footage Stations ASF Station Stations Stations (ASF) per Room Per Room

Classrooms (110) 146 131 – 4,780 6 – 382 7,964 54.5 149,266 18.7

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Distribution of Ohio State Department Classrooms by Number of Stations

Classroom station count has considerable importance in the utilization of classrooms and use of faculty resources. If the instructional program and pedagogy allows for large enrollment courses, and if rooms with large seating capacity are available, large enrollment classes are generally offered for introductory or survey type courses. If the rooms to accommodate the large enrollments are not available, a course is divided among smaller rooms, with a replication of the course in smaller sections, and with more faculty resources devoted to teach the course.

The distribution of department classrooms by the number of stations at Ohio State is shown in Table V-3. As shown in this table, 12 percent (18 classrooms) of all the Ohio State department classrooms have 19 or fewer stations. Another 22 percent (32 classrooms) have 20 to 29 stations, 17 percent (25 classrooms) have 30 to 39 stations, 15 percent (22 classrooms) have 40 to 49 stations, and 16 percent (23 classrooms) have 50 to 74 stations.

Among larger department classrooms at Ohio State, six percent (9 classrooms) have 75 to 99 stations, four percent (6 classrooms) contain 100 to 149 stations, three percent (4 classrooms) have 150 to 199 stations, four percent (6 classrooms) have 200 to 299 stations, and one percent have 300 or more stations (one classroom with 382 seats).

Overall, more than one-half (51 percent) of the Ohio State department classrooms have 39 or fewer stations. By comparison, there are few small pool classrooms. Of the department classroom inventory, 12 percent have 19 or fewer stations, whereas only four percent of the pool classrooms have 19 or fewer stations. On average, the median department classrooms have 30 to 39 stations and the median pool classrooms have 40 to 49 stations. V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 77

Table V-3 Department Classroom Distribution by Station Count, Autumn 2007

Classrooms Stations Classrooms (Percentages)

0 to 9 3 2.1% 10 to 19 15 10.3% 20 to 29 32 21.8% 30 to 39 25 17.1% 40 to 49 22 15.1% 50 to 74 23 15.8% 75 to 99 9 6.2% 100 to 149 6 4.1% 150 to 199 4 2.7% 200 to 299 6 4.1% 300 or more 1 0.7% TOTAL 146 100.0%

Total Rooms 146 Total Stations 7,964 Stations/Room 54.5 Total Square Footage 149,266 Full-Time Headcount (UG+GR) 46,075 Stations/Full-Time Student 0.17

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Figure V-1 Department Classroom Distribution by Station Count, Autumn 2007

40

30

20

10 Number of Rooms

0 0 to 9 more 300 or 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 74 75 to 99 100 to 149 150 to 199 200 to 299 Number of Stations

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 78 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Comparison with Other Campuses

For comparison purposes, Table V-4 describes the distribution of department classrooms at Ohio State by the number of stations, along with information from five other public universities. These five campuses are: Georgia Tech, the University of Missouri at Kansas City, the University of North Dakota, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and Virginia Tech. As noted earlier and as shown in the table, of the 146 department classrooms at Ohio State, there is an average of 54.5 stations per room. This is an indication that the Ohio State classrooms are generally large and capable of accommodating medium to large enrollment classes. Among the 940 classrooms in the table at the other five campuses, there is an average of 49.4 stations per room, or about nine percent smaller than the Ohio State average of 54.5 stations.

Among the other five campuses shown in Table V-4, the average classroom size varies from 34 stations per room to 66 stations per room. Overall, almost 48 percent of the classrooms have 39 or fewer stations at the five public university campuses, with an average of 49.4 stations per room across all five campuses.

Table V-4 Ohio State and Five Other Public Campuses, Classroom Distribution by Station Count

A B C Department Classrooms – Classrooms – 5 Public Classroom Stations Ohio State University Campuses Number Percentage

0 to 9 3 2.1% 4.0% 10 to 19 15 10.3% 11.4% 20 to 29 32 21.8% 12.5% 30 to 39 25 17.1% 19.6% 40 to 49 22 15.1% 20.3% 50 to 74 23 15.8% 20.3% 75 to 99 9 6.2% 4.8% 100 to 149 6 4.1% 2.2% 150 to 199 4 2.7% 2.2% 200 to 299 6 4.1% 2.1% 300 to 499 1 0.7% 0.4% 500 or more 0 0.0% 0.2% TOTAL 146 100.0% 100.0%

Total Rooms 146 940 Total Stations 7,964 46,481 Stations/Room 54.5 49.4 F-T Headcount (UG+GR) 46,075 72,200 Stations/Full-Time Headcount 0.17 0.64 Median Size Classroom 30 to 39 40 to 49

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 79

As an example of the average distribution of rooms by number of stations (seats) in classrooms, in comparison with Ohio State, data from five campuses described in Table V-4 shows 15 percent of the rooms at these five campuses have 19 or fewer stations, 13 percent have 20 to 29 stations, 20 percent have 30 to 39 stations, 20 percent have 40 to 49 stations, and 20 percent have 50 to 74 stations. Among larger classrooms, there is an average of five percent with 75 to 99 stations and seven percent have 100 or more stations. (Note: The data on classrooms at the other five institutions is for all classrooms on campus, while the data in this section is for department classrooms only.)

As indicated in Table V-4, the distribution of department classrooms at Ohio State shows a lower percentage of classrooms (16 percent) that have 50 to 74 stations, compared with 20 percent at five other campuses. At the same time, 12 percent of the Ohio State department classroom inventory has 19 or fewer stations, compared to 15 percent at the five other public campuses.

While there is no standard yardstick by which to judge this data, the department classroom inventory at Ohio State clearly favors larger classes and class sections than would occur on the five other public university campuses, whose data is shown in Table V-4.

Figure V-2 Comparison of the Department Classroom Distribution by Station Count at Ohio State and Five Other Public Campuses

30

25

20 Ohio State 15 5 Other 10 Campuses

Percentage of Rooms 5

0 0 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 74 75 to 99 100 to 149 150 to 199 200 to 299 300 to 499 500 or more Number of Stations

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Classroom Station Capacity Analysis

Classroom station capacity data illustrates three main points about department classrooms on the Ohio State campus: first, the largest percentage of rooms, about 51 percent, seat 39 or fewer students, which means about one-half of the rooms are meant to serve small classes and one-half serve larger classes; second, there are a relatively large number of department classrooms (17) on

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 80 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study campus that seat 100 or more (about 12 percent of all department classroom space) that will be important to replace should they be lost through conversion to other uses or replacement; and third, the relative ease to find a room to stage lectures or other assembly activities of 200 or more persons (which averaged five percent of the Ohio State department classroom inventory) is facilitated by the existence of four large auditoriums, two with 254 stations, one with 283 stations, and one 382 stations. This contradicts the perception of some scheduling staff and faculty that there are not enough places for large classes on campus. Nonetheless, these four rooms are not well scheduled for use, as shown in Table V-5.

Table V-5 Use and Utilization of Four Large Auditoriums

Room ASF per Actual Contact Building ASF Stations Use Utilization No. Station Hours Hours

Meiling Hall ME 112 4,616 254 18.2 10 2,680 31.8% 50.0% ME 160 4,616 254 18.2 5 662 14.3% 12.3%

Veterinary Hospital VE 1067 4,452 283 15.7 There were no scheduled courses in Autumn 2007.

Hughes Hall HU 100 4,780 382 12.5 22 1,769 69.8% 21.9%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

While the demand for large rooms is not continuous during the week, there is usually a level of interest in having programs with a sizeable audience and thus a demand for some large rooms.

Station Count per Student Headcount, Classroom Utilization, and Classroom Deficiency

To help gauge classroom efficiency and utilization, IFA developed a measure of station count per student headcount and compared this result to campus classroom utilization. As shown in Table V-4, the station per full-time headcount student at Ohio State is 0.17. The 361 pool classrooms have an average of 0.44 stations per headcount student. Together, the pool and department classrooms result in an average of 0.61 stations per headcount student. At the five public institutions in the table, the ratio is an average 0.64 stations per headcount, meaning these other campuses overall have approximately five percent more stations per student than at The Ohio State University.

As a rule of thumb, if a campus classroom station count exceeds one station per student, there is too much classroom space. If a campus had, in inventory, one classroom station for every full-time enrolled student, then every student could be in class at the same time. If this were to happen, all instruction would be complete in a few hours per day, a few days per week, and the classrooms would be empty the remainder of the time. V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 81

A measure of classroom station count in the range of 0.70 classroom stations or fewer per full- time daytime enrollment would indicate opportunities for a better allocation of classroom space on a campus. If a campus greatly exceeds the range of 1.0 stations per full-time student, or even 0.70 stations per full-time student, it is possible to reallocate classrooms to other uses, especially if there is a space crunch.

B. CLASSROOM SCHEDULING

Classroom Scheduling

Classroom scheduling at most campuses begins with the process of distributing instructional rooms for use in an upcoming term based upon their distribution and use in a prior like term. Today there are proprietary computer algorithm programs available to assist campuses in allocating and scheduling classrooms. At Ohio State, a homegrown classroom scheduling program has been used. This program was elaborated on in Section II.

Generally, an academic department reviews its prior like term scheduling (including room and building) in comparison to their upcoming course offerings and advises the Registrar of any needed change. The requesting faculty identifies the maximum number of students to be accommodated in the course they are offering, the type of room, and their preference for course time of day and days of the week. For departmentally-controlled classrooms, these scheduling measures are bypassed. The allocation of the classrooms to departmental instructional needs is handled internally, department by department, often with limited choices of rooms, except for their proximity to the department space.

In both the department and pool classrooms, where there is an apparent need for change of a classroom, the classroom allocation schedule is revised; where there are no changes, the classroom allocation generally stays in place from one quarter to the following like quarter. And, with it, remains the built-in scheduling inefficiencies based on what can be considered a human desire to travel the shortest distance from office to classroom and to teach at a time and place of one’s choosing.

Room Scheduling Policy

One important policy for a campus to enforce, if it seeks to have efficient use of its classrooms, is that of standard course meetings times. Classes would be expected to start on the hour and extend for 50 minutes at most campuses, or 48 minutes at Ohio State. At Ohio State, the practice of having standard course meeting times is generally well-followed, both in department and pool assigned classrooms.

Due to the long travel distances between buildings on the Ohio State campus, the class break between classes is 12 minutes, resulting in an average class length time of 48 minutes. Thus, a course that begins at 30 minutes past the hour is over at 18 minutes past the next hour.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 82 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Standard course start times at Ohio State are as follows: 8:30 a.m., 9:30 a.m., 10:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 12:30 p.m., 1:30 p.m., 2:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m., 4:30 p.m., and 5:30 p.m.

Department Classrooms Without Course Data

Of the identified 146 department classrooms at The Ohio State University, course data was available for 121 classrooms, or all but 25 of the classrooms. Whether these 25 classrooms which lack enrollment data were actually used for classroom instruction in Autumn 2007 is not known, but it is unlikely. It is possible that they are shown in the facilities record with a classroom code but could be some other room type. This list of 25 unused department classrooms in Autumn 2007 for which no course data was available is shown in Table V-6.

Table V-6 Ohio State Department Classrooms for which Autumn Quarter 2007 Course Data was not Available

Building Room ASF Stations

Davis Heart & Lung Research Institute 159 650 29 Veterinary Medicine Academic Bldg 100 2,987 145 Veterinary Medicine Academic Bldg 170 2,971 140 Starling Loving Hall* M0008 894 44 Starling Loving Hall* M0010 494 24 Starling Loving Hall* M0100 1,549 61 PAES Building* A0006 435 22 PAES Building* A0021 351 14 PAES Building* A0145 1,351 67 PAES Building* A0151 1,006 50 Biological Sciences Building 609 650 44 Biological Sciences Building 684 479 40 Graves Hall 1120 811 27 Graves Hall 1140 840 27 Graves Hall 1185 813 24 Galbreath Equine Center 2429 360 24 Howlett Hall* 153 536 20 Veterinary Hospital 5E 347 15 Veterinary Hospital 5L 155 6 Veterinary Hospital 5N 139 6 Veterinary Hospital 5P 131 6 Veterinary Hospital 21 471 40 Veterinary Hospital 1067 4,452 283 Veterinary Hospital 1103 452 10 Veterinary Hospital 1147 568 36

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

* Due to a coding difficulty, courses were in fact held for the autumn quarter 2007 but use and utilization information was not computed. V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 83

C. MEASURING DEPARTMENT CLASSROOM USE AND UTILIZATION

Understanding Classroom Utilization

In reality, it is not possible to use classrooms every hour of the day. First, classroom capacity on all campuses, when simply measured by the multiplication of rooms times the number of stations in the rooms, times the number of hours available for classroom use, would greatly exceed the demand for instructional space. Second, the use of classrooms on many campuses is a market commodity. Unless the campus is highly restrictive in its scheduling, students and faculty show preferences for the times of day or evening, and days of the week, they want to be in the classroom. When a campus which is experiencing growth has a shortage of classroom space, or simply wants to reallocate classroom space to other uses, a careful look at the utilization and scheduling of existing classrooms becomes necessary and important. Even if classrooms were in use every hour of the day, the impact on space needs on campus would be negligible.

Classroom Use and Classroom Utilization Analysis

The Ohio State classroom data for autumn quarter 2007 was collected by Ohio State and provided to IFA. This record was assembled into a database and merged with the Registrar’s record to gauge both classroom use and classroom utilization.

Classroom use means simply that the room is occupied. This can occur through scheduled instructional use, such as a credit course, or can be unscheduled, such as drop-in study or a meeting. At Ohio State, only the scheduled assignment of classrooms is recorded and was used in this classroom utilization analysis.

Classroom utilization is a measurement of the number of stations occupied in relation to the total number of stations contained in the room.

Classroom utilization is commonly expressed in hours per week a classroom is in use, or in relationship to state required standards of utilization. Utilization data in hours per week pertains only to regularly scheduled class activities in classrooms and class laboratories identified in the Registrar’s record. Other means of assessing utilization apply to offices, libraries, graduate laboratories, or other instructional facilities not subject to assignment on an hourly basis.

Department Classroom Use

As noted above, classroom use means simply that the room is occupied. The use of classrooms on the Ohio State campus varies by day of the week and hour of the day.

As shown in Table V-7, the number of department classrooms in use at 8:00 a.m. averages 4 classrooms per day out of an inventory of 146 classrooms. The use of classrooms then increases dramatically and by 9:00 a.m. there are an average of 33 classrooms in use per day, or about one-quarter of the available departmentally-scheduled rooms. By 11:00 a.m. there is an average of 48 rooms in use, and then the peak use of department classrooms occurs at 2:00 p.m., with an average of 50 classrooms in use each day. Use then declines to 48 rooms in use at 3:00 p.m.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 84 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

The peak instructional time is Tuesday at 2:00 p.m., when 62 of the 146 Ohio State department classrooms are in scheduled use.

Average department classroom use declines continuously from 3:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m., when there are 26 classrooms in use. Classroom use then declines more dramatically from an average of 18 classrooms in use at 6:00 p.m. to 7 classrooms in use at 9:00 p.m.

Table V-7 Number of Rooms in Use Simultaneously in Scheduled Department Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007

Average Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Total Rooms/Hour

8:00 a.m. 3 6 2 7 2 20 4.0

9:00 a.m. 38 35 35 31 28 167 33.4

10:00 a.m. 48 46 45 44 25 208 41.6

11:00 a.m. 52 56 51 51 30 240 48.0

12:00 noon 40 35 38 33 26 172 34.4

1:00 p.m. 34 37 33 38 22 164 32.8

2:00 p.m. 55 62 53 53 27 250 50.0

3:00 p.m. 58 55 56 43 28 240 48.0

4:00 p.m. 38 43 38 36 16 171 34.2

5:00 p.m. 33 35 32 25 5 130 26.0

6:00 p.m. 26 23 25 17 1 92 18.4

7:00 p.m. 15 16 19 13 2 65 13.0

8:00 p.m. 10 13 11 10 2 46 9.2

9:00 p.m. 7 11 8 7 2 35 7.0

Total 457 473 446 408 216 2,000 400.0

22.9% 23.7% 22.3% 20.4% 10.8% 100.0%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Note: If a course meeting is longer than one hour, the room would be counted as being in use for each hour the course spans. Thus, rooms shown are counted as a snapshot in time.

Note: Of the 146 department classroom inventory, course data was available for 121 rooms. V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 85

After 6:00 p.m., despite the fact that classroom use declines, there are still a few department classrooms being scheduled for use throughout the evenings up to 8:00 p.m. Including the few scheduled evening courses at 7:00, 8:00, and 9:00 p.m., there are an average of 13 classrooms in use at 7:00 p.m., 9 at 8:00 p.m., and 7 at 9:00 p.m.

At no time during the day were there more than 46percent of departmentally-scheduled classrooms in scheduled use.

Less Use from Noon to 2:00 p.m.

One important anomaly occurs in the scheduling of departmentally-controlled classrooms, and that is the decline in scheduled use during the period from noon to 2:00 p.m., when fewer than one-quarter of these rooms are scheduled for use. Since this is a prime time of day for pool classroom scheduling with nearly two-thirds on average in use, adding the excess space capacity of these unused department classrooms to the Registrar’s schedule will greatly increase scheduling opportunities during this part of the class day.

Figure V-3 Number of Rooms in Use Simultaneously in Scheduled Department Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007

70

60

50 Monday 40 Tuesday Wednesday 30 Thursday Friday 20 Number of Rooms 10

0 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Hour of the Day

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Cumulative Department Classroom Enrollment

Table V-8 provides indication of the total number of students who are in department classrooms by hour of the day and day of the week. Consistent with the data in Table V-7, the peak hours for instruction occur at 11:00 a.m., decline from noon to 2:00 p.m., and then increase at 2:00 p.m. through 3:00 p.m.; classroom instruction then declines continuously through the end of the day.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 86 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

The single highest peak enrollment during the week occurs on Mondays at 11:00 a.m., when nearly 2,100 students are in departmentally-scheduled classrooms.

Table V-8 Cumulative Enrollment in Scheduled Department Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Total Percent

8:00 a.m. 110 152 82 166 76 586 1.0%

9:00 a.m. 1,272 1,309 1,310 1,087 896 5,874 9.7%

10:00 a.m. 1,568 1,192 1,262 1,188 758 5,968 9.8%

11:00 a.m. 2,058 1,395 1,675 1,394 929 7,451 12.3%

12:00 noon 1,176 865 903 899 667 4,510 7.4%

1:00 p.m. 1,155 1,113 968 1,184 896 5,316 8.7%

2:00 p.m. 1,619 1,928 1,643 1,775 755 7,720 12.7%

3:00 p.m. 1,936 1,882 2,039 1,590 980 8,427 13.9%

4:00 p.m. 1,014 1,101 1,096 960 350 4,521 7.4%

5:00 p.m. 882 650 686 631 100 2,949 4.9%

6:00 p.m. 726 595 648 610 13 2,592 4.3%

7:00 p.m. 432 514 568 509 35 2,058 3.4%

8:00 p.m. 264 464 337 449 35 1,549 2.5%

9:00 p.m. 179 418 223 339 82 1,241 2.0%

Total 14,391 13,578 13,440 12,781 6,572 60,762 100.0%

23.7% 22.3% 22.1% 21.0% 10.8% 100.0%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Note: If a course meeting is longer than one hour, the enrollment would be counted in each hour the course spans. Thus, enrollments shown are a snapshot in time.

Note: Of the 7,964 pool classroom station inventory, there are a total of 6,760 stations in rooms scheduled for use. V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 87

Figure V-4 Cumulative Enrollment in Scheduled Department Classrooms by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007

2,500

2,000 Monday 1,500 Tuesday Wednesday 1,000 Thursday Friday 500 Cumulative Enrollment

0 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Hour of the Day

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Monday-Wednesday-Friday

Of the 146 department classroom inventory, course data was available for 121 of the rooms. The uses of these rooms, as identified by simultaneous course enrollment, by the number of classrooms in use, and by the number of stations in classrooms that are committed for use on Monday-Wednesday- Friday, are shown in Table V-9. The enrollment, classroom, and station counts are shown for the University’s regularly-scheduled time blocks, as identified earlier in Figures I-1 and I-2. For courses, classrooms, and stations in use on Tuesdays and Thursdays, this data is shown in Table V-10.

As shown in Table V-9, the number of department classrooms in use at 8:00 a.m. ranges between three rooms on Monday and two rooms on Wednesday and Friday, out of an inventory of 121 classrooms. The claim that courses are forced to start at 7:30 a.m. is not borne out by the department classroom data. The use of classrooms increases substantially and by 9:00 a.m. there are, on average, 34 out of the 121 department classrooms in use on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The peak Monday-Wednesday-Friday use of departmentally-controlled classrooms occurs at 3:00 p.m., with an average of 47 out of 121 department classrooms in use, or about 39 percent of department classrooms.

Department classroom use on Monday-Wednesday-Friday declines slightly from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. before peaking at 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. Average classroom use further declines throughout the day from 31 rooms in use at 4:00 p.m., to 17 rooms in use at 6:00 p.m., and to 8 rooms in use at 8:00 p.m. on Monday-Wednesday-Friday.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 88 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Table V-9 Ohio State Enrollments, Classrooms, and Stations in Active Department Classrooms by Specified Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Monday-Wednesday-Friday Only

Total Departmentally-Controlled Classrooms 121 Total Stations 6,760

Classrooms in Use

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm

Monday 3 38 48 52 40 34 55 58 38 33 26 15 10

Wednesday 2 35 45 51 38 33 53 56 38 32 25 19 11

Friday 2 28 25 30 26 22 27 28 16 5 1 2 2

Average 2 34 39 44 35 30 45 47 31 23 17 12 8

Course Enrollments

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm

Monday 110 1,272 1,568 2,058 1,176 1,155 1,619 1,936 1,014 882 726 432 264

Wednesday 82 1,310 1,262 1,675 903 968 1,643 2,039 1,096 686 648 568 337

Friday 76 896 758 929 667 896 755 980 350 100 13 35 35

Average 89 1,159 1,196 1,554 915 1,006 1,339 1,652 820 556 462 345 212

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Tuesday-Thursday

As shown in Table V-10, on the peak instructional day of Tuesday, 62 of the 121 Ohio State department classrooms are scheduled and in use at 2:00 p.m.

On Tuesdays and Thursdays, as shown in Table V-10, classrooms in use peak at 11:00 a.m., decline through 1:00 p.m., peak again at 2:00 p.m., then decline slightly through 4:00 p.m., and decline rapidly starting at 5:00 p.m. This dip from noon to 2:00 p.m. could be overcome by allowing central scheduling of these rooms during this time, thus allowing more flexibility in overall classroom scheduling at Ohio State. V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 89

Table V-10 Ohio State Enrollments, Classrooms, and Stations in Active Department Classrooms by Specified Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Tuesday-Thursday Only

Total Departmentally-Controlled Classrooms 121 Total Stations 6,760

Classrooms in Use

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm

Tuesday 6 35 46 56 35 37 62 55 43 35 23 16 13

Thursday 7 31 44 51 33 38 53 43 36 25 17 13 10

Average 7 33 45 54 34 38 58 49 40 30 20 15 12

Course Enrollments

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm

Tuesday 152 1,309 1,192 1,395 865 1,113 1,928 1,882 1,101 650 595 514 464

Thursday 166 1,087 1,188 1,394 899 1,184 1,775 1,590 960 631 610 509 449

Average 159 1,198 1,190 1,395 882 1,149 1,852 1,736 1,031 641 603 512 457

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Cumulative Classroom Enrollment

Tables V-9 and V-10 and Figure V-4 also indicate the total number of students who are in department classrooms by hour of the day and day of the week. This data is consistent with the number of classrooms in use. As shown in Table V-9, the peak hours for Monday-Wednesday-Friday instruction occur at 9:00 a.m. and continue through 3:00 p.m.; classroom instruction declines continuously after 4:00 p.m.

The single highest peak enrollment during the week occurs in departmentally-scheduled classrooms on Monday at 11:00 a.m., when almost 2,100 students are in class; this is followed in terms of peak enrollment on Wednesday at 3:00 p.m., when enrollment is slightly above 2,000 students. Other peak enrollment periods include Monday at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday at 2:00 p.m., and Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. (with 1,900 enrollment at each time period), Thursday at 2:00 p.m. (1,800 enrollment), Wednesday at 11:00 a.m. (1,700 enrollment), and Monday at 10:00 a.m., Monday at 2:00 p.m., Wednesday at 2:00 p.m., and Thursday at 3:00 p.m. (1,600 enrollment). Enrollment spikes at 11:00 a.m., declines slightly through 1:00 p.m., and spikes again at 3:00 p.m. before continuously declining through the end of the day.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 90 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Students Taking Courses

What is quite interesting about the data in Tables V-9 and V-10 is that at peak periods of enrollment, only four percent of the total full-time undergraduate and graduate students at Ohio State are in class in department classrooms. Even when this relatively modest percentage of students in departmentally-scheduled classes at a peak hour is added to the same data from pool classrooms, it provides an indication that the Ohio State course day is quite spread out, as the data in Tables 9 and 10 illustrate. A byproduct of this evenness in class schedule is that it also likely reduces pre- 8:00 a.m. peak hour traffic to campus as well as noon time peak hour meal activity in comparison to campuses where 50 percent or more of students might be in class at peak morning times.

Another interesting result of this analysis is that while peak course enrollments are about four percent of total full-time enrollment, the total number of stations in classrooms that are in use often reaches 30 percent of all available departmentally-scheduled classroom stations at peak times.

Department Classroom Enrollments by Course Size

Not only does instruction vary by days of the week and hours of the day, but also by the number of students per course. Table V-11 shows the distribution of students by course and the cumulative enrollment for courses of a particular size in department classrooms. Because of the manner by which the course record is kept, a course in this table is counted only once regardless of the number of times the course meets. For example, a course which meets three times per week would be counted just once. Using this course counting mechanism, Table V-11 provides a relative measure of courses by number of students enrolled, the cumulative course enrollments generated, and the distribution of each. As shown in Tables V-11 and V-14, there were a total of 730 courses taught in departmentally-scheduled classrooms in Autumn 2007.

As shown in Table V-11, there is a wide distribution of courses by enrollment or course size. For example, there are 118 courses, or about 16 percent of the 730 department classroom courses taught, that have enrollment of nine or fewer students. These courses represent only three percent of cumulative course enrollment. Another 27 percent of courses enroll between 10 and 19 students and 19 percent enroll 20 to 29 students. In effect, almost two-thirds (62 percent) of the departmentally-scheduled classroom courses at Ohio State have enrollments of 29 or fewer students. Although the department classroom courses that enroll 29 or fewer students account for 62 percent of courses, they represent only 30 percent of enrollment.

At the upper end of the scale in course enrollments, two percent of the department classroom courses have enrollments between 100 and 149 students, one percent enroll 150 to 199 students, and another one percent enroll 200 to 299 students. At the same time, these 19 courses that enroll 100 or more students have a cumulative course enrollment that is only 650 students less than the total of the 314 courses that have an enrollment of 19 students or less. Courses with an enrollment of 100 or more account for 13 percent of cumulative course enrollment in departmentally-scheduled classrooms. V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 91

Table V-11 Department Classroom Enrollments by Course Size

Number of Cumulative Courses Percent Percent Students Course Enroll a

1 2 0.3% 2 0.0% 2 to 9 116 15.9% 779 3.4% 10 to 19 196 26.8% 2,787 12.2% 20 to 29 140 19.2% 3,341 14.6% 30 to 39 93 12.7% 3,129 13.7% 40 to 49 37 5.1% 1,611 7.1% 50 to 74 112 15.3% 6,978 30.6% 75 to 99 15 2.1% 1,266 5.5% 100 to 149 11 1.5% 1,234 5.4% 150 to 199 4 0.5% 669 2.9% 200 to 299 4 0.5% 1,021 4.5% 300 or more 0 0.0% 0 0.0% TOTAL 730 100.0% 22,817 100.0%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University. a: This column shows cumulative course enrollment, not credit hours.

Based on Table V-11, Figure V-5 below summarizes how the number of students generates cumulative course enrollments. In summary, and as shown in Table V-11, departmentally-scheduled courses that enroll between 1 to 19 students generate nearly 3,600 cumulative course enrollments. Courses that enroll 20 and 29 students generate more than 3,300 cumulative course enrollments. Courses that enroll 30 to 49 students generate more than 4,700 cumulative course enrollments. Courses that enroll 50 to 99 students generate more than 8,200 cumulative course enrollments. Courses that enroll 100 or more students (primarily survey and introductory courses) generate another 2,900 cumulative course enrollments. The four courses taught in the four department classrooms with a capacity of 200 students or more generate a total of about 1,000 cumulative course enrollments; this is nearly the same as generated in the 118 cumulative course enrollments in department classroom courses with only 1 to 9 students (about 800 cumulative enrollments).

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 92 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Figure V-5 Department Classroom Enrollments by Course Size

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000 Cumulative Course Enrollment

0 1 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 49 50 to 99 100 or more Number of Student Enrollment

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Enrollment by Size of Classroom

As a general rule, course enrollments are smaller than the number of stations in the rooms to which the courses are assigned. While there is a desire to match classroom sizes to course enrollments, classroom capacity needs to exceed enrollment so that a course can take more students if needed, so that space is available to provide extra room during exams, and, in some instances, so that the furniture can be reconfigured. In general, a room that has 20 percent more stations than the expected enrollment is a good planning target.

Based on this criteria, a review of the departmentally-scheduled classrooms shows, on balance, that the course enrollments do not match the capacity of the departmentally-controlled rooms to which they are assigned. Table V-12 shows course enrollments in increments of ten (10–19, 20–29, 30–39, etc.) in comparison to the size of the room (measured in stations) in which the course was taught. The mismatch is evident, regardless of the size of the course enrollment.

For example, among the 117 departmentally-scheduled courses that enrolled 30 to 39 students, less than 40 percent were in rooms that held 30 to 49 students, while more than 55 percent were in rooms that had a student capacity ranging from 50 to 200 or more.

The same is true for courses of any size. Of the 152 departmentally-scheduled courses with an enrollment of 20 to 29 students, nearly 45 percent were conducted in rooms that had a capacity of 40 students or more. V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 250+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 200-249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 5 150-199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 4 2 16 100-149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

90-99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 3 11 80-89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 12 10 34 70-79 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 0 0 15 27 18 69 60-69 Table V-12 Table 0 0 0 3 5 1 0 1 6 2 0 1 10 13 42 50-59 0 0 0 0 8 2 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 24 46 40-49 0 1 3 7 0 1 9 5 2 0 11 37 17 24 117 30-39 Classroom Use, Enrollments by Station Count, Use, Enrollments Classroom 0 4 2 3 0 2 1 0 1 34 46 30 17 12 152 20-29 0 4 6 1 3 0 0 32 74 57 30 13 14 10 244 10-19 0 8 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 Department Classrooms by Size of Room and Size of Enrollments, Autumn 2007 by Size of Room and Enrollments, Department Classrooms 18 36 34 19 10 <10 131 Size of Course Enrollment Enrollments that are shown above the stepped line are scheduled into classrooms that have approximately desirable. Those shown below the stepped line are scheduled to rooms whose seating capacity is 30 percent or more than course enrollment. 20 to 30 percent greater seating capacity than enrollment. This is No. of Stations per Room <10 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-149 150-199 200-249 250+ Total Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Note:

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 94 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Part of the reason for this is that an individual department which has classrooms it controls and schedules has fewer options than the general classroom pool, which contains 361 rooms. Thus, a departmentally-scheduled class is assigned to whatever room the department controls, regardless of enrollment.

As a result, in addition to the lower use and utilization of departmentally-scheduled classrooms, there is a surplus of seating capacity. A more optimal system of matching enrollments to classrooms, such as a central scheduling system, would eliminate much of this excess.

Average Enrollments by Course Per Day of the Week

Accompanying the fluctuations in enrollments by hour of day and day of the week, which illustrated the peak classroom days to be Tuesday and Thursday, the average enrollment of courses in departmentally-scheduled classrooms also varies by day of the week. As illustrated in Table V-13, the largest average enrollment in these classroom courses occurs on Fridays with an average of nearly 35 students per course. On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, the average enrollment is 34 students per course. The lowest enrollment day is on Tuesday with an average of 32 students per course. It is interesting that there are less courses on Friday, but the average enrollment is highest on that day.

Table V-13 Average Enrollment per Course by Day of the Week

Enrollment/ Day Courses Enrollments Course

Monday 278 9,444 34.0

Tuesday 280 8,971 32.0

Wednesday 270 9,197 34.1

Thursday 251 8,546 34.0

Friday 137 4,746 34.6

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Patterns of Department Classroom Use by Days of the Week

As noted above, instruction varies by day of the week, by hour of day or evening, and by average enrollment per course. One other major variation in instruction also occurs in the frequency with which courses meet throughout the week. The traditional pattern of the one-hour course meeting three times per week, or a one-and-a-half-hour course meeting two days a week, is changing on many campuses, including Ohio State.

As shown in Table V-14, only four percent of Ohio State departmentally-scheduled courses are scheduled to meet on a regular Monday-Wednesday-Friday pattern. Another 19 percent meet on a Tuesday-Thursday pattern. What also is shown in Table V-14 is that approximately one out of V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 95 two (51 percent) of departmentally-scheduled courses at Ohio State meet only one day per week. It is possible that these one-day-per week classroom uses are for individual study. By comparison, 30 percent of pool classrooms are scheduled for use by courses that meet just one day per week.

On average, pool classrooms have an average of 38.3 students per course and departmentally- controlled classrooms have an average of 31.3 students per course.

Table V-14 Department Classrooms – Use by Days of the Week

Meetings Average Total Total Total Days of the Week Percent per Percent Enrollment Courses Meetings Enrollment Week per Course

Monday Only 76 10.4% 1 76 2,162 9.5% 28.4 Tuesday Only 81 11.1% 1 81 2,202 9.7% 27.2 Wednesday Only 69 9.5% 1 69 1,982 8.7% 28.7 Thursday Only 66 9.0% 1 66 2,451 10.7% 37.1 Friday Only 82 11.2% 1 82 2,163 9.5% 26.4 1 0.1% 1 1 58 0.3% 58.0 Sub-Total, One Day 375 51.4% 375 11,018 48.3% 29.4

Mon-Tues 7 1.0% 2 14 299 1.3% 42.7 Mon-Wed 113 15.5% 2 226 3,614 15.8% 32.0 Mon-Thurs 3 0.4% 2 6 84 0.4% 28.0 Mon-Fri 5 0.7% 2 10 351 1.5% 70.2 Tues-Wed 1 0.1% 2 2 5 0.0% 5.0 Tues-Thurs 136 18.6% 2 272 3,688 16.2% 27.1 Wed-Thurs 1 0.1% 2 2 31 0.1% 31.0 Wed-Fri 1 0.1% 2 2 2 0.0% 2.0 Sub-Total, Two Days 267 36.6% 534 8,074 35.4% 30.2

Mon-Tues-Wed 13 1.8% 3 39 467 2.0% 35.9 Mon-Tues-Thurs 2 0.3% 3 6 106 0.5% 53.0 Mon-Wed-Thurs 1 0.1% 3 3 9 0.0% 9.0 Mon-Wed-Fri 28 3.8% 3 84 821 3.6% 29.3 Tues-Wed-Thurs 8 1.1% 3 24 480 2.1% 60.0 Tues-Wed-Fri 2 0.3% 3 6 145 0.6% 72.5 Tues-Thurs-Fri 1 0.1% 3 3 56 0.2% 56.0 Wed-Thurs-Fri 1 0.1% 3 3 60 0.3% 60.0 Sub-Total, Three Days 56 7.7% 168 2,144 9.4% 38.3

Mon-Tues-Wed-Thurs 15 2.1% 4 60 433 1.9% 28.9 Mon-Wed-Thurs-Fri 3 0.4% 4 12 58 0.3% 19.3 Tues-Wed-Thurs-Fri 2 0.3% 4 8 50 0.2% 25.0 Sub-Total, Four Days 20 2.7% 80 541 2.4% 27.1

Mon-Tues-Wed-Thurs-Fri 12 1.6% 5 60 1,040 4.6% 86.7 Sub-Total, Five Days 12 1.6% 60 1,040 4.6% 86.7

TOTAL/AVERAGE 730 100.0% 1,217 22,817 100.0% 31.3

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 96 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Classroom Start and End Times

Ohio State classroom use is scheduled for 48- or 118-minute increments on Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. through 8:30 p.m. Throughout every day of the week the break time from the ending of one course to the beginning of the next is 12 minutes.

This standard start and end time creates thirteen 48-minute class periods per day Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Classroom Utilization

Classroom utilization is assessed using two factors: the number of hours per week a classroom is occupied with classes, and the percentage of seats occupied during those hours. These factors must be considered together in analyzing classroom adequacy because difficulties in classroom scheduling arise from limitations on time and fit. If classrooms are generally so ample in size that problems are not encountered in finding rooms large enough for classes, the scheduling difficulties fall totally on time. Conversely, if room sizes are tightly tailored, alternatives in scheduling are restricted such that it is more difficult to accomplish a high utilization in weekly class hours per room.

For planning purposes, at The Ohio State University, classroom utilization rates of 31.5 weekly class hours per room, or 70.0 percent use over a 45-hour, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., nine hours, five days, with 67 percent station (seat) occupancy are used as the guideline.

Table V-15 below summarizes the classroom utilization factors at Ohio State.

Table V-15 Summary of Classroom Utilization Factors

% Stations Room Type Hours Available Hours Utilized % Hours Utilized Occupied

Classroom (110) 45 hours/week 31.5 hours/week 70.0 percent 67.0 percent

Calculating How Well Classroom Space Is Utilized

The calculation of classroom utilization is based on three factors:

• The number of hours the room can be assigned for use each week;

• The number of stations (seats) the room can accommodate; and,

• The number of stations actually in use each hour of the week.

On most campuses, full use of classrooms would see them scheduled for use 66.7 percent of the time from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (nine hours per day), from Monday through Friday (five days per week). This would mean there could be as much as 45 hours of scheduled classroom use per room per week, with 30 hours per week per room the norm. At Ohio State, classrooms are expected to V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 97 be in use 70 percent of the time from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, resulting in a 45-hour week, with classrooms expected to be utilized an average of 31.5 hours per week.

At the same time, higher education recognizes it is not possible to schedule every instructional room for every hour of the day. It is necessary to allow for lower periods of classroom use, such as in late afternoons, or when the size or shape of a room creates a room that by its configuration may be in low demand. Furthermore, today’s “smart classrooms,” with technology equipment built-in, are extremely popular and heavily scheduled, while aging classrooms with blackboards only are losing favor; this too is affecting scheduling and utilization.

Classroom Utilization Model

To compute actual classroom use and utilization for Ohio State, IFA used a classroom utilization model based on data from the Registrar’s office for Autumn 2007 as input. To test utilization, IFA ran the data using the utilization and use factors noted above. The first factor was a scheduled use of rooms of 70.0 percent, or classrooms in use 31.5 hours of a 45-hour week (Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.). The second factor was a scheduled 67 percent occupancy of the stations in the room, i.e., 67 percent occupancy of all stations in a room means the classroom spaces are fully utilized. This is accounted for by measuring classroom contact hours in comparison to classroom capacity. The model was as follows:

1. Registrar’s Class Record: Each Ohio State Registrar-scheduled course was entered into an IFA relational database from the Registrar’s electronic record for Autumn 2007, including Building Name and Number, Building Room Number, Course Number, Days of the Week of Course Meeting, Course Starting and Ending Time and Course Enrollment. This data was merged with data from the Ohio State Facilities Room Database to provide Assignable Square Footage and Room Station Capacity.

2. 24-Hour Clock: In the running of the data, the digital file of starting and ending class times was converted to a 24-hour clock to calculate the elapsed time of each class and adding 12 minutes to account for class change times, or in other words, to make a 48-minute class equal one hour and a 78-minute class equal to one and one-half hours.

3. Classroom Capacity: This data file was sorted to consolidate and aggregate or sum the information by individual classroom by day of the week. This allowed a computation to be made of the number of hours per day a classroom was scheduled for use in comparison to the number of hours a room was available for use.

4. Classroom Utilization: Next, a computation of utilization was made by IFA to compare classroom station utilization (course enrollments or contact hours) to classroom capacity. IFA divided the student contact hours by the total classroom hours available to arrive at classroom utilization.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 98 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Department Classroom Daytime Use and Utilization

The IFA computer models ran the Ohio State classroom data for one time period only: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. This daytime period had use and utilization factors applied. For use and utilization purposes, a 70 percent use, 5 days per week, and 67 percent station utilization were used as target values.

The results of the Ohio State department classroom utilization analysis for the Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. class week using the 70 percent use and 67 percent utilization factors are summarized below in Table V-16.

If the instructional space at Ohio State had been fully utilized with the classrooms fully scheduled for use 70 percent of the time, and with the stations in each room occupied 67 percent on average, the Room Utilization capacity would have been 100 percent.

As shown in Table V-16, the 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. classroom use for the entire Ohio State campus was 47.5 percent. Also, as shown in Table V-16, the 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. classroom utilization for the entire Ohio State campus was 39.0 percent.

Table V-16 Department Classroom Utilization Summary, Ohio State, Autumn 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

A B C D E F G I Total Actual Total Adjusted Total Weekly Room Times No. of Room Stations Classroom Hours Student Capacity of Use Rooms a Use Available Hours in Use Contact % Util. Available Hours

8:30 a.m. – 146 7,964 3,812 1,812 55,592 47.5% 39.0% 5:30 p.m.

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. a: Note: Course data was only available for 121 of the 146 Ohio State department classrooms.

What is important to note about the data in this table is that the hours a classroom is in use is not the only indication of utilization. As Table V-16 shows, it is the actual weekly student contact hours in comparison to the available student contact hours that is the basis for the measurement of classroom utilization. The available student contact hours have been factored to account for guidelines noted above on the percentage of hours for classroom use and on the percentage of station use within a room. It is also likely these rooms are being used for purposes that are not recorded in the Registrar’s record. If the room is used for study, for a meeting, or for any other purpose, the room would be in use but there is no regular way to measure this. V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 99

Classroom Use and Utilization Tabulations

Tabulations of data on classroom utilization, by room, by building, by course and by day of week are identified below. These three sets of computed data, dated December 5, 2008, are as follows:

Pool Classroom Use and Utilization Analysis 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 792 pages

Department Classroom Use and Utilization Analysis 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 287 pages

Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization Analysis 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 392 pages

Summary of Department Classroom Use and Utilization by Building

A summary of the department classroom use and utilization by building for each of the 48 Ohio State buildings with classrooms is shown in Table V-17.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 100 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Table V-17 Departmental Classroom Use and Utilization, Ohio State, Autumn 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Departmental Classroom Space ASF/ Actual Contact Util- Building Rooms ASF Stations Use a Notes Station Hours Hours ization b

Bricker Hall BK 1 771 30 25.7 8.0 109.0 25.4% 17.2%

Arps Hall AP 4 2,174 100 21.7 53.0 1,021.5 42.1% 48.4%

Knowlton Hall KN 4 2,301 115 20.0 60.0 1,144.0 47.6% 47.1%

Campbell Hall CM 5 4,477 258 17.4 77.5 2,650.5 49.2% 48.7%

Postle Hall PH 4 9,320 594 15.7 28.5 2,012.0 22.6% 16.1%

Derby Hall DB 4 2,585 126 20.5 88.5 1,657.0 70.2% 62.3%

Haskett Hall HK 3 2,978 100 29.8 62.0 1,246.0 65.6% 59.0%

Denney Hall DE 1 402 22 18.3 25.0 442.0 79.4% 95.2%

Hagerty Hall HH 3 1,754 81 21.7 48.0 502.5 50.8% 29.4%

Hamilton Hall HM 2 3,387 216 15.7 36.5 2,234.5 57.9% 49.0%

Lazenby Hall LZ 1 391 18 21.7 17.0 453.0 54.0% 119.3%

Hughes Hall Hall HU 2 6,188 462 13.4 43.0 2,085.0 68.3% 21.4%

Journalism Building JR 1 1,180 50 23.6 4.0 96.0 12.7% 9.1%

Drinko Hall (Law Building) DI 11 13,953 840 16.6 152.8 6,057.0 44.1% 34.2%

McPherson Chemical Lab MP 1 1,392 68 20.5 14.5 304.5 46.0% 21.2%

Converse Hall CV 4 3,518 144 24.4 36.0 811.0 28.6% 26.7% V. Scheduled Department Classroom Use and Utilization April 2009 101

Departmental Classroom Space ASF/ Actual Contact Util- Building Rooms ASF Stations Use a Notes Station Hours Hours ization b

Fry Hall FR 2 3,129 180 17.4 39.0 2,549.0 61.9% 67.1%

Page Hall PA 1 526 20 26.3 7.5 26.5 23.8% 6.3%

Parker Food Science and Technology Building FS 2 1,638 120 13.7 30.0 922.0 47.6% 36.4%

Stillman Hall SH 1 288 14 20.6 10.0 64.0 31.8% 21.7%

Ramseyer Hall RA 1 746 34 21.9 21.5 538.0 68.3% 75.0%

Sullivant Hall SU 2 1,014 50 20.3 28.0 449.3 44.4% 42.6%

Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute HR 2 3,713 270 13.8 4.8 521.8 7.5% 9.2% *1 room

Veterinary Medicine Academic Building *2 rooms

Psychology Building PS 3 1,231 48 25.6 27.0 358.0 28.6% 35.3%

Bolz Hall BO 2 1,403 70 20.0 27.0 477.0 42.9% 32.3%

Hopkins Hall HC 3 2,138 64 33.4 48.0 900.0 50.8% 66.6%

Starling Loving Hall *3 rooms

PAES Building PE *4 rooms

Gerlach Graduate Programs Building GE 7 10,782 450 24.0 122.5 5,290.5 55.6% 55.7%

Schoenbaum Undergraduate Program Building SB 2 1,694 75 22.6 32.0 878.0 50.8% 55.5%

Hale Hall HL 2 1,382 82 16.9 36.0 890.0 57.1% 51.4%

Parks Hall PK 2 1,488 85 17.5 21.0 594.5 33.3% 33.1%

Newton Hall NH 5 6,046 410 14.7 76.5 4,216.0 48.6% 48.7%

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 102 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Departmental Classroom Space ASF/ Actual Contact Util- Building Rooms ASF Stations Use a Notes Station Hours Hours ization b

Biological Sciences Building BI *2 rooms

Graves Hall GR 6 6,083 201 30.3 27.5 487.5 14.6% 11.5% *3 rooms

Meiling Hall ME 2 9,232 508 18.2 14.5 3,341.5 23.0% 31.2%

Galbreath Equine Center *1 room

Howlett Hall HT 1 1,144 50 22.9 18.0 338.0 57.1% 32.0% *1 room

Drake Performance and Event Center DR 3 1,063 61 17.4 66.0 960.0 69.8% 74.6%

Veterinary Hospital *8 rooms

Atwell Hall AH 9 6,261 390 16.1 166.0 5,315.5 58.6% 64.6%

Pressey Hall PR 2 1,224 75 16.3 41.5 963.0 65.9% 60.8%

Dulles Hall DU 1 602 40 15.1 19.0 258.0 60.3% 30.6%

University Hall UH 3 1,331 75 17.7 74.0 968.0 78.3% 61.2%

Kottman Hall KH 4 2,983 110 27.1 50.0 728.5 39.7% 31.4%

1100 Kinnear KI 1 976 30 32.5 28.0 312.0 88.9% 49.3%

Kuhn Honors and Scholars House HN 1 486 24 20.3 22.0 420.0 69.8% 82.9%

TOTAL 121 125,374 6,760 18.5 1,812 55,592 47.5% 39.0%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Note: Final data. Data run DB:E:\ohio4.08b.fm

* No courses are shown in the course schedule for some rooms in this building. a: Classroom Use: Room use is computed based on a 45-hour week, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Full room use is based on the room being scheduled for use 70 percent of the 45-hour week, or 31.5 hours per week. b: Classroom Utilization: Station utilization is based upon the expectation that 67 percent of the stations in a room in use would be occupied during a scheduled course time. 6 Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization

Ohio State Department Class Laboratory Space Data

Class Laboratory Scheduling

Measuring Class Laboratory Use and Utilization 104 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Celeste Laboratory of Chemistry, Looking Through the Equipment Room into Room 310, Class Laboratory, 25 Stations VI. Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization April 2009 105

VI. SCHEDULED DEPARTMENT CLASS LABORATORY USE AND UTILIZATION

This section describes the use and utilization of department class laboratories at The Ohio State University for the autumn quarter 2007. Schedule information, along with room capacity data, was provided by The Ohio State University to Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. (IFA) to conduct a statistical analysis of the data to determine weekly use and utilization of laboratory space.

Department class laboratories are defined as rooms used primarily for formally or regularly scheduled classes that require special purpose equipment in a specific room configuration for student participation, experimentation, observation, or practice in a field of study. Included in this category may be rooms generally referred to as science and engineering laboratories, instructional shops, drafting rooms, group studios, specialized health professional laboratories, language laboratories, and similar designed or equipped rooms. A class laboratory is designed for or furnished with equipment to serve the needs of a particular discipline for group instruction, regularly or formally scheduled classes throughout the academic year. A complete inventory of these departmentally- scheduled class laboratories is shown in Appendix C.

The results of the instructional space use and utilization portion of the study are described in Sections IV, V, and VI. This Section VI is centered on the use and utilization of department class laboratories.

A. OHIO STATE DEPARTMENT CLASS LABORATORY SPACE DATA

Sources of Class Laboratory Space Data

The Ohio State facilities room database identifies the type and number of class laboratories and their station count. The Registrar’s records are used to compute weekly room use hours (the number of hours per week a room is in use) and the average percentage of student station occupancy (the average percentage the seats are occupied during any given hour). These two records, when taken together, are used to measure class laboratory utilization.

Department Class Laboratory Space

Altogether, excluding class laboratory service space, there is 257,337 assignable square feet devoted to department class laboratory space at Ohio State as shown in Table VI-1. This list includes only buildings and rooms where scheduled class laboratory courses were recorded.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 106 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Amount of Class Laboratory Space

The IFA general rule of thumb for class laboratory space at a research university is that there is about 1.5 times as much class laboratory space as classroom space. At Ohio State, there is 257,337 square feet in scheduled class laboratories (2A, 2P) and 341,829 square feet in unscheduled department class laboratories (2K, 2Q), for a total of 599,166 square feet of class laboratory space. There is a total of 328,667 square feet in scheduled pool classrooms and 149,266 square feet in scheduled department classrooms, for a total of 477,933 square feet of classroom space.

This means there is about 1.2 square feet of class laboratory space for every 1.0 square feet of classroom space. By this measure, Ohio State is likely short of class laboratory space.

However, the space database information provided by Ohio State did not include any information on class laboratory service space. The IFA general measure is that there is approximately 0.28 square feet of class laboratory service space for every 1.0 square feet of class laboratory space. When this expected amount of class laboratory service space is estimated and added, then the amount of campus space used for class laboratory functions totals exactly 1.5 square feet of class laboratory space for every 1.0 square feet of classroom space.

In addition, and as shown in Section VII, there are 315 additional class laboratories in the Ohio State room inventory that are shown as unscheduled department class laboratories.

Table VI-1 Distribution of Ohio State Scheduled Department Class Laboratories, Stations, and Square Footage by Building (In Order by Building Number)

Bldg Bldg No. of ASF per Building Name ASF Stations No. Abbr Rooms Station

11 Arps Hall AP 2 2,223 75 29.6 14 Jennings Hall JE 21 19,787 480 41.2 17 Knowlton Hall KN 3 25,224 322 78.3 24 Postle Hall PH 1 5,612 130 43.2 25 Derby Hall DB 4 4,263 132 32.3 26 Caldwell Laboratory CL 4 4,443 120 37.0 27 Haskett Hall HK 4 3,945 75 52.6 30 Denney Hall DE 6 4,777 152 31.4 39 Hayes Hall HA 9 9,824 212 46.3 41 Lazenby Hall LZ 1 733 20 36.7 42 Hughes Hall HU 10 6,418 359 17.9 46 Journalism Building JR 3 2,830 120 23.6 51 Lord Hall LO 1 1,170 50 23.4 53 McPherson Chemical Lab MP 3 5,691 72 79.0 54 Mendenhall Laboratory ML 6 6,779 184 36.8 56 Converse Hall CV 1 8,446 200 42.2 59 Fry Hall FR 4 2,219 51 43.5 64 Parker Food Science and Technology FS 1 924 18 51.3 65 Smith Laboratory SM 12 8,676 289 30.0 67 Pomerene Hall PO 1 2,341 24 97.5 80 Sisson Hall SI 1 1,523 135 11.3 90 Ramseyer Hall RA 2 2,593 62 41.8 VI. Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization April 2009 107

Table VI-1 (continued) Distribution of Ohio State Scheduled Department Class Laboratories, Stations, and Square Footage by Building (In Order by Building Number)

Bldg Bldg No. of ASF per Building Name ASF Stations No. Abbr Rooms Station

106 Sullivant Hall SU 4 8,334 140 59.5 136 Veterinary Medicine Academic Bldg 1 1,212 34 35.6 148 Scott Laboratory SO 8 6,973 123 56.7 149 Hopkins Hall HC 9 9,600 171 56.1 156 Animal Science Building AS 2 5,165 120 43.0 176 Starling Loving Hall SL 2 930 30 31.0 187 Mathematics Building MA 1 950 40 23.8 245 PAES Building PE 1 3,009 50 60.2 273 Parks Hall PK 2 2,387 68 35.1 274 Hitchcock Hall HI 6 8,276 252 32.8 276 Biological Sciences Building BI 4 6,147 160 38.4 279 Dreese Laboratories DL 3 3,023 95 31.8 280 Baker Systems Engineering BE 3 10,875 142 76.6 295 Howlett Hall HT 1 583 24 24.3 296 Drake Performance and Event Center DR 4 3,115 73 42.7 297 Howlett Greenhouses HG 1 813 12 67.8 298 Agricultural Engineering Building AE 6 14,432 144 100.2 306 Atwell Hall AH 7 5,783 192 30.1 309 Pressey Hall PR 1 675 15 45.0 340 Kottman Hall KH 4 4,331 96 45.1 355 Weigel Hall WG 2 3,353 220 15.2 358 Sherman Studio Art Center SA 2 1,562 28 55.8 371 Celeste Laboratory of Chemistry CE 17 24,272 405 59.9 374 1224 Kinnear Road KR 1 1,096 13 84.3

Total Department Class Laboratories 47 192 257,337 5,929 43.4

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Department Class Laboratory Distribution

Altogether there are 5,929 class laboratory stations in 192 scheduled class laboratory rooms. As shown in Table VI-1, of the 46 buildings with instructional laboratory space, four of the buildings (Celeste Laboratory of Chemistry, Hughes Hall, Jennings Hall, and Smith Laboratory) each have ten or more class laboratories. These four buildings account for more than one-third of the number of individual class laboratories on the campus and 26 percent of the class laboratory station capacity.

Number of Class Laboratory Stations

As shown in Table VI-1, there are 5,929 stations in scheduled department class laboratories. This would mean that if the Ohio State enrollment is 50,000 headcount students, there is approximately 8.43 headcount per class laboratory station. This compares to the IFA expected average of 10.6 headcount per class laboratory station, which put Ohio State in good study.

At the same time, as shown in Section VII, there is an additional 7,567 stations in unscheduled department class laboratories, for a total of 13,496 class laboratory stations. This would mean there

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 108 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study is 3.70 headcount per class laboratory station, which would place Ohio State in an elite category of headcount per class laboratory station, even suggesting there is too much space and stations in class laboratories.

Department Class Laboratory Station Size

Another important inventory item is the number of stations (seats) in an instructional space. The data on number of stations is used to review the distribution of rooms by station (or capacity) and to measure the space per station in terms of square footage per stations. This is done by dividing the number of stations contained in a room into the square footage of the room to determine area (square footage) per station. The size or square footage area of a student station in a class laboratory is an important measure to know and understand when programming new space or reallocating existing space.

As shown in Table VI-2, department class laboratories on the Ohio State campus had an average of 30.9 stations per room and an average area of 43.4 square feet per station.

As Table VI-2 illustrates, class laboratories, due to their fixed tables and benches, require considerably more square footage per station than movable table and chair rooms. Fixed table rooms that are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant require 35 to 40 or more asf per station since fixed tables and a fixed instructor’s podium take up considerably more space per station than moveable furniture.

Table VI-2 Department Class Laboratories, Ohio State

Range of Average Range of Total Room Type and No. of Assignable No. of Total ASF per No. of No. of NCES Code Rooms Square Footage Stations ASF Station Stations Stations (ASF) per Room Per Room

Class Labs (210) 192 202 – 9,570 6 – 200 5,929 30.9 257,337 43.4

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Class Laboratory Size by Number of Stations

Another important measure of class laboratories is the number of student stations in the room and the distribution of rooms by station size.

Distribution of Ohio State Department Class Laboratories by Number of Stations

Class laboratory station count has considerable importance in the utilization of class laboratories and use of faculty resources. If the instructional program and pedagogy allows for large enrollment courses, and if rooms with large seating capacity are available, large enrollment classes are offered generally for introductory or survey type courses. If the rooms to accommodate the large enrollments VI. Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization April 2009 109 are not available, a course is divided among smaller rooms, with a replication of the course in smaller sections, and with more faculty resources devoted to teach the course.

The distribution of department class laboratories by the number of stations at Ohio State is shown in Table VI-3. In contrast to classrooms, class laboratories have, on average, fewer stations per room, with higher amounts of assignable square footage per station. As shown in Table VI-3, there are 192 class laboratories at Ohio State, with a combined capacity of 5,929 stations, or an average of 0.13 stations per full-time headcount student enrollment.

Also, as shown in Table VI-3, class laboratories are considerably smaller in station count than classrooms, with 66 percent of all scheduled class laboratories having 29 or fewer stations. In fact, 19 percent of the scheduled class laboratories (37 class laboratory rooms) have 19 or fewer stations.

As shown in this table, only three percent (6 rooms) of all the Ohio State scheduled department class laboratories have nine or fewer stations. Another 16 percent (31 rooms) have 10 to 19 stations, 47 percent (90 rooms) have 20 to 29 stations, and 17 percent (32 rooms) have 30 to 39 stations.

Among large scheduled class laboratories at Ohio State, six percent (12 rooms) have 50 to 99 stations, three percent (6 rooms) have 100 to 199 stations, and less than one percent (1 room) has 200 to 299 stations. (This large class laboratory, unless it is mis-coded, would likely be music related, such as a choral room or a band room.)

Table VI-3 Department Class Laboratory Distribution by Station Count, Autumn 2007

Classrooms Stations Classrooms (Percentages)

0 to 9 6 3.1% 10 to 19 31 16.1% 20 to 29 90 46.9% 30 to 39 32 16.7% 40 to 49 14 7.3% 50 to 74 9 4.7% 75 to 99 3 1.6% 100 to 149 6 3.1% 150 to 199 0 0.0% 200 to 299 1 0.5% TOTAL 192 100.0%

Total Rooms 192 Total Stations 5,929 Stations/Room 30.9 Total Square Footage 257,337 Full-Time Headcount (UG+GR) 46,075 Stations/Full-Time Student 0.13

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 110 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

When both unscheduled and scheduled department class laboratories are taken as a total inventory, there is a total of 635 class laboratory rooms (exclusive of class laboratory service), 13,496 class laboratory stations, and 599,166 class laboratory square footage. This means there is an average of 21.3 stations per class laboratory room, which puts Ohio State on par with other public universities. There is also an average of 44.4 square feet per class laboratory station, which is about 15 percent less square feet per station than would be expected.

Figure VI-1 Department Class Laboratory Distribution by Station Count, Autumn 2007

100

80

60

40

Number of Rooms 20

0 0 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 74 75 to 99 100 to 149 150 to 199 200 to 299 Number of Stations

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Class Laboratory Station Capacity Analysis

Class laboratory station capacity data illustrates two main points about scheduled department class laboratories on the Ohio State campus: first, there exists a large percentage of rooms, about 66 percent, that seat 29 or fewer students; and second, there exists a relatively small number of scheduled department class laboratory rooms on campus that seat 100 or more students (about four percent).

Station Count per Student Headcount and Class Laboratory Utilization

To help gauge class laboratory efficiency and utilization, IFA developed a measure of station count per student headcount and compared this result to campus class laboratory utilization. As shown in Table VI-4, the station per full-time headcount at Ohio State is 0.13 stations per full-time headcount student. However, if both unscheduled and scheduled class laboratory stations are taken into account, there is an average of 0.29 stations per headcount student. VI. Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization April 2009 111

B. CLASS LABORATORY SCHEDULING

Department Class Laboratories Without Course Data

Of the identified 192 department class laboratories at The Ohio State University, course data was available for 166 rooms, or all but 26 of the class laboratories. Whether these 26 rooms were actually used as class laboratories is not known. It is possible that they are shown in the facilities record with a class laboratory code but could be some other room type. This list of 26 class laboratories for which no course data was available are shown in Table VI-4. And, as noted earlier and as shown in Section VII, there are another 315 rooms in the Ohio State space inventory which are classified as unscheduled department class laboratories.

Table Vi-4 Ohio State Department Class Laboratories for which Autumn Quarter 2007 Course Data was not Available

Building Room ASF Stations

Jennings Hall 14 962 24 Jennings Hall 110 811 16 Jennings Hall 210 830 16 Jennings Hall 214 981 24 Denney Hall 60 1,457 40 Fry Hall 3 702 25 Fry Hall 8 569 6 Fry Hall 239 746 12 Fry Hall 250 202 8 Sisson Hall A0120 1,523 135 Veterinary Medicine Academic Building 151 1,212 34 Scott Laboratory* E0141 1,454 38 Scott Laboratory* W0258 633 9 Scott Laboratory* W0259 1,472 21 Scott Laboratory* W0270 592 8 Scott Laboratory* W0276 595 14 Scott Laboratory* W0277 438 8 Scott Laboratory* W0282 884 12 Scott Laboratory* W0286 905 13 Hopkins Hall 266 566 18 Starling Loving Hall A0203 410 12 Starling Loving Hall A0231 520 18 PAES Building* A0022 3,009 50 Biological Sciences Building 312 1,545 40 Howlett Greenhouses* G0117 813 12 Agricultural Engineering Building 158 3,076 14

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

* Due to a coding difficulty, courses were in fact held for the autumn quarter 2007 but use and utilization information was not computed.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 112 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

C. MEASURING CLASS LABORATORY USE AND UTILIZATION

Class Laboratory Use and Class Laboratory Utilization Analysis

The Ohio State class laboratory data for autumn quarter 2007 was collected by Ohio State and provided to IFA. This record was assembled into a database and merged with the Registrar’s record to gauge both class laboratory use and class laboratory utilization.

Class laboratory use means simply that the room is occupied. This can occur through scheduled instructional use, such as a credit course, or can be unscheduled, such as drop-in study or a meeting. At Ohio State, only the scheduled assignment of class laboratories is recorded and was used in this class laboratory utilization analysis.

Class laboratory utilization is a measurement of the number of stations occupied in relation to the total number of stations contained in the room.

Class laboratory utilization is commonly expressed in hours per week a room is in use, or in relationship to state required standards of utilization. Utilization data in hours per week pertains only to regularly scheduled class activities in classrooms and class laboratories identified in the Registrar’s record. Other means of assessing utilization apply to offices, libraries, graduate laboratories, or other instructional facilities not subject to assignment on an hourly basis.

Class Laboratory Use

As noted above, class laboratory use means simply that the room is occupied. The use of class laboratories on the Ohio State campus varies by day of the week and hour of the day. Because class laboratories tend to be scheduled for longer blocks of time than classrooms, the days of the week and hours of the day class laboratories are used differs from that of classrooms. This is shown in Table VI-5 and in Figure VI-2.

The use of class laboratories is minimal at 8:00 a.m. and begins to increase at 9:00 a.m., reaching a peak during the period of 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Class laboratory use then declines slightly before peaking again at 3:00 p.m. and then declines through 9:00 p.m. The highest peak laboratory use occurs at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday and, at which time nearly 100 scheduled department class laboratories out of the 166 for which course data was available are in use.

As shown in Table VI-5, the number of department class laboratories in use at 8:00 a.m. averages only two rooms per day out of an inventory of 192 class laboratories. The use of class laboratories increases dramatically and by 9:00 a.m. there are an average of 56 rooms in use per day. The peak use of class laboratories occurs at 11:00 a.m. with an average of 82 rooms in use each day. Class laboratory use declines slightly and then peaks again at 3:00 p.m. with an average of 81 rooms in use. VI. Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization April 2009 113

Table VI-5 Number of Rooms in Use Simultaneously in Scheduled Department Class Laboratories by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007

Average Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Total Rooms/Hour

8:00 a.m. 1 2 1 3 4 11 2.2

9:00 a.m. 49 62 60 59 49 279 55.8

10:00 a.m. 75 87 86 85 59 392 78.4

11:00 a.m. 79 92 89 90 60 410 82.0

12:00 noon 61 78 64 78 46 327 65.4

1:00 p.m. 70 68 75 68 49 330 66.0

2:00 p.m. 73 84 78 89 48 372 74.4

3:00 p.m. 83 97 89 98 36 403 80.6

4:00 p.m. 76 78 81 73 30 338 67.6

5:00 p.m. 64 62 71 59 21 277 55.4

6:00 p.m. 35 36 33 35 3 142 28.4

7:00 p.m. 30 42 36 39 2 149 29.8

8:00 p.m. 21 30 27 23 2 103 20.6

9:00 p.m. 2 13 14 8 1 38 7.6

Total 719 831 804 807 410 3,571 714.2

20.1% 23.3% 22.5% 22.6% 11.5% 100.0%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Note: If a course meeting is longer than one hour, the room would be counted as being in use for each hour the course spans. Thus, rooms shown are counted as a snapshot in time.

Note: Of the 192 department class laboratory inventory, course data was available for 166 rooms.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 114 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Figure VI-2 Number of Rooms in Use Simultaneously in Scheduled Department Class Laboratories by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007

120

100

80 Monday Tuesday 60 Wednesday Thursday 40 Friday Number of Rooms 20

0 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Hour of the Day

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Cumulative Class Laboratory Enrollment

Table VI-6 and Figure VI-3 provides indication of a total number of students who are in department class laboratories by hour of the day and day of the week. Consistent with the data in Table VI-5, the peak hours for instruction begin at 9:00 a.m. and continue through 5:00 p.m.; class laboratory instruction then declines continuously through the end of the day. The single highest peak enrollment during the week occurs on Tuesdays at 3:00 p.m. when more than 475 students are in class laboratories. VI. Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization April 2009 115

Table VI-6 Cumulative Enrollment in Scheduled Department Class Laboratories by Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Autumn 2007

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Total Percent

8:00 a.m. 8 4 2 12 18 44 0.3%

9:00 a.m. 176 240 234 279 178 1,107 7.0%

10:00 a.m. 258 298 307 334 198 1,395 8.8%

11:00 a.m. 318 378 371 360 244 1,671 10.5%

12:00 noon 296 373 278 348 182 1,477 9.3%

1:00 p.m. 339 360 376 292 203 1,570 9.9%

2:00 p.m. 315 405 352 395 177 1,644 10.4%

3:00 p.m. 399 478 407 425 139 1,848 11.7%

4:00 p.m. 386 412 423 322 119 1,662 10.5%

5:00 p.m. 276 378 399 243 90 1,386 8.7%

6:00 p.m. 161 258 217 131 15 782 4.9%

7:00 p.m. 137 179 145 156 10 627 4.0%

8:00 p.m. 111 133 128 95 10 477 3.0%

9:00 p.m. 8 45 66 40 4 163 1.0%

Total 3,188 3,941 3,705 3,432 1,587 15,853 100.0%

20.1% 24.9% 23.4% 21.6% 10.0% 100.0%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Note: If a course meeting is longer than one hour, the enrollment would be counted in each hour the course spans. Thus, enrollments shown are a snapshot in time.

Note: Of the 5,929 department class laboratory station inventory, there are a total of 5,302 stations in rooms scheduled for use.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 116 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Figure VI-3 CUMULATIVE ENROLLMENT IN SCHEDULED DEPARTMENT CLASS LABORATORIES BY HOUR OF THE DAY AND DAY OF THE WEEK, AUTUMN 2007

600

500

400 Monday Tuesday 300 Wednesday Thursday 200 Friday

100 Cumulative Enrollment

0 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Hour of the Day

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Monday-Wednesday-Friday

Of the 192 department class laboratory inventory, course data was available for 166 of the rooms. The uses of these rooms, as identified by simultaneous course enrollment, by the number of class laboratories in use, and by the number of stations in class laboratories that are committed for use on Monday-Wednesday-Friday, are shown in Table VI-7. The enrollment, class laboratory, and station counts are shown for the University’s regularly-scheduled time blocks, as identified earlier in Figures I-1 and I-2. For courses, classrooms, and stations in use on Tuesdays and Thursdays, this data is shown in Table VI-8.

As shown in Table VI-7 and Figure VI-2, the number of department class laboratories in use at 8:00 a.m. ranges between one room on Monday and Wednesday and four rooms on Friday, out of an inventory of 166 class laboratories. The use of class laboratories increases dramatically and by 9:00 a.m. there are, on average, 53 rooms in use on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The peak Monday-Wednesday-Friday use of class laboratories occurs at 11:00 a.m., with an average of 76 rooms in use.

Department class laboratory use on Monday-Wednesday-Friday declines slightly at 12:00 noon, with an average of 57 rooms in use per day at this time, and then increases to an average of 69 rooms in use at 3:00 p.m. Class laboratory use then declines throughout the day from 62 rooms in use at 4:00 p.m., to 52 rooms in use at 5:00 p.m., and to 17 rooms in use at 8:00 p.m. on Monday-Wednesday-Friday. VI. Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization April 2009 117

Table VI-7 Ohio State Enrollments, Class Laboratories, and Stations in Active Scheduled Department Class Laboratories by Specified Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Monday-Wednesday-Friday Only

Total Class Laboratories 166 Total Stations 5,302

Class Laboratories in Use

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm

Monday 1 49 75 79 61 70 73 83 76 64 35 30 21

Wednesday 1 60 86 89 64 75 78 89 81 71 33 36 27

Friday 4 49 59 60 46 49 48 36 30 21 3 2 2

Average 2 53 73 76 57 65 66 69 62 52 24 23 17

Course Enrollments

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm

Monday 8 176 258 318 296 339 315 399 386 276 161 137 111

Wednesday 2 234 307 371 278 376 352 407 423 399 217 145 128

Friday 18 178 198 244 182 203 177 139 119 90 15 10 10

Average 9 196 254 311 252 306 281 315 309 255 131 97 83

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Tuesday-Thursday

As shown in Table VI-8 and Figure VI-2, on the peak instructional day of Thursday, 98 of the 166 Ohio State department class laboratories are scheduled and in use at 3:00 p.m.

On Tuesdays and Thursdays, as shown in Table VI-8, class laboratories in use remain quite high starting at 10:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m., then declines throughout the day.

Cumulative Class Laboratory Enrollment

Tables VI-7 and VI-8, along with Figure VI-3, also indicate the total number of students who are in class laboratories by hour of the day and day of the week. This data is consistent with the number of class laboratories in use. The cumulative enrollment of students in class laboratories follows a similar pattern to the peak hours of class laboratory use. As shown in Tables VI-7 and VI-8, the peak time for class laboratories occurs on Tuesdays at 3:00 p.m. Class laboratory enrollment remains

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 118 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study high Monday through Thursday, before declining on Friday. Class laboratory use and enrollment on Friday is reduced by about one-half when compared to the other days of the week.

Students Taking Courses

What is quite interesting about the data in Table VI-7 and Table VI-8 is that at peak periods of enrollment, only one percent of the total full-time undergraduate and graduate students at Ohio State are in class laboratories. This relatively modest percentage of students in class at a peak hour is an indication that the Ohio State course day is quite spread out, as the data in Tables VI-7 and VI-8 illustrate.

Table VI-8 Ohio State Enrollments, Class Laboratories, and Stations in Active Scheduled Department Class Laboratories by Specified Hour of the Day and Day of the Week, Tuesday-Thursday Only

Total Class Laboratories 166 Total Stations 5,302

Class Laboratories in Use

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm

Tuesday 2 62 87 92 78 68 84 97 78 62 36 42 30

Thursday 3 59 85 90 78 68 89 98 73 59 35 39 23

Average 3 61 86 91 78 68 87 98 76 61 36 41 27

Course Enrollments

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 am am am am pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm pm

Tuesday 4 240 298 378 373 360 405 478 412 378 258 179 133

Thursday 12 279 334 360 348 292 395 425 322 243 131 156 95

Average 8 260 316 369 361 326 400 452 367 311 195 168 114

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Department Class Laboratory Enrollments by Course Size

Not only does instruction vary by days of the week and hours of the day, it also varies by the number of students per course. Table VI-9 shows the distribution of students by course and the cumulative enrollment for courses of a particular size. Because of the manner by which the course record is kept, a course in this table is counted only once regardless of the number of times the course meets. VI. Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization April 2009 119

For example, a course which meets three times per week would be counted just once. Using this course counting mechanism, Table VI-9 provides a relative measure of courses by number of students enrolled, the cumulative course enrollments generated, and the distribution of each.

Class laboratories are generally smaller in station count than classrooms and are significantly smaller in classrooms in the distribution of enrollments by course size.

As shown in Table VI-9, class laboratories, with an average enrollment of between 20 and 29 students, generate nearly 13,500 cumulative course enrollments. Class laboratories with 10 to 19 students generate more than 5,600 cumulative course enrollments and class laboratories with an average of 50 to 74 students generate more than 2,600. There are only two class laboratories with 75 to 99 students and one that enrolls 100 or more students.

Table VI-9 Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Enrollments By Course Size

Number of Cumulative Courses Percent Percent Students Course Enroll a

1 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 2 to 9 97 8.1% 640 2.5% 10 to 19 373 31.3% 5,620 21.6% 20 to 29 582 48.8% 13,429 51.6% 30 to 39 82 6.9% 2,793 10.7% 40 to 49 15 1.3% 640 2.5% 50 to 74 40 3.4% 2,647 10.2% 75 to 99 2 0.2% 171 0.7% 100 or more 1 0.1% 105 0.4%

TOTAL 1,193 100.0% 26,046 100.0%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University. a: This column shows cumulative course enrollment, not credit hours.

Average Enrollments by Course Per Day of the Week

Accompanying the fluctuations in enrollments by hour of day and day of the week, which illustrated the peak class laboratory days to be Tuesday and Thursday, the average enrollment of courses in class laboratories also varies by day of the week. As illustrated in Table VI-10, the largest average enrollment in class laboratory courses occurs on Fridays with an average of nearly 24 students per course. On Mondays, the average enrollment is 22 students per course. The lowest enrollment day is on Tuesday with an average of about 20 students per course.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 120 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Table VI-10 Average Enrollment per Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Course by Day of the Week

Enrollment/ Day Courses Enrollments Course

Monday 378 8,264 21.9

Tuesday 409 8,310 20.3

Wednesday 413 8,817 21.3

Thursday 396 8,203 20.7

Friday 217 5,187 23.9

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Patterns of Department Class Laboratory Use by Days of the Week

As noted above, instruction varies by day of the week, by hour of day or evening, and by average enrollment per course. As shown in Table VI-11, only six percent of Ohio State scheduled department class laboratory courses are scheduled to meet on a regular Monday-Wednesday-Friday pattern. Another 17 percent meet on a Tuesday-Thursday pattern. What also is shown in Table VI-11 is that approximately three of five (60 percent) courses at Ohio State meet only one day per week. It is possible that these one-day-per week class laboratory uses are for individual study.

Overall, more than 60 percent of the scheduled department class laboratory courses at Ohio State meet only once per week, 30 percent meet two days per week, and the remaining 10 percent meet three or more days per week.

Class Laboratory Start and End Times

Ohio State class laboratory use is scheduled for 48- or 118-minute increments on Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. through 8:30 p.m. Throughout every day of the week the break time from the ending of one course to the beginning of the next is 12 minutes.

This standard start and end time creates thirteen 48-minute class periods Monday through Friday. VI. Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization April 2009 121

Table VI-11 Department Class Laboratories – Use by Days of the Week

Meetings Average Total Total Total Days of the Week Percent per Percent Enrollment Courses Meetings Enrollment Week per Course

Monday Only 122 10.2% 1 122 3,006 11.5% 24.6 Tuesday Only 168 14.1% 1 168 3,583 13.8% 21.3 Wednesday Only 155 13.0% 1 155 3,619 13.9% 23.3 Thursday Only 151 12.7% 1 151 3,409 13.1% 22.6 Friday Only 122 10.2% 1 122 3,209 12.3% 26.3 Saturday Only 3 0.3% 1 3 42 0.2% 14.0 Sub-Total, One Day 721 60.4% 721 16,868 64.8% 23.4

Mon-Wed 141 11.8% 2 282 2,599 10.0% 18.4 Mon-Thurs 4 0.3% 2 8 69 0.3% 17.3 Mon-Fri 1 0.1% 2 2 50 0.2% 50.0 Tues-Thurs 200 16.8% 2 400 3,616 13.9% 18.1 Wed-Fri 10 0.8% 2 20 210 0.8% 21.0 Wed-O 1 0.1% 2 2 28 0.1% 28.0 Sub-Total, Two Days 357 29.9% 714 6,572 25.2% 18.4

Mon-Tues-Wed 3 0.3% 3 9 91 0.3% 30.3 Mon-Tues-Thurs 3 0.3% 3 9 97 0.4% 32.3 Mon-Wed-Thurs 4 0.3% 3 12 98 0.4% 24.5 Mon-Wed-Fri 70 5.9% 3 210 1,397 5.4% 20.0 Tues-Wed-Thurs 1 0.1% 3 3 12 0.0% 12.0 Tues-Thurs-Fri 4 0.3% 3 12 54 0.2% 13.5 Sub-Total, Three Days 85 7.1% 255 1,749 6.7% 20.6

Mon-Tues-Wed-Thurs 20 1.7% 4 80 590 2.3% 29.5 Mon-Tues-Wed-Fri 1 0.1% 4 4 9 0.0% 9.0 Mon-Tues-Thurs-Fri 2 0.2% 4 8 94 0.4% 47.0 Sub-Total, Four Days 23 1.9% 92 693 2.7% 30.1

Mon-Tues-Wed-Thurs-Fri 7 0.6% 5 35 164 0.6% 23.4 Sub-Total, Five Days 7 0.6% 35 164 0.6% 23.4

TOTAL/AVERAGE 1,193 100.0% 1,817 26,046 100.0% 21.8

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Class Laboratory Utilization

Class laboratory utilization is assessed using two factors: the number of hours per week a room is occupied with classes, and the percentage of seats occupied during those hours. The factors must be considered together in judging class laboratory adequacy because difficulties in class laboratory scheduling arise from limitations on time and fit. If class laboratories are generally so ample in size that problems are not encountered in finding rooms large enough for classes, the scheduling difficulties fall totally on time. Conversely, if room sizes are tightly tailored, alternatives in scheduling are restricted such that it is more difficult to accomplish a high utilization in weekly class hours per room.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 122 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

For planning purposes, at The Ohio State University, class laboratory utilization rates of 22.5 weekly class hours per room, or 50.0 percent use over a 45-hour, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., nine hours, five days, with 80 percent station (seat) occupancy are used as the guideline.

Table VI-12 below summarizes the scheduled department class laboratory utilization factors at Ohio State.

Table VI-12 Summary of Class Laboratory Utilization Factors

% Stations Room Type Hours Available Hours Utilized % Hours Utilized Occupied

Class Lab (210) 45 hours/week 22.5 hours/week 50.0 percent 80.0 percent

Calculating How Well Class laboratory Space Is Utilized

The calculation of class laboratory utilization is based on three factors:

• The number of hours the room can be assigned for use each week;

• The number of stations (seats) the room can accommodate; and,

• The number of stations actually in use each hour of the week.

On most campuses, full use of class laboratories would see them occupied 50.0 percent of the rooms from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (nine hours per day), from Monday through Friday (five days per week). This would mean there could be as much as 45 hours of scheduled class laboratory use per room per week, with 22.5 hours per week per room the norm. At Ohio State, class laboratories are expected to be in use from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, resulting in a 45-hour week, with class laboratories expected to be utilized an average of 22.5 hours per week.

Class Laboratory Utilization Model

To compute actual class laboratory use and utilization for Ohio State, IFA used a class laboratory utilization model based on data from the Registrar’s office for autumn 2007 as input. To test utilization, IFA ran the data using the utilization and use factors noted above. The first factor was a scheduled use of rooms of 50.0 percent, or classrooms in use 22.5 hours of a 45-hour week (Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.). The second factor was a scheduled 80.0 percent occupancy of the stations in the room, e.g., 80 percent occupancy of all stations in a room means the class laboratory spaces are fully utilized. This is accounted for by measuring class laboratory contact hours in comparison to class laboratory capacity. The model was as follows:

1. Registrar’s Class Record: Each Ohio State Registrar-scheduled course was entered into an IFA relational database from the Registrar’s electronic record for autumn 2007, including Building Name and Number, Building Room Number, Course Number, Days VI. Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization April 2009 123

of the Week of Course Meeting, Course Starting and Ending Times, and Course Enrollment. This data was merged with data from the Ohio State Facilities Room Database to provide Assignable Square Footage and Room Station Capacity.

2. 24-Hour Clock: In the running of the data, the digital file of starting and ending class times was converted to a 24-hour clock to calculate the elapsed time of each class and to add 12 minutes to account for class change times. In other words, a 48-minute class equals one hour and a 78-minute class equals one and one-half hours.

3. Class Laboratory Capacity: This data file was sorted to consolidate and aggregate or sum the information by individual class laboratory by day of the week. This allowed a computation to be made of the number of hours per day a class laboratory was scheduled for use in comparison to the number of hours a room was available for use.

4. Class Laboratory Utilization: Next, a computation of utilization was made by IFA to compare class laboratory station utilization (course enrollments or contact hours) to class laboratory capacity. IFA divided the student contact hours by the total class laboratory hours available to arrive at class laboratory utilization.

Department Class Laboratory Daytime Use and Utilization

The IFA computer models ran the Ohio State class laboratory data for one time period only: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. This daytime period had use and utilization factors applied. For use and utilization purposes, a 50 percent use, 5 days per week, and 80 percent station utilization were used as target values.

If the instructional space at Ohio State had been fully utilized with the class laboratories fully scheduled for use 50 percent of the time, and with the stations in each room occupied 80 percent on average, the Room Utilization capacity would have been 100 percent.

The results of the Ohio State department class laboratory utilization analysis are summarized below in Table VI-13.

As shown in this table, the 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. scheduled department class laboratory use for the entire Ohio State campus was 65.8 percent. Also, as shown in Table VI-13, the 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. class laboratory utilization for the entire Ohio State campus was 56.7 percent.

What is important to note about the data in this table, is that the hours a class laboratory is in use is not the only indication of utilization. As Table VI-13 shows, it is the actual weekly student contact hours in comparison to the available student contact hours that is the basis for the measurement of class laboratory utilization. The available student contact hours have been factored to account for guidelines noted above on the percentage of hours for class laboratory use and on the percentage of station use within a room.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 124 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Table VI-13 Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Utilization Summary, Ohio State, Autumn 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

A B C D E F G I Total Actual Total Adjusted Total Weekly Room Times No. of Room Stations Class Lab Hours Student Capacity of Use Rooms a Use Available Hours in Use Contact % Util. Available Hours

8:30 a.m. – 192 5,929 3,735 2,457 54,130 65.8% 56.7% 5:30 p.m.

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. a: Note: Course data was only available for 166 of the 192 Ohio State department class laboratories.

Achieving a high level of class laboratory use and utilization is difficult. In a comparison study that IFA completed for another university, class laboratory use on five comparison campuses varied from 34.3 to 58.3 percent and class laboratory utilization varied from 31.8 to 84.0 percent. The Ohio State University’s scheduled department class laboratories have a higher use factor (65.8 percent), but a lower utilization rate (56.7 percent).

Class Laboratory Use and Utilization Tabulations

Tabulations of data on class laboratory utilization, by room, by building, by course and by day of week are identified below. These three sets of computed data, dated December 5, 2008, are as follows:

Pool Classroom Use and Utilization Analysis 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 792 pages

Department Classroom Use and Utilization Analysis 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 287 pages

Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization Analysis 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 392 pages

Summary of Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization by Building

A summary of the pool classroom use and utilization by building for each of the 46 Ohio State buildings with class laboratories is shown in Table VI-14. VI. Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization April 2009 125

Table VI-14 Departmental Class Laboratory Use and Utilization, Ohio State, Autumn 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Departmental Class Laboratory Space ASF/ Actual Contact Util- Building Rooms ASF Stations Use a Notes Station Hours Hours ization b

Arps Hall AP 2 2,223 75 29.6 35.0 813.0 77.8% 60.2%

Jennings Hall JE 17 16,203 400 40.5 269.2 5,581.5 70.4% 77.5% *4 rooms

Knowlton Hall KN 3 25,224 322 78.3 56.0 2,448.0 83.0% 42.2%

Postle Hall PH 1 5,612 130 43.2 4.2 133.2 18.7% 5.7%

Derby Hall DB 4 4,263 132 32.3 50.0 1,174.5 55.6% 49.4%

Caldwell Lab CL 4 4,443 120 37.0 48.0 893.0 53.3% 41.3%

Haskett Hall HK 4 3,945 75 52.6 33.0 426.0 36.7% 31.6%

Denney Hall DE 5 3,320 112 29.6 132.7 2,868.0 117.9% 142.3% *1 room

Hayes Hall HA 9 9,824 212 46.3 131.0 2,188.0 64.7% 57.3%

Lazenby Hall LZ 1 733 20 36.7 11.5 127.5 51.1% 35.4%

Hughes Hall HU 10 6,418 359 17.9 123.5 2,192.0 54.9% 33.9%

Journalism Building JR 3 2,830 120 23.6 28.5 707.0 42.2% 32.7%

Lord Hall (to be demolished in 2008) LO 1 1,170 50 23.4 12.0 296.0 53.3% 32.9%

McPherson Chemical Lab MP 3 5,691 72 79.0 31.0 513.0 45.9% 39.6%

Mendenhall Laboratory ML 6 6,779 184 36.8 100.0 1,781.0 74.1% 53.8%

Converse Hall CV 1 8,446 200 42.2 7.0 18.0 31.1% 3.3%

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 126 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Departmental Class Laboratory Space ASF/ Actual Contact Util- Building Rooms ASF Stations Use a Notes Station Hours Hours ization b

Fry Hall FR *4 rooms

Parker Food Science and Technology Building FS 1 924 18 51.3 4.0 98.0 17.8% 30.3%

Smith Laboratory SM 12 8,676 289 30.0 206.0 4,291.0 76.3% 82.5%

Pomerene Hall PO 1 2,341 24 97.5 14.3 330.3 63.3% 76.5%

Sisson Hall SI *1 room

Ramseyer Hall RA 2 2,593 62 41.8 18.5 322.5 41.1% 28.9%

Sullivant Hall SU 4 8,334 140 59.5 52.3 911.3 58.1% 36.2%

Veterinary Medicine Academy Building *1 room

Scott Laboratory SO *8 rooms

Hopkins Hall HC 8 9,034 153 59.0 69.5 1,233.5 38.6% 44.8% *1 room

Animal Science Buidling AS 2 5,165 120 43.0 23.0 632.0 51.1% 29.3%

Starling Loving Hall SL *2 rooms

Mathematics Building MA 1 950 40 23.8 12.0 264.0 53.3% 36.7%

PAES Building PE *1 room

Parks Hall PK 2 2,387 68 35.1 18.0 457.0 40.0% 37.3%

Hitchcock Hall HI 6 8,276 252 32.8 129.0 5,402.0 95.6% 119.1%

Biological Sciences Building BI 3 4,602 120 38.4 33.0 600.0 48.9% 27.8% *1 room

Dreese Laboratories DL 3 3,023 95 31.8 31.5 824.5 46.7% 48.2% VI. Scheduled Department Class Laboratory Use and Utilization April 2009 127

Departmental Class Laboratory Space ASF/ Actual Contact Util- Building Rooms ASF Stations Use a Notes Station Hours Hours ization b

Baker Systems Engineering BE 3 10,875 142 76.6 39.0 1,543.5 57.8% 60.4%

Howlett Hall HT 1 583 24 24.3 12.0 186.0 53.3% 43.1%

Drake Performance and Event Center DR 4 3,115 73 42.7 47.0 478.0 52.2% 36.4%

Howlett Greenhouses HG *1 room

Agricultural Engineering Building AE 5 11,356 130 87.4 67.0 1,235.5 59.6% 52.8% *1 room

Atwell Hall AH 7 5,783 192 30.1 61.0 1,172.5 38.7% 33.9%

Pressey Hall PR 1 675 15 45.0 7.0 80.0 31.1% 29.6%

Kottman Hall KH 4 4,331 96 45.1 34.0 553.5 37.8% 32.0%

Weigel Hall WG 2 3,353 220 15.2 27.0 895.0 60.0% 22.6%

Sherman Studio Art Center SA 2 1,562 28 55.8 17.0 201.0 37.8% 39.9%

Celeste Laboratory of Chemistry CE 17 24,272 405 59.9 456.0 10,123.0 119.2% 138.9%

1224 Kinnear Road KR 1 1,096 13 84.3 6.5 36.5 28.9% 15.6%

TOTAL 166 230,430 5,302 43.5 2,457 54,130 65.8% 56.7%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Note: Final data. Data run DB:e:\ohio4.008.fm

* No courses are shown in the course schedule for some rooms in this building. a: Class Laboratory Use: Room use is computed based on a 45-hour week, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Full room use is based on the room being scheduled for use 50 percent of the 45-hour week, or 22.5 hours per week. b: Class Laboratory Utilization: Station utilization is based upon the expectation that 80 percent of the stations in a room in use would be occupied during a scheduled course time.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 128 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank. 7 Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories and Computer Laboratories

Background

Unscheduled Department Class Laboratory Space

Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratory Space 130 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Stillman Hall, Room 235, Computer Laboratory, 30 Stations VII. Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories and Computer Laboratories April 2009 131

VII. UNSCHEDULED DEPARTMENT CLASS LABORATORIES AND COMPUTER LABORATORIES

This section describes what is known about unscheduled department class laboratories and computer laboratories at The Ohio State University. A complete inventory of the 315 unscheduled department class laboratories and the 128 unscheduled department computer laboratories are shown in Appendices D and E.

A. BACKGROUND

Information Sources

The information in this section is based only on the data contained in the University’s room database. Since the unscheduled department class laboratories and computer laboratories had no scheduled use, there was no recorded information about how often, if at all, they may have been put to use, by how many, for how long, and for what purpose. Hence, this section contains minimal information as there was not much that could be known about this group of rooms at The Ohio State University.

Definition of Unscheduled Rooms

Unscheduled class laboratories or computer laboratories are generally rooms for individual or group instruction that is informally scheduled, unscheduled, or open, and which require special purpose equipment for student participation, experimentation, observation, or practice in a field of study. Class laboratories or computer laboratories are those special or open laboratories designed for or furnished with equipment that serves the need of a particular discipline or disciplines, or are for individual or group instruction where: (1) use of the room is not formally or regularly scheduled or (2) access is limited to a specific group of students. Design and/or equipment normally precludes their use for other areas of study. This category may include such rooms as language laboratories, group music practice rooms, group studios, etc.

If a class laboratory had been previously used for scheduled activity and is no longer used for a scheduled use, it would stay in departmental ownership and fall into the category of unscheduled space. Thus, an unscheduled class laboratory or unscheduled computer laboratory can be considered available for scheduled use, but its use is under departmental control.

Ohio State Unscheduled Department Class Laboratory and Computer Laboratory Space Data

Based upon the University’s space database, the rooms described in this chapter fall under two categories: room code 2K, unscheduled teaching laboratory, or room code 2Q, unscheduled

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 132 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study computer laboratory. A complete inventory of the rooms is shown in Appendix D for unscheduled class laboratories and in Appendix E for unscheduled computer laboratories.

Because these rooms are under departmental jurisdiction, and there is no reporting requirement, it was not possible for the purposes of this study to determine how and when these rooms shown in Appendix D and Appendix E were used, or if they were used.

B. UNSCHEDULED DEPARTMENT CLASS LABORATORY SPACE

Number and Size of Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories

According to the University’s space database, in Autumn 2007, there were 315 rooms enclosing 251,852 square feet and accommodating 4,895 stations (seats) that were classified as room type code 2K, or unscheduled departmental laboratory. According to the University’s database, these unscheduled departmental class laboratories occurred in 73 separate buildings on campus. In other words, approximately 65 percent of the buildings that were used for instruction also had other rooms classified as unscheduled department class laboratories.

A review of the unscheduled department class laboratories database, which is contained in Appendix D, would lead to the conclusion that these rooms are available for use for instruction. In the interim, they may be used for undergraduate research projects, for study space, for drop-in use, or “just in case.” At the same time, there are a number of these rooms, either by their size as reported in the database or by the number of seating stations in the rooms, that may be laboratory support facilities and could have been miscoded or not coded by the University.

A Large Block of Space

Based on the other instructional spaces shown in the University’s space data, these 315 unscheduled department class laboratories, which contain 251,900 square feet, are almost as large a total block of space as the scheduled department class laboratories and computer laboratories, which total 257,300 square feet. Thus, there is about the same amount of scheduled department class laboratory space as unscheduled department class laboratory space at The Ohio State University.

The unscheduled class laboratories are different than scheduled laboratory space in that they contain a 20 percent larger square footage per station, 51.7 asf per station, in comparison to 43.4 asf per station in scheduled class laboratories. On the other hand, these 315 rooms have a station capacity which is only about one-half of that of the scheduled class laboratories. On average, the unscheduled class laboratories have 15 stations per room, whereas the scheduled class laboratories have an average of 31 stations per room.

Since it is not known how these rooms are put to use, they potentially represent a large inventory of space that is distributed across campus and could be reclaimed for other uses should the need arise. VII. Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories and Computer Laboratories April 2009 133

C. UNSCHEDULED DEPARTMENT COMPUTER LABORATORY SPACE

Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories

Unscheduled department computer laboratories are generally free-time, drop-in laboratories. However, The Ohio State University room coding system does not indicate this level of detail, so it is not known how these unscheduled department computer laboratories are used as free-time, drop-in spaces, or not.

For the purposes of this report, and as shown in Appendix E, there were a total of 128 unscheduled computer laboratories, totaling nearly 90,000 square feet and containing 2,672 stations. These unscheduled computer laboratories occur in 56 separate buildings on the campus.

These rooms, like the unscheduled department class laboratories, represent a large reservoir of space that, if needed, might be reclaimed for the University’s space inventory and used for other administrative, operational, or instructional purposes. These rooms may also be highly equipped with technology capability as they are classified as computer laboratories.

Size of Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories

One interesting characteristic of these unscheduled department computer laboratories is that they are considerably smaller in their size than the scheduled departmental laboratories. These unscheduled department computer laboratories have an average of over 703 square feet per room. This compares with an average of nearly 800 square feet per room in unscheduled department class laboratories and an average of over 1,340 square feet in departmentally-scheduled class laboratories.

These unscheduled computer laboratory rooms have an average of 21 stations per room, compared to 16 stations per room in the unscheduled department class laboratories and 31 stations per room in scheduled department class laboratories. These unscheduled department computer laboratories have an average of 33.7 asf per station.

Table VII-1 Summary of Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories and Computer Laboratories

Room Use Number Square Number of Stations Square Feet Room Type Code of Rooms Footage Stations per Room per Station

Unscheduled Department 2K 315 251,852 4,895 15.5 51.5 Class Laboratories Unscheduled Department 2Q 128 89,977 2,672 20.9 33.7 Computer Laboratories

Total Unscheduled Space 443 341,829 7,567 17.1 45.2

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 134 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank. 8 Web-Based Classroom Survey

Background

Recurrent Comments

Additional Comments 136 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Stillman Hall, Room 131, 28 Stations VIII. Web-Based Classroom Survey April 2009 137

VIII. WEB-BASED CLASSROOM SURVEY

This section summarizes the comments given by the Ohio State University faculty in a web-based classroom survey that was disseminated as part of the instructional space feasibility study.

A. BACKGROUND

A web-based survey was prepared by the Office of the University Registrar at Ohio State and posted on the Ohio State website in Autumn 2008 for faculty to respond to. The survey provided feedback to identify the areas of concern and preferences of faculty regarding classrooms. It was hoped that this process could better meet faculty and student needs, and aid in the future development of a system whereby on-going feedback about individual classrooms can be easily attained and assessed.

Responses were obtained by Ohio State and sub-divided by whether they covered pool or departmental classrooms. These separate files of comments were sent to Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., who subsequently reviewed the comments and categorized them by topic, assigning each comment one or more classification numbers, depending on how many topics the comment touched upon. The typology used is included here, which provides a summary of all comments. Appendix G provides a complete list of all comments received. This methodology allowed for each topic to be quantified so that a general sense of the most recurrent comments could be sifted and appraised.

The table of comment classification numbers is shown as Table VIII-1. As would be expected from a survey of this nature, it would capture the negative aspects, and it did, as shown in Table VIII-1.

Table VIII-1 Comment Classification Numbers and Faculty Response Rates

Pool Departmental Code Category Classroom Classroom No. Response Response

1 Install digital projectors in every classroom 42 89 2 Technology in all classrooms 97 76 3 Standardization of technology throughout classrooms 24 27 4 Training or easy instructions for technology in classrooms 18 29 5 Specific Building or Department Complaint 10 73 6 Install Document Cameras 1 6 7 Provide internet accessibility 13 33 8 A/V 3 33 9 Faulty equipment 40 50 10 IT Support 5 20 11 Install computers in every class 39 44

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 138 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Table VIII-1 (continued) Comment Classification Numbers and Faculty Response Rates

Pool Departmental Code Category Classroom Classroom No. Response Response

12 Faculty knowledge of and/or adoption of technology 12 4 issues 13 Lighting control issues 41 76 14 Install and/or synchronize clocks 12 17 15 Provide multiple projection options 1 4 16 Access to technology complaints 25 20 17 No problems/satisfied 56 68 18 Preference for smart classrooms 11 11 19 Provide room technology sheets 3 4 20 Provide university network drive 0 1 21 Software issues 6 11 22 Theft 0 6 23 Keep technology up-to-date 14 47 24 Provide electronic blackboards 7 11 25 OSU vs. other campuses/high schools 1 11 26 Cable issues 3 5 27 More scanning machines 1 3 28 Provide Macintosh compatibility 4 10 29 Provide consistent equipment maintenance 25 35 30 Microphone issues 8 12 31 Room temperature issues 128 157 32 Provide clickers/remote 8 8 33 Space issues 11 25 34 Chalk vs. whiteboards 10 17 35 Provide more outlets 3 8 36 Provide less technology or more low-tech alternatives 0 2 37 Provide easier reconfiguration of space 28 47 38 Provide better cleanliness 92 96 39 Provide better ADA compliance 2 3 40 Provide more and/or better layout of blackboards 20 13 41 Provide more and/or better table and seating space for 70 74 students 42 Make sure there is adequate (not too much, not too little) 64 58 seating for every class 43 Provide better general room maintenance (e.g., chalk 123 139 supply, working blinds, paint the walls) 44 Floor issues 1 6 45 Provide bulletin boards 0 2 46 Provide more windows 6 10 47 Provide telephones 0 1 48 Soundproof rooms 14 12 49 Improve aesthetics 12 7 50 Add recycling bins 1 1 51 Issues with the scheduling of classes 8 14 52 More parking 0 1 53 Issues with the variation by classroom and by building 41 18 54 Provide more bathrooms 1 1

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on the autumn 2008 Registrar web-based faculty classroom survey. VIII. Web-Based Classroom Survey April 2009 139

The following summarizes these comments and their important points, based on the survey tabulations and the comments themselves.

B. RECURRENT COMMENTS

Pool Classroom Comments

As shown in Figure VIII-1 below, of the 900 pool classroom comments:

• 128 discussed HVAC issues (14.2 percent)

• 123 expressed a desire for better general room maintenance (13.7 percent)

• 97 expressed a desire for technology to be installed in more classrooms (10.8 percent)

• 92 expressed a desire cleaner rooms (10.2 percent)

• 70 expressed a desire for better seats to be provided for students (7.8 percent)

Figure VIII-1 Top 5 Survey Comment Topics, Pool Classrooms

200

150

100

50 Number of Comments

0 HVAC General Technology Better Cleanliness Better Seats Maintenance Installed in More Classrooms Subject of Comments by Respondents

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on the autumn 2008 Registrar web-based faculty classroom survey.

Departmental Classroom Comments

As shown in Figure VIII-2 below, of the 1,224 departmental classroom comments:

• 157 discussed HVAC issues (12.8 percent)

• 139 expressed a desire for better general room maintenance (11.4 percent)

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 140 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

• 96 expressed a desire for cleaner rooms (7.8 percent)

• 89 asked that a digital projectors be installed in every classroom (7.3 percent)

• 76 expressed a desire for increased capability of controlling the lighting of classrooms and 76 expressed a desire for technology to be installed in more classrooms (6.2 percent)

Figure VIII-2 Top 5 Survey Comment Topics, Departmental Classrooms

200

150

100

50 Number of Comments

0 HVAC General Better Digital Technology Better Lighting Maintenance Cleanliness Projectors in Installed in Control Every Room More Classrooms Subject of Comments by Respondents

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on the autumn 2008 Registrar web-based faculty classroom survey.

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning/HVAC

The most persistent comment in both pool and departmental classroom survey responses was a complaint about the inconsistent and unsuitable room temperatures in and between instructional spaces in buildings across the Ohio State University campus. HVAC problems ranged from rooms that were freezing in winter, forcing students to don hats and wear their coats, to rooms that were boiling in the summer. Faculty often complained that the latter forced them to open windows to allow air into the room, which subsequently disrupted class if construction noises were present. Other faculty said that rooms could get too hot in the winter, making their students sleepy, while in the summer the rooms could get too cold.

Some faculty further observed that it was difficult to effect the University to fix any temperature issues, and hence they suggested that the ability to control room temperature be made available in each individual room. Some of the respondents also added that their students frequently complained to them about the excessive room temperatures on campus.

Another issue that was raised with regard to the HVAC systems across campus was the noise generated by the air conditioning and ventilation systems. Several faculty members said that the VIII. Web-Based Classroom Survey April 2009 141 noise was often so loud that not only could they not hear their students, but students in the front rows often complained of not being able to hear the instructor.

General Maintenance

The second most recurring comment for both pool and departmental classroom survey responses was directed against the general room maintenance in and between buildings across the Ohio State University campus. These comments enumerated a range of problems, such as:

• the lack of chalk/markers and erasers in most classrooms, forcing faculty to bring their own supply

• broken chairs, desks, windows, blinds/shades, and movable chalkboards

• overhead projectors that project dimly and/or poorly

• clocks that are missing in classrooms, or are not synchronized across campus

• the need for a new coat of paint in many rooms, especially those in older buildings

• pile-up of broken equipment and furniture in some classrooms

• the ‘dingy’ appearance and general sense of neglect of many classrooms, especially those in older buildings

Many faculty suggested that the university engage a proactive rather than reactive maintenance department to ensure equipment is at least fixed and ready, if the room itself cannot be aesthetically enhanced.

Better Cleanliness

A frequent complaint in both the pool and departmental classroom surveys was the cleanliness of rooms on the Ohio State University campus. The dirty and sticky floors, tables, chalkboards, and general nature of the classroom was frequently remarked upon. Faculty claimed that they often had to clean a room themselves and pick up trash from the floor due to the distracting appearance of their classrooms.

Faculty especially complained about the permanent and growing layer of dust from chalk in rooms with a chalkboard. Hence some suggested the university try to install more whiteboards as an alternative, or ensure that the dust is removed more completely from the equipment and nooks and crannies of rooms.

While faculty wondered whether more frequent janitorial service could be hired, they also noted that the University could do more to encourage students to clean up after themselves. In that regard, some respondents suggested adding more trash and/or recycling bins in rooms to encourage their use by students, and to initiate a campaign to remind students and faculty to leave rooms in the same state as, if not better than, when they found it.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 142 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Digital Projectors

Most of the faculty respondents showed a strong dislike of having to haul a digital projector, cords, and laptop to their classes and preferred to have a digital projector and computer installed in classrooms. Nonetheless, many acknowledged that if that were not feasible, they would like at least to have the University meet their bare minimum technology requirement: for digital projectors to be installed in every classroom with easy and standardized connections for their laptops.

Installed Technology

A frequent complaint of those surveyed was their dissatisfaction with access to technology. Many faculty do not like to have to borrow a digital projector and carry it, along with the necessary cords and their laptop, to their classrooms. Faculty argued that setting up for class took too much time away from their instruction.

Many of the faculty wanted technology in all rooms across campus, although as stated above, most acknowledged that even just installing digital projectors in all rooms would be a nice step forward. Many respondents also observed that there was too much variability in technology access at the University; some buildings have rooms with a number of technological options (e.g., smart rooms) while others do not even have a working clock. Faculty showed a preference for “smart” rooms and some insisted that the installation of technology across campus would give an incentive for instructors to expand their pedagogical methods. Nonetheless, a few faculty members insisted they had no need for extra technology, and that the University would do better to focus on ensuring that its low-technology alternatives work well (e.g., maintaining the chalk supply across campus).

Some faculty suggested the University make room technology sheets available before the start of a term so that they can investigate what equipment is available in their assigned room and make any necessary adjustments beforehand. Moreover, to avoid confusion, some faculty suggested that there be standardization of technology across rooms so that each instructor knows what to expect for any given equipment. Some faculty also suggested that Apple and Macintosh compatibility be considered by the University.

A focus of concern for many faculty members was the assured upgrading of technology on campus. Some suggested that there be regular proactive maintenance to ensure not only that the technology is working, but also that all software is up-to-date so that instructors do not run into any obstacles in the process of teaching a class. Other faculty noted that wireless access should be made ubiquitous across campus, although one questioned whether students should have access to it during classes.

Some other technological suggestions of faculty included adding document cameras to classrooms for simultaneous projection of media, and making sure there are more outlets since students frequently use their laptops in class.

Better Lighting Control

Some faculty said that they wanted better control over the lighting of their rooms, especially when they are using technology. In conjunction with the faculty dissatisfaction with the general VIII. Web-Based Classroom Survey April 2009 143 maintenance of rooms on campus mentioned above, respondents often complained that faulty blinds and shades on windows prevented them from adequately shutting out light. Respondents also noted that sometimes their options were limited to all or no light in a room, which meant choosing between not being able to project images or having their students fall asleep.

Better Seating

Faculty were concerned that in some buildings there were classrooms with seats and desks that were beyond normal wear and tear and in dire need of replacement. A common observation was that many desks are too small for some students, who find it troublesome to get in and out of their seats. Other faculty noted that students need more desk space due to the fact that many use their computers to take notes and must reference books at the same time.

Respondents also showed a preference for easier reconfiguration of space; that is, tables and chairs that are easily moved around for the needs of a class. The bolted-down chairs of older buildings was explicitly cited as being distasteful to some instructors since it hindered their ability to complete group work activities etc. A few instructors suggested the University consider buying more left- handed desks for students.

C. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Variability between Buildings

A frequent complaint was the insufficiency of the survey to address variability in quality between buildings on campus. Respondents noted that they were satisfied with some rooms, both in general terms and in terms of technology, while other rooms seemed archaic and neglected. Hence they hoped that future surveys would allow them to be more specific as to which rooms in particular are problematic. In the case of this survey, many used the comment section to cite specific departmental or building problems.

Instruction and Use of Technology

Some of the respondents had comments regarding the acceptance and readiness of faculty to use technology. To that end, a few noted that some training and even encouragement in the use of technology for instructors should be administered and advertised by the University. A few respondents noted that a support system already exists when faculty talk to one another about technology, but implied the University should also take on a more aggressive role in facilitating faculty use of technology.

Support Desk Phone Number

A number of respondents suggested that simple, laminated instruction cards with IT support’s phone number could be placed at podiums in each classroom with technology so that configuration and troubleshooting issues can be more easily solved.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 144 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Scheduling and Rooms

Faculty frequently complained about the disparity between the size of their classroom and the number of students in the room. Most of these complaints centered around too many desks being crammed into a room, so that their mobility and ability to reconfigure the equipment in a room for pedagogical purposes was impaired.

Other Space Issues

A number of respondents wanted the University to consider the line of sight of the students in a room, since some rooms had pillars or columns obstructing student views.

Many complained that blackboards were often placed in the way of their projection screens, so that it is difficult for them to use both at the same time.

No Problems/Satisfied

For departmental classrooms, 68 respondents (5.6 percent) said they were satisfied with their classrooms, while 56 of those surveyed for pool classrooms (6.2 percent) said they were satisfied. 9 Comparison Campuses/ Best Practices

Background

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus

Arizona State University

University of Washington

Pennsylvania State University 146 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Waiting for Class, Knowlton Hall Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Waiting for Class, Hayes Hall IX. Comparison Campuses/Best Practices April 2009 147

IX. COMPARISON CAMPUSES/BEST PRACTICES

This section presents the best practices that several universities have followed in reorganizing their internal classroom space management functions. This section describes how these institutions have brought together the disparate activities related to maximizing the potential use and usefulness of instructional space.

A. BACKGROUND

Most universities have a number of distinct units devoted to classroom management and support that can result in a decentralized administration of instructional space. The four universities described in this section, however, have overcome the scattering of these units on their campus and found unique ways of operating that creatively attempt to tackle, streamline, and coordinate classroom management.

These four institutions – the University of Minnesota, Arizona State University, the University of Washington, and Pennsylvania State University – are presented here to illustrate their organizational structure and to outline the services they offer. They may serve as a model for a similar type of organization that could be formed at The Ohio State University. These organizations were not evaluated for this report; they are simply described. In other words, IFA does not know how well they function. The assumption is made that they work well enough that they all continue to exist.

At The Ohio State University, in addition to the Registrar’s Office, there are four separate units that provide services to classrooms, as well as to students, faculty, and staff. These are identified in Section III, along with an organizational chart.

B. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, TWIN CITIES CAMPUS

Office of Classroom Management (OCM)

The University of Minnesota’s Office of Classroom Management (OCM) was created in Fall 1999. It is a unit of Academic Support Resources (ASR), as shown in Figure IX-1. OCM is located within the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, also as shown in the organization chart below. Its place within the hierarchy of Academic Affairs demonstrates that it is viewed as an academic administrative activity within the purview of the University of Minnesota Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 148 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Benefit of the Office of Classroom Management

The major benefit that the Office of Classroom Management bestows for the University of Minnesota in terms of managing instructional space is that it is the one-stop, central point of contact for nearly every need and issue related to the 300 general purpose classrooms on campus. This means there is no confusion over the duties related to handling classrooms on campus, and OCM is the one office that can be held accountable for all classroom issues.

Figure IX-1 Organization Chart for the University of Minnesota, Classroom Management Units

Office of the Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education

Academic Support Resources (Director & University Registrar)

Academic Support Academic Support Office of One Stop Office of the Office of Classroom Resources Resources IT Student Finance Student Services Registrar Management Administration (Director) (Director) (Director) (Director) (Director) (Director)

Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Support Scheduling Facilities Technical Planning and Services Projects

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on the University of Minnesota website.

To that end, and as shown in the organization chart, OCM has five operational units to cover all areas of classroom performance. The functions of these units are outlined in Table IX-1. IX. Comparison Campuses/Best Practices April 2009 149

Table IX-1 University of Minnesota’s Functional Units of the Office of Classroom Management

OFFICE OF CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT (OCM) UNITS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Scheduling and Technical Facilities Support Planning Course Database Services Coordination

Classroom Campus AV Classroom Capital project Maintain budgets experts facilities ops, liaison database – maintenance all courses Faculty support External Sales & repair Classroom project coordination management Manage central Hotline Support Internal Service classroom Organization Classroom Classroom utilization, Life cycle cost business unit physical physical Produce standards, service standards, design utilization reports Problem response Tech standards, levels, and room and planning planning, readiness Operate & Training and Help & design, Coordination maintain installation & Classroom with CPPM enterprise level Website maintenance physical scheduling environment Future inventory systems requirements and Coordination plans Produce Course with FM Guide, Class Schedule, Event FF&E standards schedules and management

Source: University of Minnesota, 2008 Balanced Scorecard for Office of Classroom Management.

OCM Website (www.classroom.umn.edu)

The Office’s website serves as the primary mechanism for providing communication and services to instructional space users. The classroom support hotline is clearly identified on the home page of the website, and quick link tabs on the left-hand side and upper portion of the website make it easy for the user to access the services of OCM.

OCM’s website also allows users to search for classrooms based on:

• campus

• building

• room number

• seating capacity

• seat type

• room features

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 150 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

This allows users to either find what features a room has, or what rooms have the features they desire. The room features that can be searched include:

• assistive listening systems

• chalkboards

• closed captioning

• document cameras

• hotline telephones

• microphones

• PC and/or Mac computers

• projection capable equipment

• slide projectors

• wheelchair accessibility

• whiteboards

The website also provides PDF instructions and photos on how to use the equipment in each room, as well as photos of the rooms themselves.

Balanced Scorecard for Classroom Performance

To help facilitate dialogue with the university community about OCM and its oversight of classrooms, their website also posts two measures of classroom performance: a Balanced Scorecard and a Utilization Dashboard. The Scorecard is intended to measure the deliverables provided by OCM and the return on investment in the General Purpose Classroom Cost Pool. Some of the performance indicators discussed in the Scorecard include:

• The results of annual surveys of both faculty and students regarding the physical environment of the classrooms.

• The amount of time within which classroom support hotline calls are resolved.

• Life cycle costs for funding estimating purposes.

• A classroom performance index that quantitatively ranks how classrooms perform. (This index uses twenty-three different criteria covering classroom condition, design performance, operational performance, and user satisfaction.)

Utilization Dashboard

The second measure of classroom performance that is posted on OCM’s website is the Utilization Dashboard. The Dashboard is a graphic representation of central classroom utilization at the University. It gives classroom utilization by semester, location/campus, and room size with bar graphs showing utilization by day and by hour. It also provides summary statistics for a quick glance at the average IX. Comparison Campuses/Best Practices April 2009 151 room capacity. It shows via “gauges” to what extent the University is meeting its utilization goals and projected versus actual seat occupancy.

Review of Cancelled Courses

In 2003, OCM disclosed a review of excessive course cancellations and how it planned to produce detailed utilization reporting and work with colleges to improve scheduling efficiency. To that end, the Office now also publishes classroom utilization reports by College and studies the supply and demand of classrooms. They have set an internal target of no more than five percent of course cancellations in a semester. (By comparison, in the Autumn Quarter 2007, eight percent of all Ohio State courses were cancelled.)

Resource 25 Software

OCM uses software that allows them the ability to track classroom scheduling and statistically analyze the use of classrooms. Four key measures that are examined by the Office include:

• 60/40 use of the 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. peak time period

• excess course cancellations

• non-conforming course sections

• projected vs. actual enrollment

At the direction of the University of Minnesota Provost in 2006, Resource 25 (R25) was implemented as the scheduling system for all classrooms, both general purpose and departmental. Thus OCM provides Resource 25 software, licensing, training, and schedule viewers to departments, although department classrooms are not under OCM’s control.

OCM also provides a Utilization Dashboard for Departmental Utilization in order to assist departments and colleges in maximizing the utilization of departmentally-controlled spaces. Hence the constant communication between OCM and departments helps institutionalize, standardize, and identify gaps in the management of classroom space.

Central Classroom Readiness

To ensure the upkeep of classrooms, OCM visually inspects an average of 39 percent of classrooms daily and 100 percent of classrooms every three days, resulting in a decreased amount of service requests. It also continuously monitors 92 percent of classroom technology using CAMS (Classroom Automated Management System).

Technology

The Classroom Technical Services (CTS) unit within OCM is charged with providing presentation technology expertise and is the primary technical support organization for classroom audio, video, projection, and presentation systems. It serves over 200 departments. According to OCM’s website,

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 152 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study the systems this unit has installed has been so well-received by faculty and students that 100 more systems have been requested to be installed for other university departments.

CTS quantifies and monitors the percentage of classrooms with video-data projection capability by campus location. It also uses the internal University of Minnesota Central Classroom Automated Management System (CAMS), which employs a networked Control Management Server, to receive data on how equipment in classrooms are functioning and reports the theft of or faulty equipment to an operator located at OCM’s central office. This pro-active upkeep of equipment on campus helps reduce the number of unexpected technological disruptions during class times.

Published Guidelines for Construction

The University of Minnesota has also published a campus-wide Standards and Procedures for Construction for the University. These guidelines are intended to clarify the preferences of the University in the development, maintenance, and repair of all of its facilities and to explain the procedures, policies, and basic minimum requirements for materials and products included in campus construction projects. To that end, OCM was a major participant in the development of Appendix DD – Requirements for University Classrooms of the overall University of Minnesota campus construction guidelines. Appendix DD provides guidelines for instructional space such as:

• Central classrooms must meet the minimum standard of being a projection capable classroom. The classroom must have data/video projection capabilities, Internet connectivity at the instructor’s station, a VCR and/or other input device, a user- friendly laptop interface/control system, and capabilities for other add-on modular features.

• Projection capable classrooms must use standardized control/interface systems and a standardized operational protocol.

• Signage must indicate how to report problems and be placed in the instructor’s area.

• ADA compliance.

• The capacity of a room must be posted if it has movable seating.

• Distracting internal and external noise is to be prevented, to the extent possible.

• Lighting control and zone guidelines.

• Sightline obstruction guidelines.

• The size of student seating and the percentage of left-handed seats to be supplied.

• Design elements for future technology needs must be installed.

It should be noted that rooms with different station counts are given separate guidelines and considerations in Appendix DD. IX. Comparison Campuses/Best Practices April 2009 153

C. ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

University Classroom (UCL) Space Management

Arizona State University’s Classroom (UCL) Space Management’s unit is responsible for maintaining the centrally-scheduled classrooms at the highest possible standard. Like the University of Minnesota’s OCM, it acts as a central hub for handling classroom issues. Its location within the organization of ASU’s administration, however, is unique, as shown in Figure IX-2.

As shown, UCL Space Management is a unit of the University Architect’s office, which reports to University Services and ultimately to the Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer. Hence, the Arizona State University UCL Space Management unit lies outside of Academic Affairs and the Provost’s Office, unlike the University of Minnesota and the University of Washington.

Figure IX-2 Organization Chart for Arizona State University, University Classroom Space Management Units

University Services (Vice President University Services)

Office of the University Architect (University Architect)

Architecture and Space Management Planning and Planning and (Director, Architects) University Facilities Records Management (Director)

Space Survey University Facilities University Classroom (Space Planner, Sr.) Records Management (UCL) Space (Manager) Management (Program Manager)

Routine Maintenance Classroom Consulting classroom & design renovations services on inspections services (paint, carpet, room designs furniture)

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on the Arizona State University website.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 154 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Services

UCL Space Management works with other departments on campus to maintain the central classrooms. The unit provides a range of services, including: routine classroom inspections; maintenance and design services; classroom renovations (paint, carpet, furniture); and consulting services on room design.

According to UCL Space Management’s website, the unit encourages dialogue on how to create functional, inviting, stimulating, and flexible spaces. To that end, it invites faculty, staff, and students to provide comments and suggestions on ways to improve classrooms using the UCL Suggestion Form posted on their website, or by contacting the department by email directly. Although suggestions for improvements are accepted from the campus community at any time, they are only reviewed at the end of fall and spring semesters at which time they are prioritized and approved for implementation based on available funding.

Published Guidelines for Classroom Construction

Like the University of Minnesota, the Arizona State University UCL Space Management publishes guidelines to assist and standardize the construction and renovation of classrooms. Its Classroom Design Guide provides standards which, although not intended to be taken absolutely, are detailed enough to cover such areas as:

• acoustics

• ADA compliance

• classroom interiors, including signage

• classroom storage

• electrical outlets

• HVAC

• lighting zones

• network requirements

• room definitions

• seating width, back support, and quality

• types of furniture to avoid

Arizona State also publishes the quality standards to which it desires to adhere. It explicitly lists the seven areas the standards cover, including:

• Cleanliness: Classrooms are examined each semester for overall condition and correction of problems. Every day the rooms are to be cleaned, chalk or markers replenished, and trash and recycling removed.

• Seating: Selected to meet minimum comfort standards, seating also must satisfy building/fire codes and cost, durability, comfort, and appearance standards. IX. Comparison Campuses/Best Practices April 2009 155

• ADA Accessibility: All classrooms must have one ADA compliant work space.

• Visibility/Lighting: There should be no obstructive views in a classroom and optimal lighting includes day lighting, multi-modal lighting, controllability, and optimized energy performance.

• Mediation: A minimum of overhead (digital) projector, projection screen, and instructor data connection shall be provided for each room. Classroom design will evolve as technology is enhanced.

• Acoustics: Classrooms are designed for students to hear material from any point in the room. Noises generated from HVAC or other mechanical devices are to be reported to UCL Space Management.

Figure IX-3 Organization Chart for Arizona State University, Technology Units

Executive Vice President Executive Vice President, and Provost Office of the President Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer

University Technology Officer & Vice President

University University Technology Office Technology Council

Development Operations Customer Care

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on the Arizona State University website.

Technology

What is missing from UCL Space Management’s purview, however, is management of technology in learning spaces. While UCL Space Management handles the facility operations of classrooms, the University Technology Office provides the leadership over technology solutions and services for ASU. The separation of these duties is illuminated by the different authorities the units report

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 156 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study to. While UCL Space Management reports to the University Architect and ultimately to the Chief Financial Officer, as shown in Figure IX-3, the University Technology Office reports to the University Technology Officer, who in turn reports to the Office of the President.

D. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Classroom Support Services

The Provost at the UW designated the Undergraduate Academic Affairs and its Classroom Support Services (CSS) unit as the stewards of the University’s general-use classrooms. Its place within the hierarchy of Academic Affairs, as shown in Figure IX-4, shows a clear line of authority so that CSS has an easily identifiable place in the university administration.

Figure IX-4 Organization Chart for the University of Washington, Classroom Management Units

Provost

Undergraduate Academic Affairs (Vice Provost)

Classroom Support Services (Director)

Media Event Classrooms Technical Information Photography Student Services Services Services Technology Technology Fee (STF) Equipment

Equipment Reserve Classroom Equipment Classroom Prints & Technology Reservations Facilities Planning Consultation, Computers Negatives Equipment Repair & Loan to Maintenance Students

Instructor Classroom Automated Stuido Laptops Schematics Video Screencasting

Faculty Video- Automated Digital conferencing Digital Audio Imaging Recording

Audio Help Desk Slides Response System

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on the University of Washington website. IX. Comparison Campuses/Best Practices April 2009 157

Website

The University of Washington CSS website offers information on furniture, room layout and size, and permanently installed teaching equipment in general-use classrooms, much like the University of Minnesota’s website. It also gives the user an option to find rooms based on their data projection and capacity needs, with an explanation of what specific models of computer and data projector are offered in the rooms as sorted by the user’s needs.

Services

Classroom Support Services provides comprehensive media support for classrooms and is the one- stop place for faculty and students to go when reporting problems with classroom equipment and/ or fixtures and furniture. The services provided by CSS are outlined in Table IX-2.

As is easily deduced from the variety of services provided by CSS, the unit is accountable for both the facility operations and technology-integration of classrooms at the University of Washington. In fact, CSS’s organization and mission makes it clear that its intention is to marry the maintenance of the physical environment of classrooms with the use of technology in university pedagogy and to foster links with various members of the university community.

Student Technology Fee

In 1995-96, UW students and the administration supported a successful legislative effort to establish the Student Technology Fee. This fee is used exclusively for technology resources for general student use. This fund is administered by a Student Technology Fee Committee. The Committee solicits requests once a year for use of the funds, interviews applicants, and makes awards. The funding decisions have enabled the purchase of equipment, such as digital recorders, projectors, and computers, that allows students the ability to check out the equipment for up to three days at no charge from CSS, enabling them to gain exposure and direct access to the technology options on campus. CSS also chooses what equipment to lend to students by monitoring how much equipment is used and by reviewing surveys that are placed at the check-out desk. The cost per student per academic year in 2008-09 was $123. With an enrollment of nearly 40,000 students, this fee generates almost $5 million in revenue per year for student initiated technology. The funds cannot be used for instruction, but it does fund department computer laboratories across the campus.

Classroom Presenter

The UW’s Computer Science and Engineering Department is working with the University to engage the results of its technology development with the University’s classrooms. The Department of Computer Science and Engineering’s Center for Collaborative Technologies, for example, has produced the Classroom Presenter. This is a Tablet PC-based interaction system that supports the sharing of digital ink on slides between instructors and students. Used as a presentation tool, it provides instructors and students the ability to link devices and send information back and forth for active learning and feedback channels.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 158 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

The Center’s website provides videos for faculty interested in using the tool in their classroom, as well as detailed instruction and a mailing list for users of Presenter.

This effort shows the amount of collaboration and dialogue possible between departments and the larger university to aid in the integration of technology in classrooms.

Table IX-2 University of Washington’s CSS Services

CLASSROOM SUPPORT SERVICES (CSS) UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Classrooms Handles schematics, equipment, and construction/renovation of general-use classrooms

Helps develop the Classroom Design Guidelines

Event Services Reservation of select rooms for large events

Information Technology Provides information and support for classroom computers

Provides automated video screencasting for recording classroom presentations

Provides automated digital audio recording of classes and lectures

Help Desk helps faculty, staff, and students get technical support

Media Services Provides comprehensive, no-charge teaching equipment for regularly scheduled general-use and, when available, departmental teaching spaces.

Loans instructor laptops on a short-term and quarterly basis

Provides no-charge faculty/videoconferencing equipment

Provides audience response system, a.k.a. ‘Clickers’

Photography Provides prints and negatives

Runs a studio for slides and other educational media

Digital imaging

Student Technology Fee (STF) Loans laptops, data projectors, digital cameras, digital Equipment camcorders, voice recorders, MP3 players, scanners, projection screens, and audio systems to students

Technical Services Maintains/repairs technical equipment, including lighting control systems, in classrooms

Provides instructional equipment consulting to departments

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on the University of Washington’s Classroom Support Services website. IX. Comparison Campuses/Best Practices April 2009 159

Podcasting

The UW traditionally offered audio recordings of large survey classes on cassette through the university library. After Classroom Support Services realized that updating the existing analog technology placed excessive demands on library staff and space, it was ultimately decided that podcasting was a viable replacement.

In 2005 a podcasting pilot program was initiated, whereby recording devices were linked to existing PA systems in classrooms. The MP3 file for each class was uploaded to one of the University’s servers and then posted to a class blog site for easy student access. When it became apparent that faculty frequently forgot to turn on the recording devices, different devices were installed which allowed for automatic, scheduled audio to be streamed onto the server as long as the instructor turned on the microphone. The setup cost per classroom was about $500. Eventually the success of the program encouraged the University to dedicate a new server to the project for about $5,000 and each podcast was copied onto a DVD-ROM as back-up.

Faculty were sent invitations to solicit their involvement and to send instructions on how to optimize their sound recordings. Technical staff monitored the recordings throughout the semester and faculty were not required to pay any more special attention to the program than they wanted.

Podcasting became popular among students and the University conducted surveys of both students and faculty to gauge the results of the project. Faculty did not find any pedagogical benefits of podcasting, but liked how it added another aid for students in their studying. Students indicated that indeed the podcasts were used as one more way to review material, and appreciated its easy, personalized availability should they miss class.

Faculty felt, however, that podcasting made students less likely to attend, although some thought that was only true for the less academically inclined students, which meant the quality of discussion was improved. The students said it did not affect their decision to attend class, and few found it suitable as a regular replacement for class attendance.

Moreover, in the last two years the increased availability of screencasting, which adds a visual component to digitally recorded instruction, has also become so popular at the University of Washington that students are petitioning professors who use podcasting to move to rooms that support video.

Published Guidelines

Like the University of Minnesota’s OCM and Arizona State University’s UCL Space Management units, the University of Washington Classroom Support Services (CSS) also publishes a Design Guide for general-use classrooms that is intended to help in planning purposes. It covers such topics as:

• assignable square feet per station criteria for furniture type

• chalkboards

• definition, equipment, and space requirements of technology room types (e.g., “standard technology room” versus “enhanced technology room”)

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 160 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

• general guidelines for corridors, lobbies, hallways, and entrance doors

• minimum floor to ceiling heights and screen sizes based on the distance to the last row of seats from the front of the room

• reflectance values of painted surfaces

• floors and carpeting

• HVAC system requirements

• podium requirements

• security

• windows

The Design Guide leaves room for CSS discretion when planning classrooms, while also providing a certain level of detail so that comprehensive areas of consideration are addressed.

E. PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Classroom and Lab Computing

Pennsylvania State University has a Teaching and Learning with Technology (TLT) unit that reports to the Vice Provost for Information Technology, as shown in Figure IX-5. This unit is intended to help faculty use technology by providing classrooms, labs, courseware, and specialized services. It also provides a training program for faculty, staff, and students to gain the skills needed for using technology on campus.

To comprehensively cover all the issues that arise with the use of technology in instructional spaces, the Teaching and Learning with Technology unit has five groups, whose duties are outlined below in Figure IX-5. IX. Comparison Campuses/Best Practices April 2009 161

Figure IX-5 Organization Chart for Pennsylvania State University, Classroom Management Units

Vice Provost for Information Technology Chief Information Officer

Administrative Consulting and Digital Library Research Computing Security Operations Teaching and Learning Telecommunications Information Services Support Services Technologies and and Services with Technology and Networking (Senior Director) (Senior Director) (Senior Director) Cyberinfrastructure (Senior Director) (Senior Director) Services (Senior Director) (Senior Director)

Education Training Classroom and WebLion Special Technology Services Lab Computing (Director) Projects Services (Director) (Director) (Director)

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on the Pennsylvania State University website.

Table IX-3 Pennsylvania State University’s Teaching and Learning with Technology Functional Units

TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH TECHNOLOGY (TLT) UNITS PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY Education Classroom and Technology Training Services WebLion Special Projects Lab Computing Services

ANGEL Coordinates IT Provides facilities, Provides ANGEL project training for ITS support, and consulting, (Web-based course Curricular services for software products, management) re-design Provides face- student computer hosting, training to-face seminars labs, teaching labs, and support LionShare project Focus on on-line and web-based and technology for Penn State (secure P2P learning training classrooms departments, file sharing colleges, campuses application) Innovative uses Provides new and other groups of IT training programs adopting the in telephony WebLion content Special focus on management high-enrollment platform and courses products

Support for curricular integration

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on Pennsylvania State University’s Information Technology Services website.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 162 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Classroom and Lab Computing (CLC)

Classroom and Lab Computing (CLC) group manages two types of instructional facilities:

• Instructor Technology Classrooms

–– for lecture-style teaching to have internet connection, podium with a Windows and/or Mac computer, plug-in capability for instructor-supplied computer, wireless mouse, ceiling mounted data projector, microphone, audio system, light controls, VHS/DVD combo unit

• Student Technology Classrooms

–– for classrooms to have multimedia podiums and the equipment in Instructor Technology Classrooms, as well as computers for students

CLC offers orientation services for any Technology Classroom at a faculty member’s request.

The scheduling of technology classrooms on both a short- and long-term basis requires instructors to contact the staff assistant in their academic department, who in turn contact the Registrar. If a desired technology classroom cannot be accommodated, then Media Technology and Support Services, a division of University Libraries, can be contacted to schedule portable technology.

CLC Website

A list of rooms with technology, divided among Instructor Technology Classrooms, Student Technology Classrooms, and Video Conferencing Technology Classrooms, can be found on the CLC website. The site also offers some general guidance and basic instructions as to what basic items are provided in Technology Classrooms.

Education Technology Services (ETS)

The ETS unit within Teaching and Learning with Technology (TLT) at Pennsylvania State University is given the task of providing leadership and support for the use of technology in teaching, learning, and research. It supports several initiatives, some of which are described below.

ETS Engagement Project

The Faculty Engagement Initiative is intended to be a venue for faculty to work with ETS in order to experiment with and implement technology in their teaching. Some of the areas in which ETS currently likes to focus include: course redesign, blogging, podcasts, game and virtual worlds.

An example of how this initiative has changed pedagogy is in the course redesign of English 202C. Traditionally the course had six disconnected paper assignments. Through the initiative, the course was redesigned to include a digital format, so that student assignments are published online through their personal Web space, are given multimedia versions, and facilitate student teamwork. The potential success of this course redesign will lead to its expansion across other English classes. IX. Comparison Campuses/Best Practices April 2009 163

Faculty Fellow Program

ETS also supports the Faculty Fellow Program, which awards fellowships to faculty members in order to research and collaborate with TLT on ways for sharing and implementing creative technology- integration methodologies. Based on approved faculty proposals, Fellows can be awarded by TLT with equipment, staff time, travel support, among other things, in order to support their project.

Collaborative Learning Spaces

In order to give students access to technology options available at Penn State, TLT has Collaborative Learning Spaces. These are locations in a computer lab where students can work on team projects and conduct discussions while using furnishings and technology designed for them to work collaboratively. Each space is designed with a different configuration, although much of the furniture is movable. TLT plans to continue to adjust and improve these spaces based on student feedback and add enhanced technology.

Design Standards

Like the other three universities described above, Penn State publishes guidelines for classroom design and construction. Its Classroom & Technology Design & Construction Minimum Requirements presents the minimum requirements for the design and construction of all Penn State classrooms, seminar rooms and lecture halls. Although it sets the minimum requirements, it is also intended to be a living document that can be modified based on suggestions made to the Instructional Support Group.

Committees who Work with Facilities

There are a number of committees who work with facilities on campus at Penn State, as discussed in the Classroom and Technology Requirements publication. The first is the University Committee on Instructional Facilities (UCIF), which handles instructional space. The chair is from the Office of the Vice President and Dean for Undergraduate Education; the other representatives are professors, students, the Registrar’s office, Media Tech and Support Services, Office of Physical Plant, the Commonwealth Campuses, Information Technology Services, Teaching & Learning Technology, Educational Equity for Underrepresented Groups and the Schreyer Center.

The UCIF sub-committee is a working and detail committee that reports to the UCIF. Select members from this group also comprise the Instructional Support Group (ISG) and report back to the UCIF, which is directly involved with all design, construction, and operational aspects of the general purpose classrooms.

Classroom Technology Requirements

The Classroom Technology Requirements stipulate that general purpose classrooms, by necessity, require common elements to allow easy use across the campus by all instructors. Some of the areas the Requirements cover include:

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 164 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

• ADA compliance

• A/V and outlets

• chalk and tack boards

• coat hangings

• corridors and seating outside of classrooms

• floors and flooring

• glare reduction

• lighting control and zones

• plumbing, HVAC, electrical, and fire sprinkling systems

• projection equipment

• room acoustics

• security door hardware for media storage areas

• signage

• size and spacing of seats

• telephones

• trash and recycling containers

• wall finishes

• window location and coverings

Classroom Physical Environment

While much of what has been discussed about the management of classrooms at Penn State centered on technology in learning spaces, the University does not appear to have a specific unit dedicated to the physical environment of classrooms. Unlike the University of Minnesota, Arizona State University, and University of Washington, which all have a unit responsible for the maintenance of classrooms in particular, Penn State’s energies regarding administering classroom space seems more focused on technology-integration. The maintenance is likely centered in a campus facilities management unit. 10 Large Lecture Halls

Background

Large Lecture Halls at Comparison Campuses

Seating Capacity Ranges of Large Lecture Halls

About Large Lecture Halls

Large Lecture Halls at The Ohio State University 166 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Hitchcock Hall, Room 131, 640 Stations X. Large Lecture Halls April 2009 167

X. LARGE LECTURE HALLS

This section presents and analyzes the data and trends regarding the number of large lecture halls at comparison universities, as well as at The Ohio State University.

A. BACKGROUND

Large Lecture Halls

For the purposes of this study, large lecture halls are defined as rooms that have a capacity of 300 seats or more. At The Ohio State University, there are four such rooms, three of which are in the general assignment pool classrooms category, and thus scheduled by the Registrar, and one of which is departmentally scheduled.

B. LARGE LECTURE HALLS AT COMPARISON CAMPUSES

List of Comparison Campuses

To understand more about large lecture halls in higher education, IFA gathered data for the number of large lecture halls at comparison campuses. IFA specifically chose to analyze large lecture halls at the Big Ten Universities in order to compare OSU with its peer institutions. It also looked at large lecture halls at six additional major universities – Arizona State University, Virginia Polytechnic University, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of California, Los Angeles, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Washington – to add further comparison data on how many large lecture halls universities outside of the Big Ten possess. For comparison purposes, IFA defined large lecture halls to mean general assignment classrooms with a seating capacity of 300 seats or more.

Seating Capacity and Enrollment

One result of the data gathering is shown in Table X-1. Table X-1 presents the number of rooms at the comparison campuses, alongside their fall 2008 total reported undergraduate and graduate combined enrollment.

As Table X-1 demonstrates, every major campus has large lecture halls. At the same time, there is no correlation between the total number of large classrooms on a campus and the size of their enrollment. For example, Northwestern University, with the smallest full-time and part-time enrollment of 14,644 students, has three large lecture halls, while Arizona State University, with a full-time and part-time enrollment of 52,734 students, has five large lectures halls. That means

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 168 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study that ASU, with nearly four times the student enrollment as Northwestern University, has only two more large lecture halls than Northwestern.

Table X-1 Comparison Campuses with Large Lecture Halls with a Seating Capacity Over 300

Average Number Fall 2008 Fall 2008 Number of Large Full-Time Total of Full-Time Comparison Campus Lecture Halls Enrollment Enrollment Students per Seating 300 (Undergraduate (Undergraduate Large Lecture or More + Graduate) + Graduate) Hall

Big Ten Universities Indiana University 4 34,293 39,359 8,600 Michigan State University 12 40,077 44,563 3,300 Northwestern University 3 13,790 14,644 4,600 Ohio State University 4 a 46,075 b 52,568 c 11,500 Pennsylvania State University 9 42,667 44,112 4,700 Purdue University 4 36,901 40,090 9,200 University of Illinois 7 40,369 41,495 5,800 University of Iowa 6 24,754 30,561 4,100 University of Michigan 9 38,278 41,028 4,300 University of Minnesota 5 39,648 46,342 7,900 University of Wisconsin-Madison 10 37,127 40,433 3,700

Other Comparison Campuses Arizona State University d 5 52,734 52,734 10,500 Virginia Polytechnic University 5 27,050 28,259 5,400 University of California, Los Angeles 7 34,462 35,627 4,900 University of California, Berkeley 4 33,194 34,641 8,300 University of Texas at Austin 9 45,089 49,984 5,000 University of Washington 4 34,550 41,517 8,600

Average 6 36,533 39,885 6,100

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on individual university websites and information provided by universities.

Note: Only general assignment classrooms have been included. a: Includes three general assignment large lecture halls and one departmentally-scheduled large lecture hall. b: Includes Fall 2007 full-time undergraduate, professional, and graduate student enrollment at the Columbus campus. c: Total enrollment for Fall 2007. d: Full-time enrollment data unavailable; data is based on full- and part-time enrollment on the Tempe campus.

Large Lecture Halls at Big Ten Campuses

The data also shows that of the Big Ten campuses, The Ohio State University has the largest enrollment but has among the fewest number of large lecture halls. As shown in Table X-1, among X. Large Lecture Halls April 2009 169

Big Ten campuses, Michigan State University has the most large lecture halls with a total of 12. It is followed by the University of Wisconsin-Madison with ten; Pennsylvania State University and the University of Michigan with nine each; the University of Illinois with seven; the University of Iowa with six; the University of Minnesota with five; Indiana University and Purdue University with four each; and, Northwestern University with three. As noted earlier, The Ohio State University has four large lecture halls, three that are general assignment or Registrar-assigned and one that is under department assignment.

Large Lecture Halls at Other Campuses

Among the non-Big Ten institutions shown in Table X-1, again, there is no correlation between the size of the campus and the number of large lecture halls. For example, the University of Texas at Austin, with a full-time and part-time enrollment of nearly 50,000 students, has nine large lecture halls seating 300 or more students. At the same time, Arizona State University, with a full-time and part-time enrollment of nearly 52,700, has five large lecture halls, as does Virginia Polytechnic University, with an enrollment of 28,300 students. The University of California, Los Angeles, with an enrollment of nearly 35,600, has a total of seven large lecture halls, while the University of Washington, with a full-time and part-time enrollment of 41,500, has four large lecture halls. The same is true for the University of California, Berkeley, with an enrollment of 34,600, which also has four large lecture halls.

Student Enrollment per Large Lecture Hall

When the data in Table X-1 on large lecture halls on the 17 campuses shown in the table are normalized to create a measure of the number of full-time only student enrollment per large lecture hall, a commonality among the campuses begins to emerge. Campuses appear to divide into two groups. Michigan State University, with 12 large lecture halls seating 300 students or more, has an average of one lecture hall per 3,300 full-time students. The Ohio State University, with combined undergraduate, graduate, and professional full-time student enrollment of 46,100 students and four large lecture halls, provides large lecture halls at the rate of one per 11,500 students.

The grouping of the campuses is such that there is one group of campuses that provides large lecture halls at the rate of approximately one large lecture hall for between 3,000 and 5,500 full- time students, and another group that provides one large lecture hall for a student population of between approximately 8,000 and 9,000 full-time students per large lecture hall, with Ohio State being slightly out of the range, as noted above, at one lecture hall per 11,500 students.

If The Ohio State University were to add one more large lecture hall, the number of students per large lecture hall at The Ohio State University would drop to one per 9,200 students. This would place The Ohio State University still in the group of campuses with the fewest lecture halls per student enrollment, but it would be within the range of a whole series of universities, including Indiana University, Purdue University, Arizona State University, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Washington, that provide large lecture halls at approximately this ratio.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 170 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

C. SEATING CAPACITY RANGES OF LARGE LECTURE HALLS

Seating Capacity Options

One aspect of the large lecture halls which turns out to be a distinguishing characteristic is their actual seating capacity. Table X-2 shows the distribution of seating capacity ranges among these same universities, in ranges from 300 to 399 seats, 400 to 499 seats, 500 to 599 seats, 600 to 699 seats, 700 to 799 seats, and 800 or more seats.

Table X-2 Comparison Campuses Large Lecture Halls Seating Capacity Distribution

Seating Capacity Ranges 300 to 400 to 500 to 600 to 700 to 800 or Comparison Campus Total 399 499 599 699 799 More

Big Ten Universities Indiana University 3 1 4 Michigan State University 5 3 2 2 12 Northwestern University 1 1 1 3 Ohio State University a 2 1 1 4 Pennsylvania State University 8 1 9 Purdue University 4 4 University of Illinois 5 1 1 7 University of Iowa 4 1 1 6 University of Michigan 6 2 1 9 University of Minnesota 3 1 1 5 University of Wisconsin-Madison 5 4 1 10

Other Comparison Campuses Arizona State University 1 4 5 Virginia Polytechnic University 2 1 2 5 University of California, Los Angeles 5 2 7 University of California, Berkeley 2 1 1 4 University of Texas at Austin 4 2 1 2 9 University of Washington 2 1 1 4

Total 56 27 8 8 5 3 107 Percent Distribution 52.3% 25.2% 7.5% 7.5% 4.7% 2.8% 100.0%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on individual university websites and information provided by universities.

Note: Only general assignment classrooms have been included. a: Includes three general assignment large lecture halls and one departmentally-scheduled large lecture hall.

Distribution of Large Lecture Halls by Number of Seats

As shown in Table X-2, more than one-half, or 52 percent, of the large lecture halls are within the 300 to 399 seating range. Another 25 percent are in the 400 to 499 range. Thus, while campuses X. Large Lecture Halls April 2009 171 have many of these large lecture halls, almost 80 percent of them seat between 300 and 499 students. At the upper end of the seating capacity, seven percent each are in the 500 to 599 and 600 to 699 seating ranges, five percent have 700 to 799 seats, and only three percent have 800 or more seats.

Since over one-half of all large lecture halls contain between 300 and 399 seats, building rooms on a campus with more than 500 seats is not as popular. This can be explained by several reasons, primarily the square footage and volume dimensional requirements for such rooms necessitate a design so that every seat’s sightline is unobstructed and optimal. This in turn requires: rooms that are tiered, with multiple exits, usually on two floors; amplification; a large distance from the front of the room to the rear; buildings large enough to encase such rooms; and, faculty with a special gift to engage large student audiences in lecture.

D. ABOUT LARGE LECTURE HALLS

Multi-Purpose Use

It should be noted that large lecture halls are used both for instructional purposes and also a variety of other purposes, including as spaces for presentations, for guest lectures, and, depending on their stage, for recitals or performances.

Campuses with such large rooms also find that on a formula-funded basis, they are able to generate considerable credit hour production and thus income to the campus for relatively little resource expenditure, based on using the facilities for introductory or survey courses.

Pedagogy, Technology, Large Lectures Halls

There is concern among educators to dismiss the traditional lecture style that has been a part of higher education for generations. At M.I.T., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, North Carolina State University, the University of Maryland, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Harvard Univrsity, the current trend is to favor interactive, collaborative, student-centered learning over the traditional large lecture course.

It is especially noteworthy that this trend is further facilitated by the increased use of technology. At M.I.T., for example, two introductory courses in Physics no longer use large lecture halls that can fit 300 students, but instead employ high-tech classrooms where about 80 students each sit at 13 round tables equipped with networked computers. Blackboards have been replaced with white boards and large display screens, where students are encouraged to write on the boards and work in teams.1

1 Sara Rimer. “At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard.” (January 13, 2009). Retrieved April 2, 2009 from www.nytimes.com.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 172 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

This shift in pedagogy may in the future preclude universities who are planning instructional spaces from building large lecture halls. Instead, they may have to plan for small groups of students gathered around tables for discussion, to the extent possible.2

Technology and Large Lecture Halls

Technology is being incorporated and dovetailing with large lecture halls. The use of ‘clickers’ across campuses, for instance, is becoming increasingly popular. In 2005, at the University of Washington, Classroom Support Services reviewed the potential for standardizing the usage of clickers or student- audience response systems.3 By the end of the 2006-07 academic year, the University of Washington had over 4,000 students actively using this Turning Point technology, the majority of whom were in the Biology and Chemistry undergraduate programs. It has become such a successful project, that the list of users is growing to include other units like the Law School, Health Sciences, Education and more. The University of Washington administration has also begun to use the clicker technology for outreach presentations and other high profile community events.

In their analysis, the University of Washington discovered that the ‘clickers’ were being used in a variety of ways in the classroom. These included:

• Awarding bonus points for attendance

• Case study analyses

• Course evaluations

• Focus groups

• Group responses and competitions

• Identification of misconceptions

• Pop quizzes

• Simple polling

The integration of technology in large lecture spaces will most likely in the future entail more than just the installation of A/V equipment; the changing pedagogical nature of courses in higher education will have to be considered, including lecture format, use of graphics, and response systems.

2 M. Goliber and K. Graetz. “Designing Collaborative Learning Places: Psychological Foundations and New Frontiers.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002, p. 20.

3 Randy Jackson. “The Promise and Challenges of Integrating Interactive Technologies into University Pedagogy.” Retrieved April 2, 2009, from http://www.css.washington.edu/w/images/6/6c/Interactive_Technologies_at_the_ University_of_Washington.pdf. X. Large Lecture Halls April 2009 173

E. LARGE LECTURE HALLS AT THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

Current Inventory

The Ohio State University has three pool classrooms and one departmentally-scheduled classroom that seat 300 or more students for a total of four large lecture halls on campus. These four rooms account for about one percent of the Ohio State classroom inventory. Among these four large lecture halls, one has 356 stations, one 640 stations, and one 728 stations, that are scheduled by the Registrar. A large lecture hall with 382 seats is scheduled by the School of Music. The three pool classroom lecture halls are well scheduled, as shown in Table X-3, while the departmentally- scheduled room is used to a much lesser extent. In the Autumn Quarter 2007, the departmentally- scheduled, 382-station Hughes Hall Room 100 had one 285 student course, one with 85 students, one with 57 students, and six other courses of 20 students or fewer.

While the demand for the large lecture rooms is continuous during the week, there is an additional continued level of interest in having programs with a sizeable audience and thus a demand for large rooms. As a result, there may not be enough large lecture rooms on the campus. It is the feeling of the scheduling staff and some faculty that there are not enough places for large classes on campus. Some of this could be remedied by making more and better use of Hughes Hall Room 100.

Scheduling these large rooms as evidence of demand suggests that additional space is required. As noted above, the three large lecture halls that are part of the pool classrooms are heavily utilized; the one large lecture hall that is a departmentally-scheduled classroom is less heavily utilized.

Table X-3 Use and Utilization of Four Large Lecture Halls at The Ohio State University

Room ASF per Actual Contact Building ASF Stations Use Utilization No. Station Hours Hours

Scheduled Pool Classrooms

McPherson Chemical Lab MP 1000 4,051 356 11.4 32 7,967 101.6% 106.0%

Hitchcock Hall HI 131 5,163 640 8.1 32 12,330 101.6% 91.3%

Independence Hall IH 100 7,047 728 9.7 28 10,492 88.9% 68.3%

Scheduled Department Classroom

Hughes Hall HU 100 4,780 382 12.5 22 1,769 69.8% 21.9%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University, Autumn Quarter 2007.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 174 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

How Many Large Lecture Halls are Needed?

As the comparison campus data show, there is no measure by which to gauge either the number or size of large lecture halls on a campus. Having these rooms provides benefits to the campus in terms of assembly, offering courses that require little student-faculty interaction, and providing a location for introductory or survey courses. The Ohio State University, with only four such rooms, faces a long-term issue if any of these rooms are taken out of the inventory or if the building is razed and the site reused.

What this ultimately means for The Ohio State University is that if it should consider building a large lecture hall in the future, the University would do well to plan on building an additional large lecture hall with a seating capacity between 300 to 499 seats. The decision as to exactly how many seats should be built will also be dependent on many factors, including whether or not this room will be an additional large lecture hall or a replacement lecture hall, for example, for Independence Hall.

If The Ohio State University chooses to add at least one large lecture hall classroom of 300 or more seats, the classroom should be centrally located and be institutionally, rather than departmentally, sponsored. The Ohio State University should also proactively replace the one very large classroom in Independence Hall that may be displaced if the site is chosen for a new, larger replacement building. (Note: The 728-seat lecture hall in Independence Hall is the largest instructional space on campus.) X. Large Lecture Halls April 2009 175

Figure X-1 Course Schedule Chart, McPherson Chemical Lab, Room 1000

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY POOL CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: McPherson Chemical Lab (053) Room Number: 1000 Room Type Code: 1C – Lecture Hall Room ASF: 4,051 Room Capacity: 356

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

8:30 – 9:30 8:30 – 9:30 8:30 – 9:30 Basic College 8:30 – 9:48 Basic College 8:30 – 9:48 Basic College General Chemistry General Chemistry 9:00 AM Mathematics (220) Mathematics (220) Mathematics (220) 104 12848 (284) 104 12848 (284) 104 12848 121 04527 121 04527

10:00 AM 10:00 – 11:18 10:00 – 11:18 General Chemistry General Chemistry 10:30 – 11:18 (239) 10:30 – 11:18 (239) 10:30 – 11:18 Organic Chem (305) 122 04645 Organic Chem (305) 122 04645 Organic Chem (305) 11:00 AM 251 04711 251 04711 251 04711

11:30 – 12:30 11:30 – 12:30 11:30 – 12:30 General Chemistry General Chemistry General Chemistry 12:00 PM (301) (301) (301) 121 04557 121 04557 121 04557

01:00 PM 1:00 – 2:18 1:00 – 2:18 General Chemistry General Chemistry 1:30 – 2:18 (272) 1:30 – 2:18 (272) 1:30 – 2:18 Organic Chem (338) 121 04587 Organic Chem (338) 121 04587 Organic Chem (338) 02:00 PM 251 04724 251 04724 251 04724

2:30 – 3:30 2:30 – 3:30 2:30 – 3:30 2:30 – 3:30 2:30 – 3:30 Intro to Solar System Intro to Solar System Intro to Solar System Intro to Solar System Intro to Solar System 03:00 PM Astronomy (85) Astronomy (85) Astronomy (85) Astronomy (85) Astronomy (85) 161 21688 161 21688 161 21688 161 21688 161 21688 3:30 – 4:18 3:30 – 4:18 3:30 – 4:18 General Chem (281) 3:30 – 4:48 General Chem (281) 3:30 – 4:48 General Chem (281) 121 04602 General Chemistry 121 04602 General Chemistry 121 04602 04:00 PM (274) (274) 121 04617 121 04617

05:00 PM

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University

Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 176 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Figure X-2 Course Schedule Chart, Hitchcock Hall, Room 131

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY POOL CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: Hitchcock Hall (274) Room Number: 131 Room Type Code: 1C – Lecture Hall Room ASF: 5,163 Room Capacity: 640

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM 8:00 – 9:00 8:00 – 9:00 8:00 – 9:00 Energy Transfer and Energy Transfer and Energy Transfer and Development (503) Development (503) Development (503) 113 02746 113 02746 113 02746 9:00 AM 9:00 – 10:18 9:00 – 10:18 Introductory Introductory 9:30 – 10:48 Sociology (385) 9:30 – 10:48 Sociology (385) Introductory 101 19312 Introductory 101 19312 10:00 AM Sociology (399) Sociology (399) 101 19322 101 19322

10:30 – 11:48 10:30 – 11:48 11:00 AM Human Biology (326) Human Biology (326) 102 02732 102 02732 11:30 – 12:30 Mech Engineering 12:00 PM Survey (394) 12:00 – 1:18 12:00 – 1:18 100.12 08469 Introductory Biology Introductory Biology 12:30 – 1:30 (605) (605) Mech Engineering 12:30 – 2:18 101 02664 12:30 – 2:18 101 02664 01:00 PM History of Human History of Human Survey (362) Communication Communication 100.12 08474 (447) (447) 101 05340 101 05340 02:00 PM 1:30 – 3:18 1:30 – 3:18 Communication in Communication in Society (442) Society (442) 200 05341 200 05341

03:00 PM 2:30 – 3:48 2:30 – 3:48 2:30 – 3:48 General Genetics General Genetics General Genetics (237) (237) (237) 500 10011 500 10011 500 10011 04:00 PM 3:30 – 5:18 3:30 – 5:18 Marketing (263) Marketing (263) 650M 03820 650M 03820

05:00 PM

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University

Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later. X. Large Lecture Halls April 2009 177

Figure X-3 Course Schedule Chart, Independence Hall, Room 100

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY POOL CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: Independence Hall (338) Room Number: 100 Room Type Code: 1C – Lecture Hall Room ASF: 7,047 Room Capacity: 728

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

8:30 – 9:30 8:30 – 9:48 8:30 – 9:30 8:30 – 9:48 8:30 – 9:30 Calculus & Analytic Form, Function, Calculus & Analytic Form, Function, Calculus & Analytic 9:00 AM Geometry (155) Diversity, and Geometry (155) Diversity, and Geometry (155) 151 13055 Ecology (374) 151 13055 Ecology (374) 151 13055 9:30 – 10:30 114 02769 9:30 – 10:30 114 02769 Introduction to Introduction to Theatre (220) Theatre (220) 10:00 AM 10:00 – 11:18 10:00 – 11:18 100 20240 100 20240 Principles of Principles of 10:30 – 11:30 Microeconomics 10:30 – 11:30 Microeconomics Introduction to (557) Introduction to (557) 11:00 AM Theatre (298) 200 06889 Theatre (298) 200 06889 100 20253 100 20253

12:00 PM

12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 East Asian East Asian East Asian East Asian 01:00 PM Humanities (131) Humanities (131) Humanities (131) Humanities (131) 131 02463 131 02463 131 02463 131 02463

1:30 – 2:48 1:30 – 2:48 1:30 – 2:48 1:30 – 2:48 Principles of Principles of Introductory Biology Introductory Biology Macroeconomics Macroeconomics 02:00 PM (671) (671) (541) (541) 101 02695 101 02695 201 06926 201 06926

03:00 PM 3:00 – 4:18 3:00 – 4:18 Principles of Principles of Microeconomics Microeconomics 3:30 – 4:30 (544) (544) Allied Medical 04:00 PM 200 06904 200 06904 Survey (145) 100 00926 4:30 – 5:30 Photography: Digital 05:00 PM Camera (261) 300 01878

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University

Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 178 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Figure X-4 Course Schedule Chart, Hughes Hall, Room 100

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: Hughes Hall (042) Room Number: 100 Room Type Code: 1C – Lecture Hall Room ASF: 4,780 Room Capacity: 382

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

9:00 AM

10:00 AM 9:30 – 11:18 9:30 – 11:18 9:30 – 11:18 9:30 – 11:18 History of The World of History of The World of Rock & Roll (285) Classical Music (57) Rock & Roll (285) Classical Music (57) 252 14741 251 14734 252 14741 251 14734 11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 Voice-Principal (19) Voice-Principal (19) 01:00 PM 201 14656 201 14656

1:30 – 2:30 1:30 – 2:30 1:30 – 2:30 Music History (85) Music History (85) Music History (85) 02:00 PM 241 14728 241 14728 241 14728

2:30 – 3:18 2:30 – 3:18 2:30 – 3:18 Opera Tech (10) Opera Tech (10) Opera Tech (10) 03:00 PM 710 15086 710 15086 710 15086

04:00 PM

4:00 – 6:18 4:00 – 6:18 4:00 – 6:18 4:00 – 6:18 Opera Performance Opera Performance Opera Performance Opera Performance 05:00 PM (13) (13) (13) (13) 312 14777 312 14777 312 14777 312 14777

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University

Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later. 11 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Instructional Space

Classroom Scheduling, Use, and Utilization

Classroom Space Management and Planning

Classroom Technical Services

Classroom Facilities Environment

Classroom Support 180 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Schoenbaum Hall, Room 105, 250 Stations XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 181

XI. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section provides findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the data gathering, analysis, interviews, and research conducted as part of The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study.

Background

Classrooms are environments and spaces that must provide: (1) the most effective learning environments based on desired pedagogy; (2) an environment designed to enhance a student’s ability to understand, observe, and participate in active learning; (3) an environment that is comfortable for students and instructors as well as durable, reliable, and easy to maintain; and (4) a room that is easy for faculty and student equipment operators to use through standardization of controls, layouts, and equipment.1

This study has many findings, as identified in this section, ranging from data on room use and utilization, to the need for facility improvements in instructional spaces. Clearly the current improvements in instructional space are recognized and welcomed, but there is more yet to be done.

The IFA findings, conclusions, and recommendations included in this section are classified under the following six typologies:

• Instructional space

• Classroom scheduling, use, and utilization

• Classroom space management and planning

• Classroom technical services

• Classroom facilities environment

• Classroom support

Because this Instructional Space Feasibility Study for The Ohio State University is an omnibus study, the results of this study fall into many categories ranging from operational to future needs. The overarching primary finding, conclusion, and recommendation of this study is not contained in any of these above six categories. Rather, it is an umbrella recommendation that covers and encompasses all six.

1 Source: University of Washington, Classroom Services, Facility Design Information, General Assignment Classrooms, August 2002 Guidelines, p. Classroom Support Services – 01.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 182 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Primary Study Finding: There is a Lack of and a Need for an Identified Office of Classroom Management and Services

The Ohio State University has many units and activities devoted to classroom management and support. While these units share a common purpose, there was and still is no overall “big picture” of instructional space at The Ohio State University. There is no single point on campus that can identify the range of functions instructional space should cover or who should be responsible for overall instructional space management.

Many of the instructional space support units have separate reporting responsibilities and sources of funding. Each performs a task or tasks, most often as a central activity, serving the entire campus. At the same time, the separate, individual departments at The Ohio State University can establish their own classroom management and technology units, as well as use their departmental resources to operate as independent technology service providers, serving only one department.

In terms of square footage of instructional space and instructional space scheduling, about 30 percent of instructional space resources at The Ohio State University is centrally held, while the other 70 percent is in departmental control.

Primary Study Conclusion

The diversity and decentralization of instructional space (classroom) management and support at Ohio State means that the whole is often less than the sum of its parts. The result is fragmentation of responsibility among instructional space units and activities. These activities should be more closely aligned and working toward a more common purpose, as evidenced by instructional space management models at other institutions who have faced concerns similar to that of The Ohio State University.

Primary Study Recommendation

The Ohio State University create an office or unit that has overall specific campus-wide responsibility for management of The Ohio State University (general use) pool classrooms and departmentally- scheduled classrooms, and general responsibility for all instructional space, both scheduled and unscheduled. This unit should reside within The Ohio State University Provost’s Office of Academic Affairs.

The following list of specific findings, conclusions, and recommendations are offered in support of the creation of this entity. They are identified by topical area below and spelled out in this section.

A. Instructional Space

A1. Instructional Space Inventory A2. Classroom Inventory A3. Additional Pool Classrooms A4. Additional Departmentally-Scheduled Classrooms A5. Unscheduled Instructional Space XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 183

B. Classroom Scheduling, Use, and Utilization

B1. Pool Classroom Use is Higher than Departmentally-Scheduled Classroom Use B2. Departmental Classroom Space Assignment B3. Pool Classroom Space Assignment B4. Peak Periods of Classroom Use B5. Departmentally-Controlled Instructional Space B6. Scheduled Days of Class per Week B7. Cancelled Courses

C. Classroom Space Management and Planning

C1. No Single Voice for Classroom Needs and Issues C2. Courses, Course Sizes, and Classroom Inventory Size C3. Converting from Quarters to Semesters C4. Classrooms in Every Building C5. Cost of Classroom Instruction C6. Large Lecture Halls C7. Classroom Design Standards C8. Communications about Classrooms C9. Feedback for Improvement C10. Reporting Classroom Issues

D. Classroom Technical Services

D1. Distributed Technology Services D2. Technology Enhanced Rooms D3. Standards for Classroom Technology D4. Decentralized Computer Purchases and Services D5. Technology Delivery and Application D6. Separate Technology Plans D7. Distributed Technology

E. Classroom Facilities Environment

E1. Environmental Controls E2. Cleanliness and Maintenance of Classrooms E3. Individual and Group Gathering Places

F. Classroom Support

F1. Decentralized Teaching and Learning Technology F2. Technology in Instruction F3. Classroom Services Website

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 184 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

A. INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE

A1. Instructional Space Inventory

Finding: The Ohio State University has nearly 1.1 million assignable square feet in its instructional space inventory. Of this space, approximately 30 percent is in scheduled pool classrooms (general assignment classrooms) that are scheduled and assigned by the Registrar. This group of scheduled pool classrooms totals 328,700 square feet, includes 361 separate rooms, and covers 20,216 teaching stations.

Departments control the remaining 70 percent of the instructional space inventory at The Ohio State University, categorized as departmentally-scheduled classrooms, departmentally-scheduled class laboratories and computer laboratories, unscheduled departmentally-controlled class laboratories, and unscheduled departmentally-controlled computer laboratories.

Departmentally-scheduled classrooms account for 14 percent of all instructional space. They enclose 149,300 square feet, include 146 rooms, and total 7,964 stations.

Departmentally-scheduled class laboratories and computer laboratories account for nearly 24 percent of the instructional space inventory. They enclose 257,300 square feet, in 192 rooms with 4,929 stations.

Unscheduled departmental class laboratories account for nearly 24 percent of the instructional space inventory. These unscheduled departmental class laboratories enclose 251,900 square feet, in 315 rooms with a total of 4,895 stations.

Another eight percent of the instructional space inventory is in unscheduled departmental computer laboratories. These rooms total 90,000 square feet in 128 rooms with a total of 2,672 stations.

Conclusion: Because departmentally-controlled instructional space, both scheduled and unscheduled, is nearly 70 percent of the instructional space inventory, it needs to be and should be scheduled and managed as carefully as the centrally-controlled pool classroom inventory.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should enlarge its scope of instructional space management to incorporate all departmentally-controlled space, both scheduled and unscheduled, as well as centrally-scheduled pool classrooms. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 185

A2. Classroom Inventory

Finding: The Ohio State University has a substantial inventory of scheduled pool and scheduled departmental classrooms (507 total rooms) and likewise a substantial number of stations (seats) in these classrooms (28,180 total stations).

Conclusion: While The Ohio State University has a large inventory of pool (general assignment) and departmentally-scheduled classrooms and classroom stations, the University is actually short of scheduled classrooms and classroom space. A good rule of thumb is that there should be approximately 0.70 schedulable classroom seats per full-time student. At The Ohio State University, there are approximately 0.61 classroom seats per full-time student.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should increase both the number of classrooms and the number of classroom stations.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 186 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

A3. Additional Pool Classrooms

Finding: The Ohio State University currently has 361 separate pool classrooms with a capacity of 20,216 stations. This is approximately 72 percent of the scheduled classroom space at the University; the remainder are departmentally-scheduled classrooms.

Conclusion: While the pool classroom inventory at The Ohio State University still has additional use and utilization capacity, the University requires the ability to continuously update and upgrade its instructional spaces. Among the most important of these are the pool classrooms. One strategy for doing this would be to increase the number of pool classroom spaces, including adding one additional large lecture hall with up to 400 seats. The remainder of the additional capacity would provide The Ohio State University the ability to develop new classrooms with the latest in instructional technology. It would also allow The Ohio State University the ability to construct new classrooms that are flexible and can meet constant changes in instructional technology. Increasing the pool classroom capacity is a long-term planning target and not one that needs to be urgently met. This strategy would allow the University considerable flexibility in having classroom space available when another building loses its space, either temporarily or permanently, due to renovations or other changes.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should add up to 2,000 additional pool classroom stations, including one large lecture hall, with up to 400 stations, as part of a long-term plan to improve its instructional space. The distribution of these rooms should mirror the current distribution of classrooms on the campus. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 187

A4. Additional Departmentally-Scheduled Classrooms

Finding: Currently, The Ohio State University has 146 departmentally-scheduled classrooms with a total of 7,964 stations. These rooms, on balance, are used and utilized to a lesser degree than the pool classroom space on the campus.

Conclusion: Because departmentally-controlled classrooms have been constructed with each new departmentally-centered building or renovation, they create a pattern of decentralization and wide distribution of classroom instructional space on the campus. This results in departments having immediate access to instructional space, while at the same time, it precludes classroom resources from being brought together in a more common and central location on the campus for the benefit of many.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should discontinue the practice of adding new departmentally-controlled classrooms to each new building or renovation project. Additional new classroom space should, instead, be brought together and built as part of increasing the centrally- scheduled pool classroom inventory of the University.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 188 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

A5. Unscheduled Instructional Space

Finding: Based on data from The Ohio State University’s facility inventory database, almost one- third of all instructional space at The Ohio State University is in unscheduled departmental class laboratories and unscheduled departmental computer laboratories.

This unscheduled space includes 251,900 assignable square feet in 315 unscheduled departmental class laboratories and another 90,000 assignable square feet in 128 unscheduled departmental computer laboratories. In other words, there is almost the same amount of square footage in unscheduled departmental class laboratories as in the scheduled department class laboratories (257,300 assignable square feet). The unscheduled space includes large class laboratory space, as well as some space which is apparently service space to the laboratories.

Conclusion: The unassigned departmental square footage in class laboratories and computer laboratories provides a potentially large reservoir of space that could be converted to other instructional or campus uses if it is little used or in need of significant renovation.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should carefully study these unscheduled departmental class laboratories and unscheduled computer laboratories for their potential reuse. The study should identify if and how often these rooms are used, as well as the condition and alternative uses of the rooms in the event that they are held in the departmental space inventory “just in case.” XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 189

B. CLASSROOM SCHEDULING, USE, AND UTILIZATION

B1. Pool Classroom Use is Higher than Departmentally-Scheduled Classroom Use

Finding: The Ohio State University achieves a higher classroom use and utilization from those pool (general assignment) classrooms under the jurisdiction of and centrally-scheduled by the Registrar’s Office than those classrooms scheduled individually by departments. Scheduled pool classrooms have an average computed use of 89 percent and a utilization rate of 90 percent. Scheduled department classrooms have a use rate of 48 percent and a utilization rate of 39 percent.

Conclusion: Opportunities exist for better use and utilization of instructional facilities if scheduled pool classroom and scheduled department classroom efforts were more closely linked and aligned.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should establish an operating procedure whereby the departmentally-scheduled classrooms are scheduled by the Registrar’s Office or, alternatively stated, there should be the opportunity for the Registrar’s Office to schedule and use unoccupied departmentally-scheduled classroom space.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 190 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

B2. Departmental Classroom Space Assignment

Finding: Instructional space classrooms are assigned to (held by) dozens of individual departments and by the Registrar’s Office. Overall, about 30 percent of instructional classrooms (146 out of 507 rooms) are held and scheduled by individual departments. This amounts to nearly 30 percent of all scheduled classroom instructional stations (7,964 out of a total of 28,180 stations).

Conclusion: The Ohio State University is similar to other institutions of higher education in that departments can schedule instructional space, which on most campuses is considered to be general assignment space and available for campus-wide use when not in departmental use. Since the departments have had a long history of owning and scheduling instructional space, this practice is embedded in the space use culture of The Ohio State University. Rather than dramatically change this culture, accommodation should be made whereby departmentally-scheduled classrooms are co-scheduled by the Registrar’s Office and offered for general assignment.

Recommendation: The Ohio State university should schedule and allocate departmentally-controlled classrooms, especially during those times when departmental assignment is low, which is primarily during the time frame from noon until 2:00 p.m. daily. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 191

B3. Pool Classroom Space Assignment

Finding: The Registrar’s Office at The Ohio State University schedules more than 360 instructional classrooms and 20,200 instructional stations contained within these classrooms.

Conclusion: While the Registrar’s Office schedules these general assignment pool classrooms, the Registrar’s activities appear to be limited to this single purpose function. At other campuses, the organization entity that schedules classrooms plays a larger role in the management and readiness of these rooms for instructional purposes than occurs at Ohio State. As a result, the Registrar’s Office is limited in its ability to affect change in the classroom environment as it shares classroom management responsibilities with other units on campus.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should assemble its current and various classroom readiness organization units and individuals into a single organization that has considerably larger oversight over classroom space assignment and space management than each of the separate units has at present.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 192 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

B4. Peak Periods of Classroom Use

Finding: Pool classroom use at The Ohio State University is consistent from Monday through Thursday, with classrooms heavily scheduled and used during the 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. period, and to a lesser degree before and after that time. Friday use is approximately one-half of that of the remainder of the week.

Departmentally scheduled classroom use is heaviest at 11:00 a.m., then drops between noon and 1:00 p.m., and increases to peak levels again at 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. Departmentally-scheduled classroom use drops off markedly at 4:00 p.m. and later. Friday use is approximately one-half of that of the remainder of the week.

Conclusion: The best model for effective classroom use and utilization is one that spreads classroom assignments across the week and across all time blocks. The less than optimal scheduling of departmentally-scheduled classrooms through the peak demand hours of the day, and the capacity for increased scheduling of courses on Friday puts pressure on the scheduling of classrooms.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should centrally schedule all classrooms, both pool classrooms and departmentally-scheduled classrooms, to improve classroom use and utilization and spread it out more consistently through the day and the week, including increased use and utilization of classrooms on Fridays. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 193

B5. Departmentally-Controlled Instructional Space

Finding: Departments control nearly 70 percent of the instructional space square footage, 70 percent of rooms devoted to instruction, and more than 50 percent of the stations available for instructional use on The Ohio State University campus. This includes both those rooms departments schedule or have under their control and use as well as rooms that are not regularly scheduled. The departmentally-scheduled classrooms have markedly lower measures of use and utilization than the centrally-scheduled pool classrooms.

Conclusion: Departmentally-controlled instructional space at The Ohio State University is a large, untapped space resource that if better identified and managed could conceivably allow Ohio State to greatly increase the space devoted to instruction without adding more space.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should create a new arrangement for the scheduling of departmentally-controlled classroom and class laboratory space with the intent of gaining back spaces which have little or no use, and for greatly improving the use and utilization of departmentally- controlled spaces that are scheduled but underused. These spaces could and should be assigned centrally.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 194 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

B6. Scheduled Days of Class per Week

Finding: One change in instruction that has taken place not only at The Ohio State University but also at other U.S. campuses is that instruction takes place on fewer days per week than in the past. In Autumn 2007, 30 percent of the courses meeting in scheduled pool classrooms met only one time per week. Another 52 percent of courses met only two days per week. This distribution of courses is symptomatic of how courses are recorded at The Ohio State University; that is, it is unclear whether a scheduled course represents a section of a course or an entire course.

Among departmentally-scheduled classrooms, instruction is scheduled based on even fewer course meetings. For example, 90 percent of the departmentally-scheduled courses meet two times per week or less, including 60 percent of the courses that meet only one day per week and 30 percent that meet two days per week.

Conclusion: The changing academic calendar with courses meeting fewer times per week creates a situation where the remainder of the available time in the hourly course schedule time block cannot be used unless the course scheduling software identifies this and fills the intervals with similar courses.

Recommendation: The Registrar, in scheduling classrooms, should first allocate classroom space and times to those courses which meet most often during the week, followed by backfilling the gaps in the course schedule with courses which meet less often during the week. This currently is not a policy of scheduling of the University Registrar. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 195

B7. Cancelled Courses

Finding: In Autumn 2007, of the 7,500 scheduled courses at The Ohio State University, more than 600 were cancelled and did not take place. In other words, cancellations amounted to about eight percent of all scheduled courses, or about one in 16 courses. Some of these cancellations were due to an expected enrollment not occurring and the departments identifying a course which was not needed.

Conclusion: While it is expected that some courses would be cancelled because it is not always possible to identify the demand for courses when they are shown in the course catalog, too many cancellations are disruptive to course scheduling. The Ohio State University should continue to remain diligent in identifying courses that are cancelled in one year from being rescheduled during a second year to avoid gaps in the scheduling of rooms.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should develop a target percentage above which it would consider there to be an excessive number of course cancellations. One such target is that course cancellations be limited to five percent of the course calendar, rather than the eight percent that occurred in Autumn 2007. This is the same target that is in use at the University of Minnesota.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 196 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

C. CLASSROOM SPACE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

C1. No Single Voice for Classroom Needs and Issues

Finding: Because of the decentralized management of the myriad of classroom activities at The Ohio State University, there is no single place where classroom issues are voiced. The Classroom Readiness Committee has stepped in to fill some of this gap, but it has no line responsibility; it is advisory only.

Conclusion: If classrooms are to gain more attention as an important component of The Ohio State University facilities, they need to be structured so that a “champion” or spokesperson for classrooms is identified.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should create an office or unit that has overall campus- wide responsibility for management of The Ohio State University pool (general use) classrooms and departmentally-scheduled classrooms. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 197

C2. Courses, Course Sizes, and Classroom Inventory Size

Finding: In the autumn quarter 2007, among pool classrooms, there were nearly 3,600 scheduled courses, ranging in size from 1 student to 671 students. Overall, there were 221 distinct sizes of courses scheduled in pool classrooms based on number of students enrolled. One-half of these courses enrolled 29 or fewer students; one-half enrolled 30 or more.

Among departmentally-scheduled classrooms, in Autumn 2007, there were 730 scheduled courses, ranging in size from 2 students to 287 students. Overall, there were 98 different sizes of departmentally-scheduled courses as measured by enrollments. One-half of these courses enrolled 22 or fewer students; one-half enrolled 23 or more.

Conclusion: While The Ohio State University enrolls a significant number of students, more than one-half of the courses can be considered relatively small for an institution of its size. Should Ohio State continue to encourage and foster small class sizes, the mix of classrooms would need to continue to reflect this policy.

Currently, 46 percent of pool classrooms and 51 percent of departmentally-scheduled classrooms seat 39 or fewer students, which is the appropriate size room for courses that enroll 29 or fewer students, allowing for course enrollments to increase during the registration period without rescheduling the course to another room.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should establish a target that 50 percent of its classroom space inventory seat 39 or fewer students, if current class sizes are to continue into the future.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 198 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

C3. Converting from Quarters to Semesters

Finding: As a result of the State of Ohio policy on instructional space at Regents institutions, The Ohio State University will migrate from quarters to semesters. The faculty senate has already voted its support. Other institutions in Ohio, who are not already on the semester system, have indicated they will be on semesters by the fall of 2012, including Ohio University, the University of Cincinnati, and Wright State University.

Conclusion: The impact on the instructional space facilities inventory as a result of the conversion will require The Ohio State University to estimate the number of courses to be taught under the semester system relative to the number of courses currently taught under the quarter system. The expected change (increase) in course-by-course enrollments, which has not been forecast, will also need to be calculated.

As part of any task force studies at The Ohio State University on the conversion of instruction from quarters to semesters, an analysis should be made of the impact on the classroom inventory as a result of this change. If the result is a shift toward fewer courses with larger enrollments, then The Ohio State University could find itself with an inadequate number of larger classrooms (40 stations or more) at the time the semester conversion takes effect.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should predict the expected number of courses and their size as a means to identify the classroom resource the University will need at the time it moves from quarters to semesters. [Note: If the number of courses remains relatively in the same order of magnitude as presently exists, the change from quarters to semesters should have no impact on classroom facilities.] XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 199

C4. Classrooms in Every Building

Finding: Historically, every new building at The Ohio State University has included classroom space.

Conclusion: This practice of including classrooms in every building is consistent with the decentralized management of instructional space at The Ohio State University. It has also resulted in a distribution of classrooms across the campus, with the effect that there is no centroid of classroom space on the campus. During the period when classroom technology was at a minimum on U.S. campuses, this pattern of distributed classrooms was neither positive nor negative. However, in today’s classroom environment, with its emphasis on technology, the widespread distribution of instructional rooms means that it is more difficult to provide a high level of on-site services to a building with few classrooms.

As The Ohio State University proposes and plans future buildings on campus, the need for classroom space should be viewed as an institutional, rather than a departmental, requirement. The need for larger classrooms on the campus, including additional large lecture rooms, will need to be considered in each new building.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should advocate for classrooms beyond those serving a department and sponsor them in any new building.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 200 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

C5. Cost of Classroom Instruction

Finding: It was not apparent that The Ohio State University measures the cost of classroom instruction, either per square foot, per student, or per classroom.

Conclusion: Having a measurement of the actual cost along any of these performance indicators would allow The Ohio State University to compare an estimated requirement for operational cost per classroom square footage per year to the actual funding. This would provide a measure on how well classroom activities are financially supported.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should develop and use financial measures as well as use and utilization measures as a gauge for determining improvements needed in classroom and instructional space management. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 201

C6. Large Lecture Halls

Finding: The Ohio State University has three pool classrooms and one departmentally-scheduled classroom that seat 300 or more students for a total of four large lecture halls on campus. The three large lecture halls that are part of the pool classrooms are heavily utilized; the one large lecture hall that is a departmentally-scheduled classroom is less heavily utilized.

Conclusion: Demand exists for some very large classrooms (lecture halls) on the Ohio State campus. Scheduling these large rooms as evidence of demand suggests that additional space is required. While there is no universal gauge or benchmark to suggest how many large lecture halls there should be on a campus, The Ohio State University has fewer such rooms than all but one of the comparison campuses in this study, including all Big Ten campuses.

Since there is no measure by which to gauge either the number or size of large lecture halls on a campus, having these rooms provides benefits to the campus in terms of assembly, offering courses that require little student-faculty interaction, and providing a location for introductory courses. The Ohio State University, with only four such rooms, faces a long-term issue if any of these rooms are taken out of the inventory or if the building is razed and the site reused. Campuses with such large rooms find that on a formula-funded basis, they are able to generate considerable income to the campus for relatively little resource expenditure.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should add at least one large lecture hall classroom (300 or more seats). Such a classroom should be centrally located and be institutionally, rather than departmentally, sponsored. The Ohio State University should also proactively replace the one very large classroom in Independence Hall that may be displaced if the site is chosen for a new, larger replacement building. [Note: The 728 seat lecture hall in Independence Hall is the largest instructional space on campus.]

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 202 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

C7. Classroom Design Standards

Finding: Apparently, because there are no classroom design guidelines at The Ohio State University, each time a new building is designed, or an existing one renovated, the design architect can incorporate into the building those features of classroom design they feel to be important.

Conclusion: Leaving the design of classrooms up to each separate design architect can create inconsistencies from room-to-room as well as inefficiencies in the usefulness of the room at The Ohio State University. The post-occupancy feedback on what works and should be replicated and what does not work is also a necessary feature of improving classroom design.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should develop a classroom facilities design and operations manual to overcome the inadvertent changes that occur in the development of new instructional space from one designer to another, and from one building to another. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 203

C8. Communications about Classrooms

Finding: The Ohio State University has recently updated its classroom services website. This website provides quick links for finding the right classroom, requesting on-site staff assistance, reserving equipment online, and other options for providing assistance to prospective classroom users.

Conclusion: While the new classroom services website is of considerable aid to those searching for classrooms, communicating the characteristics of classrooms to faculty and instructors searching for a room can still be improved. This improvement should be in two areas: first, continuously monitoring the website to make it as informative and user-friendly as possible; and second, proactively informing potential users of its existence as a resource.

With regards to improving the usability of the website, as currently structured it offers much useful information, yet there are still improvements that could be made to help potential users navigate through the information available. Issues with this website include the use of building name abbreviations instead of full building names and some photos that are outdated.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should continue to upgrade its classroom services website and, in so doing, provide broadcast announcements to the faculty and instructional staff community that the website has been updated. In the updating, the University should provide the opportunity for comment and feedback as a method to continue to improve and meet user needs. Questions about using the website should also be added to any regular surveys about classrooms that the University plans to give in the future.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 204 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

C9. Feedback for Improvement

Finding: The Registrar-sponsored web-based survey of faculty comments on classrooms was, by all measures, an overwhelming success. More than 2,100 faculty and instructors comments to the survey were recorded and provided considerable and valuable information on their attitudes about classrooms and classroom management at The Ohio State University.

Conclusion: The Registrar-sponsored web-based survey was an important step in obtaining a broad spectrum of information about users’ (faculty, staff, and instructors) attitudes about classrooms at The Ohio State University. The largest number of comments about the classrooms concentrated on classroom conditions, including issues of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning and of general maintenance, which is evidence that some aspects of classroom management are beyond the direct control of the classroom faculty or instructor. Aspects of classroom management under user control, such as technology, lighting, or projection, were also identified as important issues that needed attention, but were not nearly as important as those regarding the facility conditions of the classrooms. Continuing to discover users’ attitudes about classrooms is important; doing something about it is even more important.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should continue both to survey and poll its classroom users on their attitudes and experiences with classrooms at the University. This information should be used in capital project requests that respond to the identified needs: better heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) and HVAC controls, improved general maintenance, and overall better cleanliness of the rooms. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 205

C10. Reporting Classroom Issues

Finding: As this study of instructional space indicated, the classroom issues at The Ohio State University cover many topical areas, ranging from facilities to technology, scheduling, and location.

Conclusion: Obtaining information about technology issues and putting the information to use will be a continuous need as The Ohio State University improves its classrooms. To create a single location (unit) for receiving comments and issues is important. This methodology for gaining information can be both passive and active. The passive methodology is also the source that provides the most immediate and current information. Passive means that the user initiates the comment, which can begin by posting “help line” phone numbers in the classroom or providing phone service in each classroom so that the immediate issues can be identified and responded to. The active methodology means seeking out information from the users about facility and technology issues. This would involve continuing and repeating the Registrar’s autumn 2008 web-based survey of faculty, follow-up meetings with faculty committees, continuing to schedule open forums with students, faculty, and staff, and seeking information about issues from all available sources.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should continue and repeat its current activities of obtaining information about facility and technology issues in the classroom. If and when the University provides a single source (unit) on the campus for classroom management and support, these issues would be received by that unit. In the interim, the issues would continue to be received by all who currently have responsibility for classroom facilities, technology, scheduling, and use.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 206 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

D. CLASSROOM TECHNICAL SERVICES

D1. Distributed Technology Services

Finding: At least four different units at The Ohio State University, each reporting separately, provide one or another technical or technology service in support of classroom instruction. These include FTAD (Faculty and TA Development), which reports to the Office of Academic Affairs; the Digital Union, which reports to the Library; Technology Enhanced Learning and Research (TELR), which reports to the Chief Information Officer; and, Applied Technology Services, which reports to the Office of Information Technology, which in turn reports to the Chief Information Officer of the University. Each of these units provides a different technical or technology service to students, faculty, and staff at the University.

Conclusion: While these four units (FTAD, Digital Union, TELR, and Applied Technology Services) work together informally, there is no common goal or direction that unites them. Although this decentralized model, in terms of reporting, mission, funding, and goals, is consistent with other aspects of decentralization at The Ohio State University, the “classroom management best practices” model at other major universities has these types of disparate units reporting to and through a common organization.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should redefine and realign these four technology support units, along with those providing other classroom support, into a single division of classroom support and management to enlarge the scope of their services, to create a one-stop shop, and to identify gaps in the supply of the services to the campus. This does not mean these units will lose their identity; rather their individual objectives will be brought together to identify gaps, or even duplications, in services. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 207

D2. Technology Enhanced Rooms

Finding: Of the 361 pool classrooms, technology to make the room a smart classroom has been installed in 241 rooms. Of the 146 departmentally-scheduled classrooms, there is no computation or data to show how many have technology to allow them to function as smart classrooms. Based on the workshops held with students, faculty, and staff, a minimal level of technology should be supplied in each instructional space on campus.

Conclusion: While The Ohio State University has made great strides in improving technology in the classroom, not all classrooms have yet received technology enhancement. Moreover, there is no systematic approach to installing and equipping technology in the rooms based on overall institutional objectives.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should establish a standard that every pool classroom and departmentally-scheduled classroom have a minimum level of technology. This would include a digital projector, internet connectivity, a permanent or portable podium, wireless connectivity, and a hot-line phone connected to a help desk.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 208 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

D3. Standards for Classroom Technology

Finding: If The Ohio State University has standards for classroom technology, it was not apparent.

Conclusion: The lack of a common design standard for instructional space technology means that each building can be developed without a common set of technology design parameters.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should develop a set of technology design standards for its new or renovated classrooms. Many institutions have highly workable and tested standards that Ohio State could use as a starting point. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 209

D4. Decentralized Computer Purchases and Services

Finding: The Ohio State University is likely unique among institutions in the amount of decentralization and autonomy granted to departments regarding technology. Departments, in general, can make their own computer purchases, choose their own software vendors, and maintain their own equipment.

Conclusion: The decentralization of technology to the departments results in discontinuity in the ability to provide a constant level of technology support across the campus. It is unlikely that any apparent cost savings in this model outweigh the benefits of a more uniform, bounded, and managed set of guidelines for on-campus technology.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should move away from its current decentralized model of each department having autonomy over its technology resources toward a more centralized model whereby hardware and software can be centrally supported.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 210 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

D5. Technology Delivery and Application

Finding: The delivery of technology to the classroom and the use of technology in the classroom at The Ohio State University appears fragmented as a result of the lack of campus policy direction and oversight.

The absence of a technology plan for The Ohio State University is evident when reading the current six strategic goals for “Making the Coming Year Ohio State’s Time” as issued by President Gordon Gee. None of the six strategic goals include or stress the use of technology and none use the word technology.

Conclusion: If The Ohio State University is to embrace technology in instruction, it will need a strategy to do so, including making plans for customer service, training, funding for technology services, funding for classroom improvements, and a built-in methodology to assess its achievements or lack thereof. At a minimum, a clear vision for the use of technology in the classroom at The Ohio State University is necessary.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should add a separate strategic goal regarding policy or institutional direction on technology on campus and explain that filling this vacuum will better serve its students. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 211

D6. Separate Technology Plans

Finding: The absence of an overall plan for instructional technology at The Ohio State University means that each of the operating units devises its own.

Conclusion: A technology plan for instruction or an instructional technology plan for The Ohio State University would bring together and fill in the experiential and policy gaps that currently exist. It would set the direction for Ohio State’s response and provide a clear statement of Ohio State’s intent. As it now stands, technology is an add-on rather than an integrated component of facilities planning, classroom improvements, assistance to faculty, and support to students.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should develop a comprehensive approach to and plan for technology in instructional space. This should accompany the review of changes in curriculum and pedagogy currently underway at the University.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 212 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

D7. Distributed Technology

Finding: Every department and college has its own computer network, servers, and security.

Conclusion: The lack of technology uniformity across The Ohio State University campus diminishes the economies of scale and opportunities for better collaboration that would come from a better controlled and managed system of technology on campus. More centralization would, when accompanied by common standards, lead to improved knowledge on the use of technology and gains from its use. This is both a cultural and organizational issue.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should provide more centralized guidance to and control over technology applications, hardware, and software across the campus. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 213

E. CLASSROOM FACILITIES ENVIRONMENT

E1. Environmental Controls

Finding: One of the common themes identified in the Registrar’s web-based survey of classroom users, in interviews with the Instructional Space Readiness Committee, and the subcommittee of the faculty senate, and others, is that better environmental controls are needed in the classroom. Many have said there is no way to adjust the temperature of the room; it is either too hot or too cold.

Conclusion: With nearly one-half of those responding to the Registrar’s web-based survey indicating the need for better HVAC controls in the classroom, this is an area that deserves additional campus attention.

Whereas at one time universities favored zone controls for temperature, where an entire floor or wing of a building would have only one set of temperature controls, today that is no longer necessary. The ability to control temperature on a room-by-room basis is cost effective, energy efficient, and readily available.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should establish a standard that each modernization of a classroom or group of classrooms go beyond cosmetic improvements and lead to the replacement of HVAC systems with room-by-room controls.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 214 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

E2. Cleanliness and Maintenance of Classrooms

Finding: One concern raised in the web-based survey is that the condition of the classrooms could be improved and, in some instances, the classrooms were not clean.

Conclusion: Because the classrooms are in constant use, keeping them clean and the equipment in working order is important. It also means finding the time when custodial and maintenance staff can keep up the room. This should result in a decreased amount of service requests.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should begin a daily classroom inspection to ensure instructional spaces remain are looked after. One-third of the instructional spaces should be inspected daily and 100 percent of instructional spaces should be inspected every three days. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 215

E3. Individual and Group Gathering Places

Finding: Both in observations on building walkthroughs and through discussion with students, students want and appreciate the ability to have individual or group gathering spaces in or near classrooms so that during their time before and after the instructional period they can have a place to sit, to study, to talk, to use their computer, or to wait.

Conclusion: The Ohio State University does better than most universities in providing this type of informal gathering space. Not only does this space exist outside of many of The Ohio State University classrooms, but students also seek out and use unscheduled or unused classrooms for the same purposes. This feature distinguishes and sets The Ohio State University apart from others.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should program all new, renovated, and remodeled classroom facilities with space for informal individual and group gatherings.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 216 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

F. CLASSROOM SUPPORT

F1. Decentralized Teaching and Learning Technology

Finding: Instructional technology, whether it is a teaching or learning technology, is decentralized, like other forms of technology interface at The Ohio State University. While separate technology organizations within the University offer portions of a comprehensive program, there is no overall organizational direction that was apparent.

Conclusion: The generational changes that are occurring in the use of technology, both occasioned by the hiring of new faculty and by the enrollment of students who have grown up with technology, will require The Ohio State University to engage more deliberately in the area of instructional technology, ranging from classroom instruction to distance education. This is, on many campuses, a component of classroom or instructional space management.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should be more active and proactive in the area of instructional technology, both for the benefit of students and for the assistance to faculty. This may require organizational changes, space, and a funding source. XI. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations April 2009 217

F2. Technology in Instruction

Finding: While there are some outposts of the use of technology in instruction at The Ohio State University, it is ad hoc rather than comprehensive.

Conclusion: The Ohio State University needs to decide what its future should be regarding the use of technology in the classroom. The decentralized, ad hoc model creates many gaps. These include questions of the technology needs of courses; the space needs for technology; the funding for classroom upgrades, both in terms of facilities and technology; the understanding of the match between pedagogy and the need for technology; the requirement of space for training and demonstration; and, the need for space for experimentation.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should create a technology plan that is progressive, rather than remedial. The plan should identify the technology future of Ohio State, rather than one which simply focuses on bringing The Ohio State University to the present instead of to the future.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. 218 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

F3. Classroom Services Website

Finding: The Ohio State University classroom services website ranked among the better classroom websites among the Big Ten institutions in a review conducted by IFA. However, at the time of this report, the last reported update of the classroom services website had been more than seven months earlier, in August 2008.

Conclusion: While the classroom services website is useful, it needs to be maintained. Moreover, other words similar to classroom and classroom services need to be linked to this website.

Recommendation: The Ohio State University should continue to work to improve and redesign the classroom services website, including links to other classroom affinity groups on campus. Any future classroom design, management, or scheduling guidelines should also be posted here for easy access. Appendices

Appendix A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database

Appendix B Scheduled Department Classrooms Database

Appendix C Scheduled Department Class Laboratories Database

Appendix D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database

Appendix E Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories Database

Appendix F Sample Course Schedule Charts

Appendix G Responses to the Registrar’s Office Web-Based Classroom Survey Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Hitchcock Hall, Room 446, 40 Stations A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Stillman Hall, Room 100, 187 Stations April 2009 A-1 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

3 AGR ADM AA 108 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 933 56 Yes 1 3 AGR ADM AA 246 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 901 35 Yes 2 3 AGR ADM AA 251 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 735 45 Yes 2 Agricultural Administration Building 3 2,569 136

4 18TH,209 W EA 160 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,259 203 1 4 18TH,209 W EA 170 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,606 140 1 4 18TH,209 W EA 265 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,017 29 2 4 18TH,209 W EA 275 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,015 29 2 4 18TH,209 W EA 285 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,017 29 2 4 18TH,209 W EA 295 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,018 29 2 209 West 18th Avenue 6 7,932 459

11 ARPS AP 3 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 306 15 0B 11 ARPS AP 12 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 920 63 Yes 0B 11 ARPS AP 173 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 454 30 Yes 1 11 ARPS AP 177 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 400 30 1 11 ARPS AP 345 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 444 30 Yes 3 11 ARPS AP 383 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 754 63 3 11 ARPS AP 384 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 920 60 Yes 3 11 ARPS AP 386 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 436 20 3 11 ARPS AP 387 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 727 55 Yes 3 11 ARPS AP 388 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 650 56 Yes 3 Arps Hall 10 6,011 422

14 JENNINGS JE 40 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,101 60 Yes 0G 14 JENNINGS JE 50 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 864 24 0G 14 JENNINGS JE 60 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,105 60 Yes 0G 14 JENNINGS JE 136 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 712 32 Yes 1 14 JENNINGS JE 140 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 863 42 Yes 1 14 JENNINGS JE 155 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,921 150 Yes 1 14 JENNINGS JE 160 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 890 42 Yes 1 14 JENNINGS JE 164 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 828 32 Yes 1 Jennings Hall 8 8,284 442

17 KNOWLTON KN 190 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,175 60 Yes 1 17 KNOWLTON KN 195 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 934 40 1

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database) April 2009 A-2 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

17 KNOWLTON KN 250 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 3,789 213 2 Knowlton Hall 3 5,898 313

18 CAMPBELL CM 200 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 3,710 289 Yes 2 18 CAMPBELL CM 209 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 801 50 Yes 2 18 CAMPBELL CM 271 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 552 26 Yes 2 18 CAMPBELL CM 309 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 796 49 Yes 3 18 CAMPBELL CM 335 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 796 49 Yes 3 Campbell Hall 5 6,655 463

24 POSTLE PH 1180 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,657 145 Yes 1 24 POSTLE PH 1184 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,652 150 Yes 1 Postle Hall 2 3,309 295

25 DERBY DB 24 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 379 22 Yes 0B 25 DERBY DB 29 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 968 36 0B 25 DERBY DB 30 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 418 28 Yes 0B 25 DERBY DB 38 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 289 11 Yes 0B 25 DERBY DB 47 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 329 16 Yes 0B 25 DERBY DB 48 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 709 30 Yes 0B 25 DERBY DB 49 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 558 28 Yes 0B 25 DERBY DB 60 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 372 18 Yes 0B 25 DERBY DB 62 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 355 23 Yes 0B 25 DERBY DB 80 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,110 54 Yes 0B Derby Hall 10 5,487 266

26 CALDWELL CL 102 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 445 24 1 26 CALDWELL CL 109 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 518 42 1 26 CALDWELL CL 115 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 522 42 1 26 CALDWELL CL 119 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 335 24 1 26 CALDWELL CL 120 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,263 72 Yes 1 26 CALDWELL CL 133 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 840 41 Yes 1 26 CALDWELL CL 135 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 584 34 Yes 1 26 CALDWELL CL 137 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 798 41 Yes 1 26 CALDWELL CL 139 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 609 35 1 26 CALDWELL CL 171 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 696 44 Yes 1 26 CALDWELL CL 177 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 821 42 Yes 1

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database) April 2009 A-3 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

26 CALDWELL CL 183 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 273 18 1 26 CALDWELL CL 220 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 954 48 Yes 2 26 CALDWELL CL 277 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 821 49 Yes 2 Caldwell Laboratory 14 9,479 556

30 DENNEY DE 202 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 626 24 Yes 2 30 DENNEY DE 206 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 751 40 Yes 2 30 DENNEY DE 207 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 609 24 Yes 2 30 DENNEY DE 209 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 500 24 Yes 2 30 DENNEY DE 213 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 678 24 Yes 2 30 DENNEY DE 214 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,010 45 Yes 2 30 DENNEY DE 238 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,010 45 Yes 2 30 DENNEY DE 245 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 664 24 Yes 2 30 DENNEY DE 250 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,009 45 Yes 2 30 DENNEY DE 253 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,024 45 Yes 2 30 DENNEY DE 262 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 703 24 Yes 2 30 DENNEY DE 265 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 609 24 Yes 2 30 DENNEY DE 268 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 542 24 Yes 2 Denney Hall 13 9,735 412

36 AVIATION AV 100 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 635 40 1 36 AVIATION AV 101 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 511 29 1 36 AVIATION AV 107 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 420 25 1 36 AVIATION AV 110 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 685 44 Yes 1 36 AVIATION AV 115 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 380 22 1 36 AVIATION AV 200 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 580 40 2 36 AVIATION AV 201 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,035 48 Yes 2 36 AVIATION AV 206 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 397 24 2 36 AVIATION AV 214 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 499 35 2 36 AVIATION AV 215 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 389 23 2 Aviation Building 10 5,531 330

37 HAGERTY HH 42 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 681 26 Yes 0G 37 HAGERTY HH 45 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 466 18 Yes 0G 37 HAGERTY HH 46 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 664 33 Yes 0G 37 HAGERTY HH 50 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 701 26 Yes 0G 37 HAGERTY HH 56 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 636 26 Yes 0G

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database) April 2009 A-4 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

37 HAGERTY HH 62 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 682 33 Yes 0G 37 HAGERTY HH 71 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 461 18 Yes 0G 37 HAGERTY HH 180 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,854 242 Yes 1 37 HAGERTY HH 186 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 666 26 Yes 1 37 HAGERTY HH 251 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 643 26 Yes 2 37 HAGERTY HH 259 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 642 26 Yes 2 37 HAGERTY HH 351 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 653 26 Yes 3 37 HAGERTY HH 359 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 649 26 Yes 3 Hagerty Hall 13 10,398 552

39 HAYES HALL HA 120 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 345 12 Yes 1 39 HAYES HALL HA 211 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 423 25 Yes 2 39 HAYES HALL HA 220 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 627 35 Yes 2 Hayes Hall 3 1,395 72

41 LAZENBY LZ 1 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 490 40 Yes 0B 41 LAZENBY LZ 2 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,046 58 Yes 0B 41 LAZENBY LZ 18 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 383 20 0B 41 LAZENBY LZ 21 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,357 160 0B 41 LAZENBY LZ 28 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 344 12 0B 41 LAZENBY LZ 34 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 919 50 0B Lazenby Hall 6 5,539 340

46 JOURNALISM JR 139 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 585 30 Yes 1 46 JOURNALISM JR 143 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 610 28 Yes 1 46 JOURNALISM JR 221 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 442 26 Yes 2 46 JOURNALISM JR 291 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 434 17 Yes 2 46 JOURNALISM JR 295 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 399 18 Yes 2 46 JOURNALISM JR 300 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,476 119 Yes 3 46 JOURNALISM JR 304 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 652 45 Yes 3 46 JOURNALISM JR 371 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 960 60 Yes 3 46 JOURNALISM JR 375 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 751 45 Yes 3 46 JOURNALISM JR 387 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 472 20 Yes 3 Journalism Building 10 6,781 408

53 MCPHERSON MP 1000 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 4,051 356 Yes 1 53 MCPHERSON MP 1005 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 570 36 Yes 1

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database) April 2009 A-5 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

53 MCPHERSON MP 1008 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 559 35 Yes 1 53 MCPHERSON MP 1015 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,870 112 Yes 1 53 MCPHERSON MP 1021 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 729 40 Yes 1 53 MCPHERSON MP 1040 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 717 42 Yes 1 53 MCPHERSON MP 1041 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 764 45 Yes 1 53 MCPHERSON MP 1045 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 693 37 Yes 1 53 MCPHERSON MP 1046 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 767 49 Yes 1 53 MCPHERSON MP 2017 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 809 49 Yes 2 53 MCPHERSON MP 2019 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 966 56 Yes 2 McPherson Chemical Lab 11 12,495 857

54 MENDENHALL ML 100 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,447 221 Yes 1 54 MENDENHALL ML 115 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 859 60 Yes 1 54 MENDENHALL ML 125 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 754 45 Yes 1 54 MENDENHALL ML 129 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 663 42 Yes 1 54 MENDENHALL ML 131 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 783 42 Yes 1 54 MENDENHALL ML 173 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 798 42 Yes 1 54 MENDENHALL ML 174 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 612 36 Yes 1 54 MENDENHALL ML 175 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 663 42 Yes 1 54 MENDENHALL ML 185 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 754 45 Yes 1 54 MENDENHALL ML 191 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 877 60 Yes 1 Mendenhall Laboratory 10 9,210 635

60 ORTON OR 110 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,343 70 Yes 1 Orton Hall 1 1,343 70

61 PAGE PA 10 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,729 90 Yes 0G 61 PAGE PA 20 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,737 90 Yes 0G 61 PAGE PA 60 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 902 48 0G Page Hall 3 4,368 228

63 COCKINS CH 218 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 804 50 2 63 COCKINS CH 228 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 523 30 2 63 COCKINS CH 232 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 767 40 2 63 COCKINS CH 312 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 953 55 Yes 3 Cockins Hall 4 3,047 175

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database) April 2009 A-6 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

65 SMITH LAB SM 1005 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,221 94 Yes 1 65 SMITH LAB SM 1009 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,210 94 Yes 1 65 SMITH LAB SM 1042 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 609 48 1 65 SMITH LAB SM 1048 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 661 54 1 65 SMITH LAB SM 1153 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,156 215 Yes 1 65 SMITH LAB SM 1180 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 635 47 1 65 SMITH LAB SM 1186 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 391 24 1 65 SMITH LAB SM 2186 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 420 30 2 65 SMITH LAB SM 3082 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 645 49 3 65 SMITH LAB SM 3094 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 772 56 3 65 SMITH LAB SM 5024 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 606 37 5 Smith Laboratory 11 9,326 748

66 PLUMB PL 216 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 968 54 2 Plumb Hall 1 968 54

67 POMERENE PO 206 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 609 20 2 67 POMERENE PO 207 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 612 42 2 67 POMERENE PO 208 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 758 50 2 67 POMERENE PO 306 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,585 88 3 Pomerene Hall 4 3,564 200

72 CLASS BLDG CC 202 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 378 25 Yes 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 204 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 383 26 Yes 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 206 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 384 26 Yes 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 209 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 568 38 Yes 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 211 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 568 38 Yes 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 212 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 384 26 Yes 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 214 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 383 25 Yes 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 218 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 375 25 Yes 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 222 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 569 40 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 226 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 592 40 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 230 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 527 35 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 238 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 385 22 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 240 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 384 30 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 243 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 571 38 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 245 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 571 38 Yes 2

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database) April 2009 A-7 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

72 CLASS BLDG CC 246 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 384 30 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 248 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 385 22 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 254 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 527 35 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 258 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 577 40 2 72 CLASS BLDG CC 304 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 384 24 Yes 3 72 CLASS BLDG CC 306 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 384 23 Yes 3 72 CLASS BLDG CC 311 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 2,469 72 3 72 CLASS BLDG CC 312 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 384 25 Yes 3 72 CLASS BLDG CC 314 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 384 23 Yes 3 72 CLASS BLDG CC 318 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 375 23 Yes 3 72 CLASS BLDG CC 322 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 569 34 Yes 3 72 CLASS BLDG CC 326 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 592 36 Yes 3 72 CLASS BLDG CC 330 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 527 34 Yes 3 72 CLASS BLDG CC 340 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 384 28 Yes 3 72 CLASS BLDG CC 346 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 384 27 Yes 3 72 CLASS BLDG CC 354 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 527 33 Yes 3 72 CLASS BLDG CC 358 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 577 36 Yes 3 Central Classroom Building 32 16,835 1,017

84 STILLMAN SH 100 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 3,043 187 Yes 1 84 STILLMAN SH 131 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 488 28 Yes 1 84 STILLMAN SH 135 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 724 40 Yes 1 84 STILLMAN SH 145 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 824 49 Yes 1 84 STILLMAN SH 240 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 711 44 Yes 2 84 STILLMAN SH 245 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 776 45 Yes 2 Stillman Hall 6 6,566 393

85 ENARSON EN 201 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 564 40 Yes 2 85 ENARSON EN 212 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 532 40 Yes 2 Enarson Hall 2 1,096 80

87 TOWNSHEND TO 247 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 949 70 Yes 2 87 TOWNSHEND TO 255 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,216 90 Yes 2 Townshend Hall 2 2,165 160

90 RAMSEYER RA 65 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,336 60 Yes 0B 90 RAMSEYER RA 100 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,702 71 Yes 1

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database) April 2009 A-8 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

90 RAMSEYER RA 110 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 957 55 Yes 1 90 RAMSEYER RA 115 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 745 60 1 90 RAMSEYER RA 166 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 517 30 Yes 1 90 RAMSEYER RA 322 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 826 40 3 90 RAMSEYER RA 336 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 979 50 Yes 3 Ramseyer Hall 7 7,062 366

106 SULLIVANT SU 105 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 6,065 299 1 Sullivant Hall 1 6,065 299

107 WATTS HALL WA 379 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 459 20 3 107 WATTS HALL WA 389 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 379 28 3 107 WATTS HALL WA 395 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 741 36 Yes 3 Watts Hall 3 1,579 84

110 BOYD LAB BL 205 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 822 56 2 110 BOYD LAB BL 311 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 988 71 3 110 BOYD LAB BL 315 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 814 65 3 Boyd Laboratory 3 2,624 192

144 PSYCHOLOGY PS 2 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,050 120 Yes 0G 144 PSYCHOLOGY PS 10 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,413 60 Yes 0G 144 PSYCHOLOGY PS 14 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,335 60 Yes 0G Psychology Building 3 4,798 240

145 KOFFOLT KL 131 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 612 39 1 145 KOFFOLT KL 136 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 619 37 1 145 KOFFOLT KL 205 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 676 49 2 145 KOFFOLT KL 207 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,283 89 Yes 2 145 KOFFOLT KL 330 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 598 35 Yes 3 Koffolt Laboratories 5 3,788 249

146 BOLZ HALL BO 124 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 653 42 Yes 1 146 BOLZ HALL BO 128 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 477 25 1 146 BOLZ HALL BO 311 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 697 39 Yes 3 146 BOLZ HALL BO 313 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 700 43 3 146 BOLZ HALL BO 314 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 721 46 Yes 3

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database) April 2009 A-9 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

146 BOLZ HALL BO 316 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 702 42 3 146 BOLZ HALL BO 317 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 691 42 3 146 BOLZ HALL BO 318 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 699 44 Yes 3 146 BOLZ HALL BO 412 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 590 55 4 146 BOLZ HALL BO 422 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 803 42 4 146 BOLZ HALL BO 428 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 976 47 Yes 4 146 BOLZ HALL BO 432 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 475 30 4 146 BOLZ HALL BO 434 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 492 30 Yes 4 146 BOLZ HALL BO 436 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 939 64 Yes 4 146 BOLZ HALL BO 437 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 449 32 4 Bolz Hall 15 10,064 623

148 SCOTT LAB SO E0001 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,542 150 Yes 0B 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0004 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,676 85 Yes 0B 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0024 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,859 85 Yes 0B 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0040 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,814 85 Yes 0B 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0103 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 733 24 Yes 1 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0105 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 754 30 Yes 1 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0125 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,582 72 Yes 1 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0241 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 633 22 Yes 2 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0245 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 730 25 Yes 2 148 SCOTT LAB SO N0044 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 492 18 Yes 0B 148 SCOTT LAB SO N0048 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,262 50 Yes 0B 148 SCOTT LAB SO N0050 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,175 50 Yes 0B 148 SCOTT LAB SO N0054 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,156 50 Yes 0B 148 SCOTT LAB SO N0056 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 983 36 Yes 0B Scott Laboratory 14 17,391 782

149 HOPKINS HC 162 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,441 100 Yes 1 149 HOPKINS HC 246 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 822 35 Yes 2 149 HOPKINS HC 248 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 752 30 2 149 HOPKINS HC 250 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 549 24 2 149 HOPKINS HC 262 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,338 80 Yes 2 Hopkins Hall 5 4,902 269

150 EVANS LAB EL 1008 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,729 235 Yes 1 150 EVANS LAB EL 2001 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 615 46 2

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database) April 2009 A-10 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

150 EVANS LAB EL 2002 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 591 40 2 150 EVANS LAB EL 2003 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 625 36 Yes 2 150 EVANS LAB EL 2004 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 997 93 Yes 2 Evans Laboratory 5 5,557 450

151 FONTANA FL 142 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 645 40 1 Fontana Laboratories 1 645 40

156 ANIMAL SCI AS 202 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 855 57 Yes 2 156 ANIMAL SCI AS 210 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 891 50 Yes 2 Animal Science Building 2 1,746 107

245 PAES BLDG PE A0103 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 914 30 Yes 1 245 PAES BLDG PE A0105 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 905 30 Yes 1 245 PAES BLDG PE A0109 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,024 30 Yes 1 245 PAES BLDG PE A0111 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 857 30 Yes 1 Physical Activities and Education Services (PAES) Building 4 3,700 120

251 SCHOEN BLD SB 105 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 3,332 250 Yes 1 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 200 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 781 48 Yes 2 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 205 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,232 50 Yes 2 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 210 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 830 40 Yes 2 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 215 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,232 50 Yes 2 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 220 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,691 70 Yes 2 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 230 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,691 70 Yes 2 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 300 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 780 49 Yes 3 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 305 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,232 50 Yes 3 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 310 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 838 40 Yes 3 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 315 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,232 50 Yes 3 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 320 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,862 82 Yes 3 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 330 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,862 82 Yes 3 Schoenbaum Undergrad Program Building 13 18,595 931

265 MACQUIGG MQ 155 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 406 28 1 265 MACQUIGG MQ 159 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 594 45 1 265 MACQUIGG MQ 160 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,095 60 Yes 1 265 MACQUIGG MQ 161 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 756 50 1

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database) April 2009 A-11 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

265 MACQUIGG MQ 162 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 751 49 Yes 1 265 MACQUIGG MQ 264 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,774 147 Yes 2 Macquigg Laboratory 6 5,376 379

273 PARKS HALL PK 103 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,420 150 Yes 1 273 PARKS HALL PK 107 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,466 150 Yes 1 273 PARKS HALL PK 111 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,464 95 Yes 1 273 PARKS HALL PK 157 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 724 48 Yes 1 273 PARKS HALL PK 257 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 720 45 Yes 2 273 PARKS HALL PK 550 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 401 30 5 Parks Hall 6 6,195 518

274 HITCHCOCK HI 30 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 621 42 0B 274 HITCHCOCK HI 31 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,812 123 Yes 0B 274 HITCHCOCK HI 35 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,807 126 Yes 0B 274 HITCHCOCK HI 131 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 5,163 640 Yes 1 274 HITCHCOCK HI 446 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 535 40 4 Hitchcock Hall 5 9,938 971

276 BIOSCIENCE BI 141 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,062 36 Yes 1 276 BIOSCIENCE BI 668 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 650 38 Yes 6 276 BIOSCIENCE BI 676 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 592 35 6 Biological Sciences Building 3 2,304 109

279 DREESE LAB DL 113 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,626 189 Yes 1 279 DREESE LAB DL 264 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 852 44 Yes 2 279 DREESE LAB DL 266 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 736 38 Yes 2 279 DREESE LAB DL 317 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 759 36 Yes 3 279 DREESE LAB DL 357 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 782 45 Yes 3 279 DREESE LAB DL 369 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 747 48 3 279 DREESE LAB DL 705 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 317 16 7 279 DREESE LAB DL 713 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 603 40 Yes 7 Dreese Laboratories 8 7,422 456

280 BAKER SYS BE 120 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,952 80 Yes 1 280 BAKER SYS BE 130 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 531 32 1 280 BAKER SYS BE 134 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 322 25 1

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database) April 2009 A-12 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

280 BAKER SYS BE 136 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 373 21 1 280 BAKER SYS BE 180 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 879 48 Yes 1 280 BAKER SYS BE 184 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 569 35 1 280 BAKER SYS BE 188 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 568 34 Yes 1 280 BAKER SYS BE 192 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 567 34 1 280 BAKER SYS BE 198 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 820 49 Yes 1 280 BAKER SYS BE 260 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 516 30 2 280 BAKER SYS BE 272 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 395 20 2 280 BAKER SYS BE 285 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,126 75 Yes 2 280 BAKER SYS BE 394 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 558 40 3 Baker Systems Engineering 13 9,176 523

293 CUNZ HALL CZ 116 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 620 40 1 293 CUNZ HALL CZ 132 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 235 15 1 293 CUNZ HALL CZ 168 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 725 40 Yes 1 293 CUNZ HALL CZ 176 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 779 35 Yes 1 Cunz Hall 4 2,359 130

295 HOWLETT HT 164 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,177 140 Yes 1 Howlett Hall 1 1,177 140

298 AG ENG AE 100 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,833 100 Yes 1 298 AG ENG AE 103 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,552 50 Yes 1 298 AG ENG AE 104 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,153 48 Yes 1 Agricultural Engineering Building 3 4,538 198

337 DULLES DU 12 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 451 32 0B 337 DULLES DU 16 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 374 26 0B 337 DULLES DU 20 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 359 30 0B 337 DULLES DU 24 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 351 26 0B 337 DULLES DU 27 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 433 30 0B Dulles Hall 5 1,968 144

338 INDPNDNCE IH 100 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 7,047 728 Yes 1 Independence Hall 1 7,047 728

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database) April 2009 A-13 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table A Scheduled Pool Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Technology Installed in Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number Room Floor

339 U HALL UH 14 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,953 158 0B 339 U HALL UH 24 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 329 22 0B 339 U HALL UH 28 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 330 22 0B 339 U HALL UH 38 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 784 49 Yes 0B 339 U HALL UH 43 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 582 36 Yes 0B 339 U HALL UH 47 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 589 36 Yes 0B 339 U HALL UH 51 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 587 35 Yes 0B 339 U HALL UH 56 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 984 35 Yes 0B 339 U HALL UH 66 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 330 20 0B 339 U HALL UH 74 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 331 24 0B 339 U HALL UH 82 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 771 49 Yes 0B 339 U HALL UH 86 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 515 42 0B 339 U HALL UH 90 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 560 25 0B 339 U HALL UH 151 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 590 37 Yes 1 University Hall 14 9,235 590

340 KOTTMAN KH 102 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 954 44 Yes 1 340 KOTTMAN KH 103 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 3,059 272 Yes 1 340 KOTTMAN KH 104 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,105 51 Yes 1 340 KOTTMAN KH 112 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 482 26 1 340 KOTTMAN KH 116 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 533 32 1 340 KOTTMAN KH 200 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 458 20 2 Kottman Hall 6 6,591 445

371 CELESTE LB CE 110 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 430 25 1 371 CELESTE LB CE 120 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 409 25 1 Celeste Laboratory of Chemistry 2 839 50

TOTAL 361 328,667 20,216 241

(Based on Draft 5a of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Pool Classroom Database)

B Scheduled Department Classrooms Database Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Stillman Hall, Room 245, 45 Stations April 2009 B-1 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table B Scheduled Department Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

777 SOCIOL 1 BRICKER BK 385 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 771 30 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 Bricker Hall 1 771 30

1275 TCH&LRN 11 ARPS AP 2 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 739 30 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B 1241 ENGL/SEC 11 ARPS AP 193 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 451 15 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1241 ENGL/SEC 11 ARPS AP 195 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 322 15 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1275 TCH&LRN 11 ARPS AP 243 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 662 40 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 Arps Hall 4 2,174 100

1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 175 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 826 41 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 176 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 515 27 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 177 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 518 27 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 269 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 442 20 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 Knowlton Hall 4 2,301 115

1255 CONSUMER 18 CAMPBELL CM 143 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 830 52 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1251 HUM DEVL 18 CAMPBELL CM 167 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 831 45 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1255 CONSUMER 18 CAMPBELL CM 251 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 981 50 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 1200 EHE ADM 18 CAMPBELL CM 252 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,034 76 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 1251 HUM DEVL 18 CAMPBELL CM 351 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 801 35 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 3 Campbell Hall 5 4,477 258

2105 DENT G O 24 POSTLE PH 1183 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 3,523 215 21 COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY 1 2105 DENT G O 24 POSTLE PH 1187 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 3,532 215 21 COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY 1 2105 DENT G O 24 POSTLE PH 1188 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,652 124 21 COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY 1 2120 DENT HYG 24 POSTLE PH 3085 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 613 40 21 COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY 3 Postle Hall 4 9,320 594

733 GEOG 25 DERBY DB 1080 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,093 75 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 1 733 GEOG 25 DERBY DB 1116 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 702 20 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 1 755 POLI SCI 25 DERBY DB 2078 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 375 16 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 2 733 GEOG 25 DERBY DB 0155D 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 415 15 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 0B Derby Hall 4 2,585 126

215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 211 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,155 30 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 406 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 779 30 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4

(Based on Draft 5b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Classroom Database) April 2009 B-2 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table B Scheduled Department Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 408 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,044 40 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4 Haskett Hall 3 2,978 100

537 ENGLISH 30 DENNEY DE 0368B 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 402 22 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 3 Denney Hall 1 402 22

543 FORNLANG 37 HAGERTY HH 145 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 659 30 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 1 596 SPANISH 37 HAGERTY HH 255 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 699 36 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 2 547 GERMANIC 37 HAGERTY HH 488 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 396 15 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 4 Hagerty Hall 3 1,754 81

2500 MED ADM 38 HAMILTON HM 107 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,168 156 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2510 BIOINFOR 38 HAMILTON HM 233 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,219 60 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2 Hamilton Hall 2 3,387 216

766 PSYCH 41 LAZENBY LZ 120 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 391 18 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 1 Lazenby Hall 1 391 18

262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 13 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,408 80 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B 262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 100 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 4,780 382 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B Hughes Hall 2 6,188 462

744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 106 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,180 50 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 1 Journalism Building 1 1,180 50

2300 LAW 49 DRINKO/LAW DI 244 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,172 70 23 MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW 2 2300 LAW 49 DRINKO/LAW DI 245 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 852 40 23 MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW 2 2300 LAW 49 DRINKO/LAW DI 246 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,167 70 23 MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW 2 2300 LAW 49 DRINKO/LAW DI 250 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,167 70 23 MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW 2 2300 LAW 49 DRINKO/LAW DI 251 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 857 40 23 MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW 2 2300 LAW 49 DRINKO/LAW DI 252 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,167 70 23 MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW 2 2300 LAW 49 DRINKO/LAW DI 344 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,123 120 23 MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW 3 2300 LAW 49 DRINKO/LAW DI 345 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 592 30 23 MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW 3 2300 LAW 49 DRINKO/LAW DI 347 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 610 30 23 MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW 3 2300 LAW 49 DRINKO/LAW DI 348 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,123 150 23 MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW 3 2300 LAW 49 DRINKO/LAW DI 352 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,123 150 23 MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW 3 Drinko Hall 11 13,953 840

(Based on Draft 5b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Classroom Database) April 2009 B-3 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table B Scheduled Department Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

628 CHEM 53 MCPHERSON MP 2015A 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,392 68 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 McPherson Chemical Lab 1 1,392 68

4384 NAVAL SC 56 CONVERSE CV 127 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 780 20 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 1 4382 AIR STUD 56 CONVERSE CV 210 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 840 40 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 4380 MIL SCI 56 CONVERSE CV 215 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,101 60 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 4380 MIL SCI 56 CONVERSE CV 239 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 797 24 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 Converse Hall 4 3,518 144

2700 OPTOMTRY 59 FRY HALL FR 22 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,226 80 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 0B 2700 OPTOMTRY 59 FRY HALL FR 33 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,903 100 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 0B Fry Hall 2 3,129 180

770 PUB PLCY 61 PAGE PA 240 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 526 20 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 Page Hall 1 526 20

1156 FOOD SCI 64 PARKER FD FS 114 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 565 40 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1156 FOOD SCI 64 PARKER FD FS 118 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,073 80 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Parker Food Science and Technology 2 1,638 120

1900 SOC WORK 84 STILLMAN SH 0440C 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 288 14 19 COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORK 4 Stillman Hall 1 288 14

1275 TCH&LRN 90 RAMSEYER RA 0200A 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 746 34 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 Ramseyer Hall 1 746 34

241 DANCE 106 SULLIVANT SU 20 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 524 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B 3200 LIBRARY 106 SULLIVANT SU 0066A 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 490 30 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 0B Sullivant Hall 2 1,014 50

2500 MED ADM 113 DAV HT&LNG HR 159 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 650 29 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2500 MED ADM 113 DAV HT&LNG HR 165 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,059 70 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2500 MED ADM 113 DAV HT&LNG HR 170 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,654 200 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute 3 4,363 299

2900 VET ADM 136 VET ACAD 100 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,987 145 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 1

(Based on Draft 5b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Classroom Database) April 2009 B-4 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table B Scheduled Department Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

2900 VET ADM 136 VET ACAD 170 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,971 140 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 1 Veterinary Medicine Academic Building 2 5,958 285

766 PSYCH 144 PSYCHOLOGY PS 115 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 394 16 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 1 766 PSYCH 144 PSYCHOLOGY PS 217 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 405 16 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 2 766 PSYCH 144 PSYCHOLOGY PS 219 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 432 16 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 2 Psychology Building 3 1,231 48

1407 AERO ENG 146 BOLZ HALL BO 114 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 818 40 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1427 CIVIL EN 146 BOLZ HALL BO 216 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 585 30 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 Bolz Hall 2 1,403 70

230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 176 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 709 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 264 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 561 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 364 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 868 24 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 Hopkins Hall 3 2,138 64

2500 MED ADM 176 STAR LOVNG SL M0008 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 894 44 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 176 STAR LOVNG SL M0010 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 494 24 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 176 STAR LOVNG SL M0100 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,549 61 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 Starling Loving Hall 3 2,937 129

1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0006 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 435 22 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0021 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 351 14 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0145 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,351 67 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0151 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,006 50 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 Physical Activities and Education Services 4 3,143 153

1000 BUS COLL 250 GERLACH GE 265 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,595 36 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 2 1000 BUS COLL 250 GERLACH GE 275 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 857 48 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 2 1000 BUS COLL 250 GERLACH GE 305 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,576 70 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 3 1000 BUS COLL 250 GERLACH GE 315 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,251 50 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 3 1000 BUS COLL 250 GERLACH GE 355 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,251 54 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 3 1000 BUS COLL 250 GERLACH GE 365 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 2,126 96 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 3 1000 BUS COLL 250 GERLACH GE 375 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 2,126 96 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 3 Gerlach Graduate Programs Building 7 10,782 450

(Based on Draft 5b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Classroom Database) April 2009 B-5 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table B Scheduled Department Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1000 BUS COLL 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 209 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 847 35 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 2 1000 BUS COLL 251 SCHOEN BLD SB 319 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 847 40 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 3 Schoenbaum Undergrad Program Building 2 1,694 75

4207 MIN AFF 259 HALE HALL HL 134 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 523 30 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 1 4207 MIN AFF 259 HALE HALL HL 145 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 859 52 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 1 Hale Hall 2 1,382 82

1800 PHARMACY 273 PARKS HALL PK 250 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 988 60 18 COLLEGE OF PHARMACY 2 1800 PHARMACY 273 PARKS HALL PK 551 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 500 25 18 COLLEGE OF PHARMACY 5 Parks Hall 2 1,488 85

1700 NURSING 275 NEWTON NH 168 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 772 40 17 COLLEGE OF NURSING 1 1700 NURSING 275 NEWTON NH 172 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 2,118 170 17 COLLEGE OF NURSING 1 1700 NURSING 275 NEWTON NH 198 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 921 50 17 COLLEGE OF NURSING 1 1700 NURSING 275 NEWTON NH 244 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,116 75 17 COLLEGE OF NURSING 2 1700 NURSING 275 NEWTON NH 264 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,119 75 17 COLLEGE OF NURSING 2 Newton Hall 5 6,046 410

300 BIOSCI 276 BIOSCIENCE BI 609 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 650 44 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 6 300 BIOSCI 276 BIOSCIENCE BI 684 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 479 40 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 6 Biological Sciences Building 2 1,129 84

2500 MED ADM 277 GRAVES GR 1024 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 827 25 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2500 MED ADM 277 GRAVES GR 1063 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,036 40 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2500 MED ADM 277 GRAVES GR 1120 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 811 27 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2500 MED ADM 277 GRAVES GR 1140 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 840 27 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2500 MED ADM 277 GRAVES GR 1167 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,320 45 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2500 MED ADM 277 GRAVES GR 1175 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 814 27 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2500 MED ADM 277 GRAVES GR 1185 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 813 24 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2500 MED ADM 277 GRAVES GR 1187 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,271 37 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2500 MED ADM 277 GRAVES GR 1195 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 815 27 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 Graves Hall 9 8,547 279

2500 MED ADM 281 MEILING ME 112 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 4,616 254 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2500 MED ADM 281 MEILING ME 160 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 4,616 254 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 Meiling Hall 2 9,232 508

(Based on Draft 5b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Classroom Database) April 2009 B-6 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table B Scheduled Department Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

2925 VET CLSC 282 GALBREATH 2429 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 360 24 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 2 Galbreath Equine Center 1 360 24

1127 HORTCROP 295 HOWLETT HT 116 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 1,144 50 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1127 HORTCROP 295 HOWLETT HT 153 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 536 20 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Howlett Hall 2 1,680 70

280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 2064 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 206 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 2068 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 437 30 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 2038A 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 420 16 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 Drake Performance and Event Center 3 1,063 61

2925 VET CLSC 299 VET HOSP VE 21 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 471 40 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 0B 2900 VET ADM 299 VET HOSP VE 1067 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 4,452 283 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 1 2925 VET CLSC 299 VET HOSP VE 1103 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 452 10 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 1 2925 VET CLSC 299 VET HOSP VE 1147 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 568 36 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 1 2900 VET ADM 299 VET HOSP VE 0005E 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 347 15 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 0B 2900 VET ADM 299 VET HOSP VE 0005L 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 155 6 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 0B 2900 VET ADM 299 VET HOSP VE 0005N 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 139 6 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 0B 2900 VET ADM 299 VET HOSP VE 0005P 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 131 6 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 0B Veterinary Hospital 8 6,715 402

2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 136 1C LECT HALL A INST&SUPRT 1,597 110 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 141 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 578 40 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 235 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 715 40 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 240 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 733 25 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 261 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 531 30 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 327 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 459 30 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 3 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 335 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 464 30 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 3 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 343 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 813 56 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 3 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 527 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 371 29 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 5 Atwell Hall 9 6,261 390

799 SPEECH 309 PRESSEY PR 1 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 505 20 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 0B 799 SPEECH 309 PRESSEY PR 35 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 719 55 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 0B Pressey Hall 2 1,224 75

(Based on Draft 5b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Classroom Database) April 2009 B-7 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table B Scheduled Department Classrooms Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

557 HISTORY 337 DULLES DU 168 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 602 40 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 1 Dulles Hall 1 602 40

575 PHILOS 339 U HALL UH 353 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 564 30 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 3 509 GRK&LATN 339 U HALL UH 448 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 477 25 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 4 506 WOMEN ST 339 U HALL UH 0286A 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 290 20 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 2 University Hall 3 1,331 75

1173 ENV&NATL 340 KOTTMAN KH 245 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 685 25 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 2 1173 ENV&NATL 340 KOTTMAN KH 370 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 915 30 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 3 1173 ENV&NATL 340 KOTTMAN KH 382 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 680 25 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 3 1173 ENV&NATL 340 KOTTMAN KH 460 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 703 30 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 4 Kottman Hall 4 2,983 110

1275 TCH&LRN 373 KINNR,1100 KI 120 1B CLASSROOM A INST&SUPRT 976 30 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1100 Kinnear Road 1 976 30

4202 U HONORS 959 KUHN HONRS HN 201 1A SEMINAR A INST&SUPRT 486 24 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 Kuhn Honors and Scholars House 1 486 24

TOTAL 146 149,266 7,964

(Based on Draft 5b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Classroom Database)

C Scheduled Department Class Laboratories Database Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Learning Collaboration Studio, Science and Engineering Library Basement Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Digital Union April 2009 C-1 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table C Scheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1275 TCH&LRN 11 ARPS AP 274 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,190 50 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 1275 TCH&LRN 11 ARPS AP 286 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,033 25 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 Arps Hall 2 2,223 75

380 PLNT BIO 14 JENNINGS JE 10 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 802 16 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 0G 380 PLNT BIO 14 JENNINGS JE 14 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 962 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 0G 380 PLNT BIO 14 JENNINGS JE 24 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 992 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 0G 390 EEO BIOL 14 JENNINGS JE 30 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 923 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 0G 326 LIFE SCI 14 JENNINGS JE 70 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 933 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 0G 326 LIFE SCI 14 JENNINGS JE 74 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 958 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 0G 326 LIFE SCI 14 JENNINGS JE 80 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 955 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 0G 300 BIOSCI 14 JENNINGS JE 110 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 811 16 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 1 330 ENTOMLGY 14 JENNINGS JE 114 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 975 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 1 330 ENTOMLGY 14 JENNINGS JE 124 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,010 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 1 300 BIOSCI 14 JENNINGS JE 130 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 924 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 1 326 LIFE SCI 14 JENNINGS JE 170 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 927 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 1 326 LIFE SCI 14 JENNINGS JE 174 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 977 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 1 326 LIFE SCI 14 JENNINGS JE 180 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 977 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 1 300 BIOSCI 14 JENNINGS JE 210 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 830 16 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 2 390 EEO BIOL 14 JENNINGS JE 214 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 981 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 2 390 EEO BIOL 14 JENNINGS JE 224 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,018 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 2 390 EEO BIOL 14 JENNINGS JE 230 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 941 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 2 326 LIFE SCI 14 JENNINGS JE 270 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 948 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 2 326 LIFE SCI 14 JENNINGS JE 274 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 984 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 2 326 LIFE SCI 14 JENNINGS JE 280 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 959 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 2 Jennings Hall 21 19,787 480

1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 310 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 8,447 108 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 330 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 9,570 120 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 370 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 7,207 94 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 Knowlton Hall 3 25,224 322

2100 DENT ADM 24 POSTLE PH 5 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 5,612 130 21 COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY 0G Postle Hall 1 5,612 130

777 SOCIOL 25 DERBY DB 70 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,242 30 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 0B 755 POLI SCI 25 DERBY DB 125 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 973 32 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 0B

(Based on Draft 5C of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 C-2 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table C Scheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

733 GEOG 25 DERBY DB 140 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,115 50 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 0B 744 COMMUNIC 25 DERBY DB 3176 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 933 20 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 Derby Hall 4 4,263 132

1445 ELEC ENG 26 CALDWELL CL 234 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,519 40 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1445 ELEC ENG 26 CALDWELL CL 235 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 689 20 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1445 ELEC ENG 26 CALDWELL CL 237 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 853 18 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1435 COMP SCI 26 CALDWELL CL 0112A 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,382 42 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 Caldwell Laboratory 4 4,443 120

215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 118 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 945 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 119 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,537 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 135 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 408 10 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 308 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,055 25 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 Haskett Hall 4 3,945 75

507 HUM INFO 30 DENNEY DE 60 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,457 40 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 0B 537 ENGLISH 30 DENNEY DE 307 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 646 20 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 3 537 ENGLISH 30 DENNEY DE 308 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 649 24 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 3 537 ENGLISH 30 DENNEY DE 312 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 826 24 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 3 537 ENGLISH 30 DENNEY DE 316 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 500 24 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 3 537 ENGLISH 30 DENNEY DE 343 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 699 20 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 3 Denney Hall 6 4,777 152

230 IND DESG 39 HAYES HALL HA 16 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,515 22 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B 215 ART 39 HAYES HALL HA 130 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,079 25 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 39 HAYES HALL HA 230 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 718 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 215 ART 39 HAYES HALL HA 234 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,039 25 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 215 ART 39 HAYES HALL HA 300 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,021 25 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 39 HAYES HALL HA 302 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 990 25 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 39 HAYES HALL HA 304 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 848 25 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 39 HAYES HALL HA 330 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,594 25 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 39 HAYES HALL HA 334 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,020 25 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 Hayes Hall 9 9,824 212

766 PSYCH 41 LAZENBY LZ 15 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 733 20 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 0B Lazenby Hall 1 733 20

(Based on Draft 5C of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 C-3 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table C Scheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 109 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,449 90 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 110 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 487 30 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 111 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 863 30 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 212 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 517 16 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 213 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 447 36 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 219 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 520 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 312 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 517 39 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 316 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 427 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 317 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 671 42 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 318 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 520 36 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 Hughes Hall 10 6,418 359

4272 INFOTECH 46 JOURNALISM JR 220 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 909 50 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 4272 INFOTECH 46 JOURNALISM JR 270 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 909 45 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 342 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,012 25 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 Journalism Building 3 2,830 120

711 ANTHRO 51 LORD HALL LO 235 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,170 50 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 2 Lord Hall 1 1,170 50

628 CHEM 53 MCPHERSON MP 2040 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,476 24 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 628 CHEM 53 MCPHERSON MP 2045 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 2,214 24 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 628 CHEM 53 MCPHERSON MP 2060 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 2,001 24 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 McPherson Chemical Lab 3 5,691 72

656 EARTH SC 54 MENDENHALL ML 149 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,302 36 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 656 EARTH SC 54 MENDENHALL ML 155 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,249 36 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 656 EARTH SC 54 MENDENHALL ML 163 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,274 36 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 656 EARTH SC 54 MENDENHALL ML 247 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,154 30 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 656 EARTH SC 54 MENDENHALL ML 251 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 855 20 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 656 EARTH SC 54 MENDENHALL ML 252 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 945 26 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 Mendenhall Laboratory 6 6,779 184

4380 MIL SCI 56 CONVERSE CV 41 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 8,446 200 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 0B Converse Hall 1 8,446 200

(Based on Draft 5C of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 C-4 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table C Scheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

2700 OPTOMTRY 59 FRY HALL FR 3 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 702 25 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 0B 2700 OPTOMTRY 59 FRY HALL FR 8 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 569 6 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 0B 2700 OPTOMTRY 59 FRY HALL FR 239 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 746 12 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 2 2700 OPTOMTRY 59 FRY HALL FR 250 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 202 8 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 2 Fry Hall 4 2,219 51

1156 FOOD SCI 64 PARKER FD FS 136 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 924 18 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Parker Food Science and Technology 1 924 18

684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2005 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,076 30 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2024 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 597 24 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2036 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,011 40 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2046 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 493 20 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2052 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 618 24 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2064 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 944 36 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2076 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 638 24 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2082 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 646 24 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2157 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 763 20 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2193 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 817 20 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 3095 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 641 20 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 3 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2011A 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 432 7 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 Smith Laboratory 12 8,676 289

241 DANCE 67 POMERENE PO 205 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 2,341 24 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 Pomerene Hall 1 2,341 24

2940 VET BIO 80 SISSON SI A0120 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,523 135 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 1 Sisson Hall 1 1,523 135

1200 EHE ADM 90 RAMSEYER RA 9 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,059 32 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B 225 ART EDUC 90 RAMSEYER RA 39 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,534 30 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B Ramseyer Hall 2 2,593 62

241 DANCE 106 SULLIVANT SU 86 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,903 35 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B 241 DANCE 106 SULLIVANT SU 144 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 2,265 35 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 241 DANCE 106 SULLIVANT SU 150 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,982 35 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1

(Based on Draft 5C of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 C-5 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table C Scheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

241 DANCE 106 SULLIVANT SU 186 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 2,184 35 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 Sullivant Hall 4 8,334 140

2900 VET ADM 136 VET ACAD 151 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,212 34 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 1 Veterinary Medicine Academic Building 1 1,212 34

1400 ENGR ADM 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0141 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,454 38 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0258 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 633 9 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0259 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,472 21 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0270 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 592 8 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0276 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 595 14 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0277 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 438 8 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0282 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 884 12 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0286 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 905 13 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 Scott Laboratory 8 6,973 123

215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 54 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,147 22 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B 215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 58 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,140 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B 215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 184 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 431 12 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 266 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 566 18 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 269 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,180 18 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 200 ARTS ADM 149 HOPKINS HC 346 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,708 24 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 225 ART EDUC 149 HOPKINS HC 362 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,283 21 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 446 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,332 22 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4 215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 480 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 813 14 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4 Hopkins Hall 9 9,600 171

1132 ANML SCI 156 ANIMAL SCI AS 0111N 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 2,583 60 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1132 ANML SCI 156 ANIMAL SCI AS 0111S 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 2,582 60 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Animal Science Building 2 5,165 120

2700 OPTOMTRY 176 STAR LOVNG SL A0203 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 410 12 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 2 2700 OPTOMTRY 176 STAR LOVNG SL A0231 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 520 18 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 2 Starling Loving Hall 2 930 30

4272 INFOTECH 187 MATH MA 52 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 950 40 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 0B Mathematics Building 1 950 40

(Based on Draft 5C of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 C-6 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table C Scheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0022 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 3,009 50 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G Physical Activities and Education Services 1 3,009 50

1800 PHARMACY 273 PARKS HALL PK 202 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 804 36 18 COLLEGE OF PHARMACY 2 1800 PHARMACY 273 PARKS HALL PK 233 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,583 32 18 COLLEGE OF PHARMACY 2 Parks Hall 2 2,387 68

1400 ENGR ADM 274 HITCHCOCK HI 206 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,092 36 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1400 ENGR ADM 274 HITCHCOCK HI 214 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,279 36 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1400 ENGR ADM 274 HITCHCOCK HI 216 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,276 36 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1400 ENGR ADM 274 HITCHCOCK HI 224 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 2,598 72 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1400 ENGR ADM 274 HITCHCOCK HI 324 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 883 36 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1400 ENGR ADM 274 HITCHCOCK HI 346 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,148 36 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 Hitchcock Hall 6 8,276 252

350 MICROBIO 276 BIOSCIENCE BI 311 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,528 40 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 3 350 MICROBIO 276 BIOSCIENCE BI 312 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,545 40 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 3 350 MICROBIO 276 BIOSCIENCE BI 315 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,527 40 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 3 350 MICROBIO 276 BIOSCIENCE BI 316 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,547 40 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 3 Biological Sciences Building 4 6,147 160

1435 COMP SCI 279 DREESE LAB DL 280 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,113 40 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1435 COMP SCI 279 DREESE LAB DL 480 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,112 40 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 4 1445 ELEC ENG 279 DREESE LAB DL 808 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 798 15 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 8 Dreese Laboratories 3 3,023 95

1457 IND/WELD 280 BAKER SYS BE 90 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 7,674 30 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1457 IND/WELD 280 BAKER SYS BE 281 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,157 32 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1435 COMP SCI 280 BAKER SYS BE 310 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 2,044 80 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 Baker Systems Engineering 3 10,875 142

1127 HORTCROP 295 HOWLETT HT 272 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 583 24 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 2 Howlett Hal 1 583 24

280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 78 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 707 16 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0G 280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 83 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 492 25 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0G

(Based on Draft 5C of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 C-7 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table C Scheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 101 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 768 16 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0G 280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 107 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,148 16 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0G Drake Performance and Event Center 4 3,115 73

1127 HORTCROP 297 HOWLET GRN HG G0117 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 813 12 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Howlett Greenhouses 1 813 12

1123 FOOD ENG 298 AG ENG AE 142 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,219 30 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1123 FOOD ENG 298 AG ENG AE 148 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,236 50 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1123 FOOD ENG 298 AG ENG AE 156 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 2,892 12 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1123 FOOD ENG 298 AG ENG AE 158 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 3,076 14 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1123 FOOD ENG 298 AG ENG AE 164 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 3,043 20 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1123 FOOD ENG 298 AG ENG AE 166 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 2,966 18 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Agricultural Engineering Building 6 14,432 144

2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 228 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 591 14 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 336 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 448 25 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 3 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 416 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,360 45 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 4 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 438 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 610 25 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 4 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 440 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 543 20 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 4 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 532 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,074 27 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 5 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 540 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,157 36 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 5 Atwell Hall 7 5,783 192

799 SPEECH 309 PRESSEY PR 40 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 675 15 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 0B Pressey Hall 1 675 15

1127 HORTCROP 340 KOTTMAN KH 334 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,325 24 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 3 1173 ENV&NATL 340 KOTTMAN KH 403 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,374 20 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 4 1178 PLT PATH 340 KOTTMAN KH 447 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 821 26 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 4 1178 PLT PATH 340 KOTTMAN KH 451 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 811 26 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 4 Kottman Hall 4 4,331 96

262 MUSIC 355 WEIGEL WG 174 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,791 110 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 262 MUSIC 355 WEIGEL WG 177 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,562 110 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 Weigel Hall 2 3,353 220

(Based on Draft 5C of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 C-8 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table C Scheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

215 ART 358 SHERMAN SA 1 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,152 18 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 358 SHERMAN SA 6 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 410 10 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 Sherman Studio Art Center 2 1,562 28

628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 210 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,443 25 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 220 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,443 25 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 230 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,440 25 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 240 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,440 25 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 250 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,440 25 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 260 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,440 25 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 310 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,442 25 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 3 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 320 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,443 25 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 3 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 330 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,440 25 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 3 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 340 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,440 25 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 3 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 350 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,440 25 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 3 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 360 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,440 25 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 3 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 410 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,397 21 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 4 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 430 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,396 21 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 4 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 440 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,396 21 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 4 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 450 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,396 21 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 4 628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 460 2A SCHED LAB A INST&SUPRT 1,396 21 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 4 Celeste Laboratory of Chemistry 17 24,272 405

210 ADV COMP 374 KINNR,1224 KR 205 2P SCHD COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,096 13 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 1224 Kinnear Road 1 1,096 13

TOTAL 192 257,337 5,929

(Based on Draft 5C of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Department Class Laboratory Database) D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Schoenbaum Hall, Room 305, 50 Stations April 2009 D-1 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1132 ANML SCI 2 VIVIAN VH 124 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 885 18 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Vivian Hall 1 885 18

1118 HUM&COMM 3 AGR ADM AA 205 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 715 36 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 2 Agricultural Administration Building 1 715 36

1241 ENGL/SEC 11 ARPS AP 74 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 81 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B 1241 ENGL/SEC 11 ARPS AP 76 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 120 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B 1241 ENGL/SEC 11 ARPS AP 78 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 76 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B 1241 ENGL/SEC 11 ARPS AP 80 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 75 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B 1241 ENGL/SEC 11 ARPS AP 82 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 74 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B 1241 ENGL/SEC 11 ARPS AP 84 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 76 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B 1241 ENGL/SEC 11 ARPS AP 86 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 78 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B 1241 ENGL/SEC 11 ARPS AP 190 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 67 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1241 ENGL/SEC 11 ARPS AP 191 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 87 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1241 ENGL/SEC 11 ARPS AP 192 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 73 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 Arps Hall 10 807 20

1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 120 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 2,500 90 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 170 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 2,917 54 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 220 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,063 36 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 350 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 7,198 95 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 390 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 2,975 36 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 450 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,923 48 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 4 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 451 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 965 12 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 4 Knowlton Hall 7 19,541 371

1254 HUM NUTR 18 CAMPBELL CM 214 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 232 20 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 1254 HUM NUTR 18 CAMPBELL CM 215 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 762 30 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 1254 HUM NUTR 18 CAMPBELL CM 219 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 641 20 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 1254 HUM NUTR 18 CAMPBELL CM 357 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 213 4 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 3 1254 HUM NUTR 18 CAMPBELL CM 359 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 313 4 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 3 1254 HUM NUTR 18 CAMPBELL CM 0362A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 93 3 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 3 1254 HUM NUTR 18 CAMPBELL CM 0362B 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 98 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 3 1254 HUM NUTR 18 CAMPBELL CM 0362C 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 133 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 3 1254 HUM NUTR 18 CAMPBELL CM 363 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 546 8 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 3 1254 HUM NUTR 18 CAMPBELL CM 371 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 366 6 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 3

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database) April 2009 D-2 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1255 CONSUMER 18 CAMPBELL CM 247 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 653 30 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 Campbell Hall 11 4,050 129

2100 DENT ADM 24 POSTLE PH 0005H 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,289 36 21 COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY 0G 2100 DENT ADM 24 POSTLE PH 0005K 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,028 28 21 COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY 0G 2146 ORALPATH 24 POSTLE PH 2195 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 191 16 21 COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY 2 Postle Hall 3 2,508 80

755 POLI SCI 25 DERBY DB 2037 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 323 14 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 2 Derby Hall 1 323 14

1445 ELEC ENG 26 CALDWELL CL 69 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 681 10 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1445 ELEC ENG 26 CALDWELL CL 71 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 4,093 50 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1445 ELEC ENG 26 CALDWELL CL 233 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 823 15 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 Caldwell Laboratory 3 5,597 75

215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 106 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 915 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0106A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 705 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0118A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 246 5 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0119A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 407 10 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 132 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 281 12 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 133 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 236 4 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0133A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 187 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0133B 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 295 4 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0133C 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 103 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0135A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 277 3 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0135B 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 114 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 206 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 884 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 216 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 234 2 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 220 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 3,028 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 223 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 476 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 303 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,546 60 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0303B 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 82 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0303D 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 100 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0303G 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 74 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0303H 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 61 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0303K 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 67 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database) April 2009 D-3 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0303L 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 93 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0303N 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 45 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0303P 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 42 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0303Q 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 64 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0303R 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 333 12 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0303S 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 404 12 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 314 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 899 45 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 323 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 179 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0323B 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 133 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0323D 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 246 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0323E 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 61 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 403 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,002 50 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0403E 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 398 12 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0403F 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 427 12 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0413A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 258 4 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 418 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 117 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4 Haskett Hall 37 15,019 335

507 HUM INFO 30 DENNEY DE 525 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 432 8 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 5 Denney Hall 1 432 8

507 HUM INFO 37 HAGERTY HH 142 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 797 42 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 1 507 HUM INFO 37 HAGERTY HH 376 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 255 11 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 3 543 FORNLANG 37 HAGERTY HH 0120A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 503 21 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 1 543 FORNLANG 37 HAGERTY HH 159 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 713 35 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 1 543 FORNLANG 37 HAGERTY HH 160 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 997 7 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 1 596 SPANISH 37 HAGERTY HH 271 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 110 6 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 2 Hagerty Hall 6 3,375 122

2510 BIOINFOR 38 HAMILTON HM 85 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 598 24 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2510 BIOINFOR 38 HAMILTON HM 225 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 879 40 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2 2510 BIOINFOR 38 HAMILTON HM 237 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 962 60 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2 2510 BIOINFOR 38 HAMILTON HM 256 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 543 32 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2 2510 BIOINFOR 38 HAMILTON HM 258 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 538 32 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2 2510 BIOINFOR 38 HAMILTON HM 259 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,570 60 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2 2510 BIOINFOR 38 HAMILTON HM 261 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,119 40 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2 2510 BIOINFOR 38 HAMILTON HM 285 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,795 18 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database) April 2009 D-4 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

2529 NEUROSGY 38 HAMILTON HM 30 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 655 5 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B Hamilton Hall 9 8,659 311

230 IND DESG 39 HAYES HALL HA 12 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 619 6 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B 230 IND DESG 39 HAYES HALL HA 24 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 841 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B 230 IND DESG 39 HAYES HALL HA 25 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 886 22 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B Hayes Hall 3 2,346 43

262 MUSIC 42 HUGHES HU 8 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 539 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B Hughes Hall 1 539 20

744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 281 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 808 10 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 2 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0281A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 97 1 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 2 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0281B 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 189 1 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 2 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 339 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 268 8 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0339A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 324 1 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0339B 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 130 1 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0339D 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 54 1 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0339E 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 57 1 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0339F 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 57 1 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0339G 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 57 1 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0339H 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 53 1 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0339K 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 179 4 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 353 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 722 20 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 395 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 237 2 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0395R 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 51 1 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 Journalism Building 15 3,283 54

536 WRITING 54 MENDENHALL ML 475 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 685 10 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 4 656 EARTH SC 54 MENDENHALL ML 255 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 570 10 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 Mendenhall Laboratory 2 1,255 20

4380 MIL SCI 56 CONVERSE CV 0041G 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 779 28 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 0B Converse Hall 1 779 28

1457 IND/WELD 57 EDISON ED 166 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 2,940 20 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1457 IND/WELD 57 EDISON ED 180 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 4,084 20 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database) April 2009 D-5 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1457 IND/WELD 57 EDISON ED 185 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,523 10 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1457 IND/WELD 57 EDISON ED M0180 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,830 16 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 Edison Joining Technology Center 4 10,377 66

2700 OPTOMTRY 59 FRY HALL FR 19 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 820 32 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 0B 2700 OPTOMTRY 59 FRY HALL FR 23 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 212 2 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 0B 2700 OPTOMTRY 59 FRY HALL FR 243 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 82 8 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 2 2700 OPTOMTRY 59 FRY HALL FR 248 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 240 14 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 2 Fry Hall 4 1,354 56

656 EARTH SC 60 ORTON OR 80 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,333 20 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 0B Orton Hall 1 1,333 20

4203 JN GLENN 61 PAGE PA 100 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 854 35 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 1 4203 JN GLENN 61 PAGE PA 130 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,291 48 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 1 Page Hall 2 2,145 83

671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 4 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,142 30 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 0B 671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 14 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 804 6 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 0B 671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 32 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 397 15 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 0B 671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 42 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,471 50 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 0B 671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 128 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 214 10 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 129 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 152 8 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 0129A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 116 8 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 0129B 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 134 6 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 0129C 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 127 8 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 134 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 166 8 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 140 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 189 8 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 142 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 203 10 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 148 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 474 12 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 Cockins Hall 13 5,589 179

1156 FOOD SCI 64 PARKER FD FS 124 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 994 18 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1156 FOOD SCI 64 PARKER FD FS 168 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 290 4 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1156 FOOD SCI 64 PARKER FD FS 0320D 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 516 6 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 3 Parker Food Science and Technology 3 1,800 28

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database) April 2009 D-6 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

614 ASTRNOMY 65 SMITH LAB SM 5033 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,027 82 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 5 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2011 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 225 4 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2017 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 600 10 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2087 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 629 10 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2094 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 202 14 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 2101 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 558 9 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 3005 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,063 12 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 3 684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 3081 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 662 8 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 3 Smith Laboratory 8 4,966 149

1132 ANML SCI 66 PLUMB PL 107 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 836 25 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1132 ANML SCI 66 PLUMB PL 109 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 596 5 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Plumb Hall 2 1,432 30

2940 VET BIO 80 SISSON SI A0122 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,523 45 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 1 2940 VET BIO 80 SISSON SI A0124 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,523 45 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 1 Sisson Hall 2 3,046 90

2595 SURGERY 89 DOAN HALL DN N0935 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 604 4 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 9 Doan Hall 1 604 4

1200 EHE ADM 90 RAMSEYER RA 16 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 398 20 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B 1280 EDPOLICY 90 RAMSEYER RA 215 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,116 20 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 Ramseyer Hall 2 1,514 40

241 DANCE 106 SULLIVANT SU 0105A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 638 4 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 241 DANCE 106 SULLIVANT SU 132 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 993 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 241 DANCE 106 SULLIVANT SU 142 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,006 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 Sullivant Hall 3 2,637 44

1468 MTLS SCI 107 WATTS HALL WA 76 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 330 15 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1468 MTLS SCI 107 WATTS HALL WA 0076A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,461 36 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B Watts Hall 2 1,791 51

2550 PATHOL 113 DAV HT&LNG HR 85 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 698 11 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute 1 698 11

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database) April 2009 D-7 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

2900 VET ADM 136 VET ACAD 155 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,822 67 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 1 Veterinary Medicine Academic Building 1 1,822 67

766 PSYCH 144 PSYCHOLOGY PS 22 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 899 15 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 0G Psychology Building 1 899 15

1425 CHEM ENG 145 KOFFOLT KL 117 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 2,523 30 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1425 CHEM ENG 145 KOFFOLT KL 217 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 3,156 24 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1425 CHEM ENG 145 KOFFOLT KL 232 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,342 20 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1425 CHEM ENG 145 KOFFOLT KL 0232A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 173 2 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1425 CHEM ENG 145 KOFFOLT KL 317 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 4,733 36 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1425 CHEM ENG 145 KOFFOLT KL 417 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 998 6 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 4 Koffolt Laboratories 6 12,925 118

1400 ENGR ADM 146 BOLZ HALL BO 0101D 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 855 28 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1407 AERO ENG 146 BOLZ HALL BO 103 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 738 15 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1407 AERO ENG 146 BOLZ HALL BO 112 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,424 16 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 Bolz Hall 3 3,017 59

1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0260 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 913 13 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0268 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 596 15 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0269 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 593 8 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0271 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 274 4 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0279 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 597 8 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0285 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 593 13 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0287 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 585 8 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0294 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 916 13 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0295 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 907 13 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 Scott Laboratory 9 5,974 95

215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 46 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,330 7 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B 215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 62 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,192 12 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B 215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 72 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 696 7 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B 215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 166 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,242 10 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 167 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 503 5 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 172 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 906 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 451 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 214 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database) April 2009 D-8 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 452 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,357 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4 215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 458 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,329 18 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4 215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 462 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,390 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 4 230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 169 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 375 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 171 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,013 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 175 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 428 6 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 273 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,193 25 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 276 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,136 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 369 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 409 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 Hopkins Hall 16 14,713 216

628 CHEM 150 EVANS LAB EL 1048 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 367 4 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 628 CHEM 150 EVANS LAB EL 2043 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 752 8 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 Evans Laboratory 2 1,119 12

1132 ANML SCI 154 PLT BROD 2 114 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 623 6 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1132 ANML SCI 154 PLT BROD 2 115 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 418 4 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Poultry Brooding House 2 2 1,041 10

1132 ANML SCI 156 ANIMAL SCI AS 23 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 693 8 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 0B 1132 ANML SCI 156 ANIMAL SCI AS 117 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,407 35 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Animal Science Building 2 2,100 43

2700 OPTOMTRY 176 STAR LOVNG SL A0130 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 454 8 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 1 2700 OPTOMTRY 176 STAR LOVNG SL A0145 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 412 20 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 1 2700 OPTOMTRY 176 STAR LOVNG SL A0229M 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 209 1 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 2 2700 OPTOMTRY 176 STAR LOVNG SL A0255 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 261 4 27 COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 2 Starling Loving Hall 4 1,336 33

2940 VET BIO 180 GOSS LAB GL 0202B 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 333 10 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 2 2940 VET BIO 180 GOSS LAB GL 212 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 253 18 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 2 2940 VET BIO 180 GOSS LAB GL 0212A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 929 4 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 2 2940 VET BIO 180 GOSS LAB GL 266 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,546 20 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 2 Goss Laboratory 4 3,061 52

671 MATH 187 MATH MA 10 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,894 80 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 0B Mathematics Building 1 1,894 80

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database) April 2009 D-9 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1400 ENGR ADM 226 KINNR STOR 120 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 4,406 20 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1400 ENGR ADM 226 KINNR STOR 0120C 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 380 4 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 Kinnear Road Storage 2 4,786 24

1415 AVIATION 235 FLIGHT LAB 119 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 633 4 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 Flight Laboratory 1 633 4

1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0002 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 619 29 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0010 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 491 24 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0024 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 466 5 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0028 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 271 4 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0035 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 706 4 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0035A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 99 1 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0035C 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 99 1 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0038 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 111 1 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0039 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 683 5 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0039A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 81 3 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0040 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 263 7 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0G 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0275 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,922 38 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0330 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 418 34 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 3 1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0412 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 732 35 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 4 PAES Building 14 6,961 191

1468 MTLS SCI 265 MACQUIGG MQ 50 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 2,246 30 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1468 MTLS SCI 265 MACQUIGG MQ 60 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 650 12 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1468 MTLS SCI 265 MACQUIGG MQ 0060B 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,480 12 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1468 MTLS SCI 265 MACQUIGG MQ 61 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,164 12 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1468 MTLS SCI 265 MACQUIGG MQ 0244A 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 119 2 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1468 MTLS SCI 265 MACQUIGG MQ 248 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 890 16 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1468 MTLS SCI 265 MACQUIGG MQ 252 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,178 28 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 Macquigg Laboratory 7 7,727 112

1800 PHARMACY 273 PARKS HALL PK 319 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,664 35 18 COLLEGE OF PHARMACY 3 Parks Hall 1 1,664 35

1400 ENGR ADM 274 HITCHCOCK HI 208 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,279 36 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database) April 2009 D-10 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1427 CIVIL EN 274 HITCHCOCK HI 0316B 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 393 5 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 Hitchcock Hall 2 1,672 41

1700 NURSING 275 NEWTON NH 1 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 924 35 17 COLLEGE OF NURSING 0B 1700 NURSING 275 NEWTON NH 16 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 492 5 17 COLLEGE OF NURSING 0B 1700 NURSING 275 NEWTON NH 0082C 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 579 15 17 COLLEGE OF NURSING 0B 1700 NURSING 275 NEWTON NH 294 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,201 36 17 COLLEGE OF NURSING 2 Newton Hall 4 3,196 91

310 BIOCHEM 276 BIOSCIENCE BI 811 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,774 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 8 340 GENETICS 276 BIOSCIENCE BI 332 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,461 30 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 3 350 MICROBIO 276 BIOSCIENCE BI 411 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,077 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 4 Biological Sciences Building 3 4,312 78

2500 MED ADM 277 GRAVES GR 3038 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 819 20 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 3 Graves Hall 1 819 20

1445 ELEC ENG 279 DREESE LAB DL 21 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 858 8 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1445 ELEC ENG 279 DREESE LAB DL 61 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 3,256 10 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1445 ELEC ENG 279 DREESE LAB DL 569 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 747 15 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 5 1445 ELEC ENG 279 DREESE LAB DL 731 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,015 15 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 7 1445 ELEC ENG 279 DREESE LAB DL 761 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 297 15 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 7 1445 ELEC ENG 279 DREESE LAB DL 765 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 305 15 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 7 Dreese Laboratories 6 6,478 78

1457 IND/WELD 280 BAKER SYS BE 14 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 2,949 15 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1457 IND/WELD 280 BAKER SYS BE 40 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 168 6 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B Baker Systems Engineering 2 3,117 21

1127 HORTCROP 295 HOWLETT HT 325 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 379 4 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 3 Howlett Hall 1 379 4

280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 72 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,275 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0G 280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 130 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 410 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0G 280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 132 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 199 12 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0G 280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 134 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 198 12 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0G 280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 136 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 839 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0G

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database) April 2009 D-11 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 141 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,486 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0G 280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 1141 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,611 20 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 2071 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 950 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 2072 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 363 12 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 Drake Performance and Event Center 9 7,331 146

2925 VET CLSC 299 VET HOSP VE 1077 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 2,319 36 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 1 2925 VET CLSC 299 VET HOSP VE 1341 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 2,287 25 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 1 Veterinary Hospital 2 4,606 61

2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 11 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 81 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 13 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 80 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 15 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 80 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 17 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 80 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 19 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 80 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 21 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 80 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 23 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 80 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 25 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 80 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 26 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 789 40 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 27 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 80 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 29 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 80 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 31 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 80 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 33 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 80 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 39 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 80 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B 2500 MED ADM 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 41 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 511 2 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 0B Prior Health Sciences Library 15 2,341 68

4640 NISONGER 303 MCCAMPBELL MC 243 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 739 16 46 OFC OF HEALTH SCIENCES 2 McCampbell Hall 1 739 16

2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 143 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 278 26 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 147 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 507 27 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 0306K 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 214 6 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 3 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 316 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 900 20 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 3 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 328 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 900 20 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 3 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 428 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 423 20 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 4 2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 436 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 427 12 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 4

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database) April 2009 D-12 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 524 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 310 5 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 5 Atwell Hall 8 3,959 136

1417 BIO ENGR 307 BEVIS HALL BH 220 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 351 12 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1417 BIO ENGR 307 BEVIS HALL BH 245 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,225 50 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 Bevis Hall 2 1,576 62

280 THEATRE 311 MOUNT HALL MO 251 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,358 80 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 Mount Hall 1 1,358 80

1132 ANML SCI 317 MAIN BARN 150 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 629 6 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Main Dairy Barn 1 629 6

1132 ANML SCI 318 SHEEP BARN 125 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,409 10 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1132 ANML SCI 318 SHEEP BARN 126 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 196 3 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Sheep Barn 2 1,605 13

1132 ANML SCI 326 SWINE BARN 113 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 152 5 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Swine Barn 1 152 5

507 HUM INFO 337 DULLES DU 339 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 217 12 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 3 Dulles Hall 1 217 12

262 MUSIC 355 WEIGEL WG 121 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 222 3 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 Weigel Hall 1 222 3

215 ART 358 SHERMAN SA 8 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,437 6 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 358 SHERMAN SA 10 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,350 16 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 358 SHERMAN SA 25 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 889 18 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 358 SHERMAN SA 40 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 2,926 12 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 358 SHERMAN SA 49 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 571 2 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 215 ART 358 SHERMAN SA 51 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 416 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 Sherman Studio Art Center 6 7,589 55

628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 420 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,398 21 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 4 Celeste Laboratory of Chemistry 1 1,398 21

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database) April 2009 D-13 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table D Unscheduled Department Class Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1275 TCH&LRN 373 KINNR,1100 KI 310 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 8,977 60 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1275 TCH&LRN 373 KINNR,1100 KI 0310B 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 209 2 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1275 TCH&LRN 373 KINNR,1100 KI 0310C 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 552 5 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1275 TCH&LRN 373 KINNR,1100 KI 340 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 2,822 25 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1100 Kinnear Road 4 12,560 92

210 ADV COMP 374 KINNR,1224 KR 100 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 2,320 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 210 ADV COMP 374 KINNR,1224 KR 230 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 233 4 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 1224 Kinnear Road 2 2,553 19

4625 GERIATRC 382 DAVIS CTR DV S2026 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 212 2 46 OFC OF HEALTH SCIENCES 2 Davis Medical Research Center 1 212 2

300 BIOSCI 951 KINNR,1315 MB 1000 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 1,007 40 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 1 300 BIOSCI 951 KINNR,1315 MB 1504 2K UNSCHD LB A INST&SUPRT 754 24 3 COLL OF BIOLOGICAL SCI 1 1315 Kinnear Road 2 1,761 64

TOTAL 315 251,852 4,895

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Database)

E Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories Database Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Scott Laboratory, Room N048, 50 Stations April 2009 E-1 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table E Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1118 HUM&COMM 3 AGR ADM AA 206 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 493 10 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 2 4272 INFOTECH 3 AGR ADM AA 5 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,200 25 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 0G Agricultural Administration Building 2 1,693 35

671 MATH 7 MATH TOWER MW 152 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 366 9 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 671 MATH 7 MATH TOWER MW 424 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 193 4 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 4 671 MATH 7 MATH TOWER MW 505 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 117 2 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 5 671 MATH 7 MATH TOWER MW 605 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 117 2 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 6 671 MATH 7 MATH TOWER MW 705 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 117 2 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 7 Mathematics Tower 5 910 19

722 ECON 11 ARPS AP 305 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 196 7 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 722 ECON 11 ARPS AP 318 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 891 30 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 722 ECON 11 ARPS AP 385 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 247 5 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 1275 TCH&LRN 11 ARPS AP 273 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 413 18 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 2 Arps Hall 4 1,747 60

1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 257 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 268 2 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 365 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 222 8 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 430 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,668 33 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 4 1410 ARCHTECT 17 KNOWLTON KN 448 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,169 23 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 4 Knowlton Hall 4 3,327 66

4272 INFOTECH 18 CAMPBELL CM 119 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 641 20 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 1 Campbell Hall 1 641 20

2105 DENT G O 24 POSTLE PH 117 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 721 11 21 COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY 0G 2105 DENT G O 24 POSTLE PH 143 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 191 2 21 COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY 0G Postle Hall 2 912 13

733 GEOG 25 DERBY DB 155 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 687 11 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 0B 733 GEOG 25 DERBY DB 0155A 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 399 9 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 0B 733 GEOG 25 DERBY DB 1066 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 449 10 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 1 755 POLI SCI 25 DERBY DB 150 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 719 25 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 0B Derby Hall 4 2,254 55

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 E-2 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table E Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1435 COMP SCI 26 CALDWELL CL 112 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 3,491 97 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1435 COMP SCI 26 CALDWELL CL 0112D 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 821 20 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1445 ELEC ENG 26 CALDWELL CL 74 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 437 5 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1445 ELEC ENG 26 CALDWELL CL 260 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,506 44 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 Caldwell Laboratory 4 6,255 166

215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 0303A 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 84 1 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 215 ART 27 HASKETT HK 306 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 785 45 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 3 Haskett Hall 2 869 46

537 ENGLISH 30 DENNEY DE 324 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 499 8 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 3 Denney Hall 1 499 8

1415 AVIATION 36 AVIATION AV 301 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 870 16 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 Aviation Building 1 870 16

4272 INFOTECH 37 HAGERTY HH 0171A 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,257 63 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 1 Hagerty Hall 1 1,257 63

744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 271 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,431 37 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 2 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0271A 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 335 6 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 2 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 0271C 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 106 1 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 2 744 COMMUNIC 46 JOURNALISM JR 347 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 840 20 7 SOCIAL & BEHAV SCI 3 4272 INFOTECH 46 JOURNALISM JR 216 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 360 20 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 4272 INFOTECH 46 JOURNALISM JR 224 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 630 60 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 4272 INFOTECH 46 JOURNALISM JR 266 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 629 20 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 4272 INFOTECH 46 JOURNALISM JR 274 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 360 20 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 Journalism Building 8 4,691 184

2350 LAW LIBR 49 DRINKO/LAW DI 0280A 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 560 24 23 MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW 2 Drinko Hall 1 560 24

656 EARTH SC 54 MENDENHALL ML 356 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 783 10 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 3 Mendenhall Laboratory 1 783 10

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 E-3 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table E Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

262 MUSIC 55 MERSHN AUD MM 501 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 483 5 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 5 262 MUSIC 55 MERSHN AUD MM 503 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 673 6 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 5 Mershon Auditorium 2 1,156 11

4380 MIL SCI 56 CONVERSE CV 201 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 156 50 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 4380 MIL SCI 56 CONVERSE CV 0201A 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 381 7 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 Converse Hall 2 537 57

1457 IND/WELD 57 EDISON ED 111 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,330 36 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 Edison Joining Technology Center 1 1,330 36

770 PUB PLCY 61 PAGE PA 30 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 963 49 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 0G 4203 JN GLENN 61 PAGE PA 40 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,215 30 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 0G 4203 JN GLENN 61 PAGE PA 0310G 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 394 12 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 3 Page Hall 3 2,572 91

671 MATH 63 COCKINS CH 144 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 190 4 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 694 STAT 63 COCKINS CH 341 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 834 22 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 3 Cockins Hall 2 1,024 26

684 PHYSICS 65 SMITH LAB SM 1011S 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 274 12 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 Smith Laboratory 1 274 12

500 HUMANT 82 STADIUM ST 0218D 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 190 6 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 03E Ohio Stadium 1 190 6

4272 INFOTECH 84 STILLMAN SH 235 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,041 30 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 2 Stillman Hall 1 1,041 30

1200 EHE ADM 90 RAMSEYER RA 0016A 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 825 20 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B 1200 EHE ADM 90 RAMSEYER RA 0021A 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 338 10 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B 1200 EHE ADM 90 RAMSEYER RA 0021B 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 337 10 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 0B Ramseyer Hall 3 1,500 40

566 LNGSTICS 102 OXLEY OX 221 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 151 5 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 2 Oxley Hall 1 151 5

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 E-4 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table E Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

241 DANCE 106 SULLIVANT SU 37 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 636 25 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 0B Sullivant Hall 1 636 25

1468 MTLS SCI 107 WATTS HALL WA 97 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,632 39 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0B 1468 MTLS SCI 107 WATTS HALL WA 197 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,633 3 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 Watts Hall 2 3,265 42

1425 CHEM ENG 145 KOFFOLT KL 132 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 630 28 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1425 CHEM ENG 145 KOFFOLT KL 134 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 611 29 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1425 CHEM ENG 145 KOFFOLT KL 135 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 377 12 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 Koffolt Laboratories 3 1,618 69

1407 AERO ENG 146 BOLZ HALL BO 326 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 322 18 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1427 CIVIL EN 146 BOLZ HALL BO 346 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 892 15 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1427 CIVIL EN 146 BOLZ HALL BO 420 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 459 6 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 4 1435 COMP SCI 146 BOLZ HALL BO 0111C 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 496 24 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 Bolz Hall 4 2,169 63

628 CHEM 147 NEWMAN&WLF 2105 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 621 10 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 2 Newman & Wolfrom Lab of Chemistry 1 621 10

1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0200 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 2,563 42 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0203 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 726 12 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0205 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 842 14 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO E0225 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 998 16 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO N0151 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 573 18 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0162D 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 150 2 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 1470 MECH ENG 148 SCOTT LAB SO W0162E 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 336 5 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 1 Scott Laboratory 7 6,188 109

215 ART 149 HOPKINS HC 182 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 376 12 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 270 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 116 2 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 230 IND DESG 149 HOPKINS HC 272 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 572 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 2 4272 INFOTECH 149 HOPKINS HC 354 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,118 24 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 3 Hopkins Hall 4 2,182 53

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 E-5 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table E Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1425 CHEM ENG 151 FONTANA FL 239 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 422 8 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 2 Fontana Laboratories 1 422 8

2505 PUB HLTH 176 STAR LOVNG SL B0202 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 101 1 26 COLL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2 2505 PUB HLTH 176 STAR LOVNG SL B0212 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 596 24 26 COLL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2 Starling Loving Hall 2 697 25

671 MATH 187 MATH MA 0052B 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 54 1 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 0B Mathematics Building 1541

1270 PHYS ACT 245 PAES BLDG PE A0110 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,193 59 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 PAES Building 1 1,193 59

1000 BUS COLL 250 GERLACH GE 208 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 815 30 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 2 1000 BUS COLL 250 GERLACH GE 210 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 826 30 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 2 Gerlach Graduate Programs Building 2 1,641 60

1000 BUS COLL 252 MASON HALL MH 5 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,984 57 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 0B 1000 BUS COLL 252 MASON HALL MH 10 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 2,973 91 10 FISHER COL OF BUSINESS 0B Gerlach Graduate Programs Building 2 4,957 148

1800 PHARMACY 273 PARKS HALL PK 203 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 735 30 18 COLLEGE OF PHARMACY 2 Parks Hall 1 735 30

1400 ENGR ADM 274 HITCHCOCK HI 0324A 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 393 22 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1400 ENGR ADM 274 HITCHCOCK HI 342 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,285 42 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1427 CIVIL EN 274 HITCHCOCK HI 322 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 884 28 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1427 CIVIL EN 274 HITCHCOCK HI 0495B 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 114 1 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 4 Hitchcock Hall 4 2,676 93

1700 NURSING 275 NEWTON NH 260 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 552 20 17 COLLEGE OF NURSING 2 1700 NURSING 275 NEWTON NH 280 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 592 20 17 COLLEGE OF NURSING 2 Newton Hall 2 1,144 40

2500 MED ADM 277 GRAVES GR 1170 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 185 22 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 2506 BIOMED S 277 GRAVES GR 1178 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 658 10 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 1 Graves Hall 2 843 32

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 E-6 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table E Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1445 ELEC ENG 279 DREESE LAB DL 517 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 759 20 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 5 1445 ELEC ENG 279 DREESE LAB DL 557 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 783 24 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 5 1445 ELEC ENG 279 DREESE LAB DL 817 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 382 14 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 8 Dreese Laboratories 3 1,924 58

1457 IND/WELD 280 BAKER SYS BE 344 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 398 10 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1457 IND/WELD 280 BAKER SYS BE 347 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 561 17 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1457 IND/WELD 280 BAKER SYS BE 348 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 398 12 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1457 IND/WELD 280 BAKER SYS BE 351 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 543 18 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1457 IND/WELD 280 BAKER SYS BE 356 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 398 11 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 4272 INFOTECH 280 BAKER SYS BE 590 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 2,886 72 42 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, OFC 5 Baker Systems Engineering 6 5,184 140

2505 PUB HLTH 293 CUNZ HALL CZ 424 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 735 24 26 COLL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 4 Cunz Hall 1 735 24

280 THEATRE 296 DRAKE CTR DR 1112 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 853 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 Drake Performance and Event Center 1 853 15

1123 FOOD ENG 298 AG ENG AE 120 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 842 20 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 1123 FOOD ENG 298 AG ENG AE 0120B 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 231 8 11 FOOD, AGRIC & ENV SCI 1 Agricultural Engineering Building 2 1,073 28

2900 VET ADM 299 VET HOSP VE 5 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 3,755 160 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 0B 2900 VET ADM 299 VET HOSP VE 0005F 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 348 15 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 0B 2900 VET ADM 299 VET HOSP VE 0005R 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 38 1 29 COLL OF VETERINARY MED 0B Veterinary Hospital 3 4,141 176

4610 HLTH LIB 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 0460A 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,317 57 46 OFC OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4 4610 HLTH LIB 302 PRIOR LIBR HS 0460B 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 1,442 57 46 OFC OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4 Prior Health Sciences Library 2 2,759 114

2504 AL MED S 306 ATWELL HAL AH 227 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 250 8 25 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2 Atwell Hall 1 250 8

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Laboratory Database) April 2009 E-7 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table E Unscheduled Department Computer Laboratories Database, Sorted by Building and Room Number

Room Department Building Building Room Type Function College Number Department Number Building Name Abbr Number Code Room Type Code Function ASF Stations Number College Floor

1417 BIO ENGR 307 BEVIS HALL BH 345 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 383 8 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 1417 BIO ENGR 307 BEVIS HALL BH 351 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 357 12 14 COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 3 Bevis Hall 2 740 20

150 CONT EDU 311 MOUNT HALL MO 250 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 571 17 41 UNIV OUTREACH & ENGAGE 2 Mount Hall 1 571 17

557 HISTORY 337 DULLES DU 207 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 257 10 5 COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 2 Dulles Hall 1 257 10

628 CHEM 371 CELESTE LB CE 160 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 731 24 6 MATH & PHYSICAL SCI 1 Celeste Laboratory of Chemistry 1 731 24

1275 TCH&LRN 373 KINNR,1100 KI 0340C 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 832 20 12 EDUCATION & HUMAN ECOL 1 1100 Kinnear Road 1 832 20

210 ADV COMP 374 KINNR,1224 KR 105 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 408 5 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 210 ADV COMP 374 KINNR,1224 KR 200 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 464 14 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 210 ADV COMP 374 KINNR,1224 KR 208 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 409 14 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 210 ADV COMP 374 KINNR,1224 KR 226 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 233 4 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 210 ADV COMP 374 KINNR,1224 KR 238 2Q UNSH COMP A INST&SUPRT 329 15 2 COLLEGE OF THE ARTS 1 1224 Kinnear Road 5 1,843 52

TOTAL 128 89,977 2,672

(Based on Draft 4b of the Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., The Ohio State University Class Laboratory Database)

F Sample Course Schedule Charts Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Knowlton Hall, Center Jury Studio Indoor Amphitheater Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Knowlton Hall Appendix F. Sample Course Schedule Charts April 2009 F-1

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY POOL CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: McPherson Chemical Lab (053) Room Number: 1000 Room Type Code: 1C – Lecture Hall Room ASF: 4,051 Room Capacity: 356

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

8:30 – 9:30 8:30 – 9:30 8:30 – 9:30 Basic College 8:30 – 9:48 Basic College 8:30 – 9:48 Basic College General Chemistry General Chemistry 9:00 AM Mathematics (220) Mathematics (220) Mathematics (220) 104 12848 (284) 104 12848 (284) 104 12848 121 04527 121 04527

10:00 AM 10:00 – 11:18 10:00 – 11:18 General Chemistry General Chemistry 10:30 – 11:18 (239) 10:30 – 11:18 (239) 10:30 – 11:18 Organic Chem (305) 122 04645 Organic Chem (305) 122 04645 Organic Chem (305) 11:00 AM 251 04711 251 04711 251 04711

11:30 – 12:30 11:30 – 12:30 11:30 – 12:30 General Chemistry General Chemistry General Chemistry 12:00 PM (301) (301) (301) 121 04557 121 04557 121 04557

01:00 PM 1:00 – 2:18 1:00 – 2:18 General Chemistry General Chemistry 1:30 – 2:18 (272) 1:30 – 2:18 (272) 1:30 – 2:18 Organic Chem (338) 121 04587 Organic Chem (338) 121 04587 Organic Chem (338) 02:00 PM 251 04724 251 04724 251 04724

2:30 – 3:30 2:30 – 3:30 2:30 – 3:30 2:30 – 3:30 2:30 – 3:30 Intro to Solar System Intro to Solar System Intro to Solar System Intro to Solar System Intro to Solar System 03:00 PM Astronomy (85) Astronomy (85) Astronomy (85) Astronomy (85) Astronomy (85) 161 21688 161 21688 161 21688 161 21688 161 21688 3:30 – 4:18 3:30 – 4:18 3:30 – 4:18 General Chem (281) 3:30 – 4:48 General Chem (281) 3:30 – 4:48 General Chem (281) 121 04602 General Chemistry 121 04602 General Chemistry 121 04602 04:00 PM (274) (274) 121 04617 121 04617

05:00 PM

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. F-2 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY POOL CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: Mendenhall Laboratory (054) Room Number: 174 Room Type Code: 1B – Classroom Room ASF: 612 Room Capacity: 36

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

8:30 – 9:48 8:30 – 9:48 8:30 – 9:48 Intensive French for Intensive French for Intensive French for 9:00 AM Review II (27) Review II (27) Review II (27) 103.66 09901 103.66 09901 103.66 09901

10:00 AM 9:30 – 11:18 9:30 – 11:18 10:00 – 11:18 Advanced Spanish 10:00 – 11:18 Advanced Spanish 10:00 – 11:18 Intensive French for Grammar (28) Intensive French for Grammar (28) Intensive French for Review I (19) 401 19670 Review I (19) 401 19670 Review I (19) 102.66 09887 102.66 09887 102.66 09887 11:00 AM

11:30 – 12:30 11:30 – 12:30 11:30 – 12:30 11:30 – 12:30 11:30 – 12:30 Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary 12:00 PM Swedish I (13) Swedish I (13) Swedish I (13) Swedish I (13) Swedish I (13) 101 20114 101 20114 101 20114 101 20114 101 20114

12:30 – 2:18 12:30 – 2:18 12:30 – 2:18 12:30 – 2:18 01:00 PM Introduction to Introduction to Introduction to Introduction to Language in the Language in the Language in the Language in the Humanities (26) Humanities (16) Humanities (26) Humanities (16) H201 12734 201 12730 H201 12734 201 12730 02:00 PM

2:30 – 4:18 2:30 – 4:18 03:00 PM Introduction to Slavic Introduction to Slavic Literature & Culture Literature & Culture (18) (18) 245 19028 245 19028 3:30 – 5:18 04:00 PM Internship in Professional Writing (10) 589 12207 05:00 PM

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University. Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later. Appendix F. Sample Course Schedule Charts April 2009 F-3

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY POOL CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: Mendenhall Laboratory(054) Room Number: 191 Room Type Code: 1B – Classroom Room ASF: 877 Room Capacity: 60

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

8:30 – 10:18 8:30 – 10:18 8:30 – 10:18 8:30 – 10:18 Western Civilization: Western Civilization: 9:00 AM Introduction Introduction Seventeenth Century Seventeenth Century to Physical to Physical through Modern through Modern Anthropology (54) Anthropology (54) Times (49) Times (49) 200 01367 200 01367 112 11291 112 11291 10:00 AM

10:30 – 12:18 10:30 – 12:18 11:00 AM 10:30 – 12:18 Economic 10:30 – 12:18 Economic World Urbanization Development of World Urbanization Development of (50) Sub-Saharan Africa (50) Sub-Saharan Africa 597.01 10294 (39) 597.01 10294 (39) 436 00228 436 00228 12:00 PM

12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 Yiddish Culture (37) Yiddish Culture (37) Yiddish Culture (37) Yiddish Culture (37) Yiddish Culture (37) 01:00 PM 241 21154 241 21154 241 21154 241 21154 241 21154

1:30 – 2:30 1:30 – 2:30 Principles of Orientation to 02:00 PM 1:30 – 3:18 Microeconomics (47) 1:30 – 3:18 Exercise Science (55) World Urbanization 200 06896 World Urbanization 209 07394 (57) (57) 597.01 10296 597.01 10296

03:00 PM 2:30 – 4:18 2:30 – 4:18 Basics of Learning a Basics of Learning a Language (60) Language (60) 170 12723 170 12723

04:00 PM 3:30 – 5:18 3:30 – 5:18 American Civilization American Civilization since 1877 (57) since 1877 (57) 152 11400 152 11400

05:00 PM

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University. Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. F-4 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY POOL CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: Smith Laboratory (065) Room Number: 1153 Room Type Code: 1C – Lecture Hall Room ASF: 2,156 Room Capacity: 215

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

8:30 – 9:30 8:30 – 9:30 8:30 – 9:30 8:30 – 9:30 8:30 – 9:30 Thermal, Waves, Modern Physics Thermal, Waves, Modern Physics Thermal, Waves, 9:00 AM and Quantum (123) (102) and Quantum (123) (102) and Quantum (123) 133 17256 113 17180 133 17256 113 17180 133 17256 9:30 – 10:30 9:30 – 10:30 9:30 – 10:30 Thermal, Waves, Thermal, Waves, Thermal, Waves, 10:00 AM and Quantum (121) and Quantum (121) and Quantum (121) 133 17261 133 17261 133 17261 10:30 – 11:30 10:30 – 11:30 Mechanics and Mechanics and 11:00 AM Heat (199) Heat (199) 111 17118 111 17118 11:30 – 12:30 11:30 – 12:30 11:30 – 12:30 11:30 – 12:30 11:30 – 12:30 Electricity and Mechanics and Electricity and Mechanics and Electricity and 12:00 PM Magnetism (153) Heat (193) Magnetism (153) Heat (193) Magnetism (153) 132 17232 111 17127 132 17232 111 17127 132 17232 12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 Electricity and Mechanics and Electricity and Mechanics and Electricity and 01:00 PM Magnetism (133) Heat (177) Magnetism (133) Heat (177) Magnetism (133) 132 17237 111 17136 132 17237 111 17136 132 17237 1:30 – 2:30 1:30 – 2:30 Mechanics and Mechanics and 02:00 PM Heat (185) Heat (185) 111 17145 111 17145

03:00 PM

3:30 – 4:30 3:30 – 4:30 3:30 – 4:30 3:30 – 4:30 3:30 – 4:30 Particles and Motion Elec, Magnetism, Particles and Motion Elec, Magnetism, Particles and Motion 04:00 PM (202) and Light (151) (202) and Light (151) (202) 131 17200 112 17154 131 17200 112 17154 131 17200 4:30 – 5:30 4:30 – 5:30 Elec, Magnetism, Elec, Magnetism, 05:00 PM and Light (127) and Light (127) 112 17160 112 17160

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University. Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later. Appendix F. Sample Course Schedule Charts April 2009 F-5

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY POOL CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: Schoenbaum Undergrad Program Building (251) Room Number: 315 Room Type Code: 1C – Lecture Hall Room ASF: 1,232 Room Capacity: 50

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

8:30 – 10:18 8:30 – 10:18 Human Resource Human Resource 9:00 AM 8:30 – 10:18 8:30 – 10:18 Management in a Management in a Cost Accounting (47) Cost Accounting (47) Market Economy Market Economy 525M 00090 525M 00090 (34) (34) 651 03943 651 03943 10:00 AM

11:00 AM 10:30 – 12:18 10:30 – 12:18 10:30 – 12:18 Operations Planning Cost Accounting Cost Accounting and Control (27) (45) (45) 732M 03753 525M 00091 525M 00091

12:00 PM

12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 Random Signal Random Signal Random Signal 01:00 PM Analysis (50) Analysis (50) Analysis (50) 804 10708 804 10708 804 10708

1:30 – 3:18 1:30 – 3:18 1:30 – 3:18 1:30 – 3:18 02:00 PM Purchasing Purchasing Financial Financial and Materials and Materials Accounting I (48) Accounting I (48) Management (34) Management (34) 521M 00072 521M 00072 735M 03755 735M 03755- 03:00 PM

3:30 – 5:18 3:30 – 5:18 04:00 PM 3:30 – 5:18 3:30 – 5:18 3:30 – 5:18 Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship Business Policy (36) Business Policy (36) Business Policy (36) Marketing (41) Marketing (41) 799M 03579 799M 03579 799M 03579 490 21543 490 21543

05:00 PM

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University. Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. F-6 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY POOL CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: Schoenbaum Undergrad Program Building (251) Room Number: 320 Room Type Code: 1C – Lecture Hall Room ASF: 1,862 Room Capacity: 82

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

8:30 – 9:18 8:30 – 9:18 8:30 – 9:18 Business Survey (35) Business Survey (35) Business Survey (38) 9:00 AM 100A 03503 100A 03504 100A 03505

9:30 – 10:18 9:30 – 10:18 9:30 – 10:18 9:30 – 10:18 Business Survey (37) Business Survey (32) Business Survey (34) Intro to Acctg (76) 10:00 AM 100K 03519 100K 03520 100K 03521 H211 00030

10:30 – 12:18 10:30 – 12:18 10:30 – 12:18 10:30 – 12:18 11:00 AM Labor Relations and Labor Relations and Legal Environment Legal Environment Collective Bargaining Collective Bargaining of Business (78) of Business (78) (30) (30) 510M 03599 510M 03599 761M 03974 761M 03974 12:00 PM

12:30 – 1:18 12:30 – 1:18 12:30 – 1:18 Business Survey (44) Business Survey (48) Business Survey (43) 01:00 PM 100G 03507 100G 03508 100G 03509

02:00 PM 1:30 – 3:18 1:30 – 3:18 1:30 – 3:18 1:30 – 3:18 Entrepreneurship Legal Environment Entrepreneurship Legal Environment (49) of Business (73) (49) of Business (73) 290 21423 510M 03600 290 21423 510M 03600

03:00 PM

04:00 PM 3:30 – 5:18 3:30 – 5:18 3:30 – 5:18 3:30 – 5:18 Legal Environment International Legal Environment International of Business (72) Finace (47) of Business (72) Finace (47) 510M 03601 725M 03634 510M 03601 725M 03634

05:00 PM

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University. Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later. Appendix F. Sample Course Schedule Charts April 2009 F-7

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY POOL CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: Hitchcock Hall (274) Room Number: 131 Room Type Code: 1C – Lecture Hall Room ASF: 5,163 Room Capacity: 640

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM 8:00 – 9:00 8:00 – 9:00 8:00 – 9:00 Energy Transfer and Energy Transfer and Energy Transfer and Development (503) Development (503) Development (503) 113 02746 113 02746 113 02746 9:00 AM 9:00 – 10:18 9:00 – 10:18 Introductory Introductory 9:30 – 10:48 Sociology (385) 9:30 – 10:48 Sociology (385) Introductory 101 19312 Introductory 101 19312 10:00 AM Sociology (399) Sociology (399) 101 19322 101 19322

10:30 – 11:48 10:30 – 11:48 11:00 AM Human Biology (326) Human Biology (326) 102 02732 102 02732 11:30 – 12:30 Mech Engineering 12:00 PM Survey (394) 12:00 – 1:18 12:00 – 1:18 100.12 08469 Introductory Biology Introductory Biology 12:30 – 1:30 (605) (605) Mech Engineering 12:30 – 2:18 101 02664 12:30 – 2:18 101 02664 01:00 PM History of Human History of Human Survey (362) Communication Communication 100.12 08474 (447) (447) 101 05340 101 05340 02:00 PM 1:30 – 3:18 1:30 – 3:18 Communication in Communication in Society (442) Society (442) 200 05341 200 05341

03:00 PM 2:30 – 3:48 2:30 – 3:48 2:30 – 3:48 General Genetics General Genetics General Genetics (237) (237) (237) 500 10011 500 10011 500 10011 04:00 PM 3:30 – 5:18 3:30 – 5:18 Marketing (263) Marketing (263) 650M 03820 650M 03820

05:00 PM

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. F-8 The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY POOL CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: Independence Hall (338) Room Number: 100 Room Type Code: 1C – Lecture Hall Room ASF: 7,047 Room Capacity: 728

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

8:30 – 9:30 8:30 – 9:48 8:30 – 9:30 8:30 – 9:48 8:30 – 9:30 Calculus & Analytic Form, Function, Calculus & Analytic Form, Function, Calculus & Analytic 9:00 AM Geometry (155) Diversity, and Geometry (155) Diversity, and Geometry (155) 151 13055 Ecology (374) 151 13055 Ecology (374) 151 13055 9:30 – 10:30 114 02769 9:30 – 10:30 114 02769 Introduction to Introduction to Theatre (220) Theatre (220) 10:00 AM 10:00 – 11:18 10:00 – 11:18 100 20240 100 20240 Principles of Principles of 10:30 – 11:30 Microeconomics 10:30 – 11:30 Microeconomics Introduction to (557) Introduction to (557) 11:00 AM Theatre (298) 200 06889 Theatre (298) 200 06889 100 20253 100 20253

12:00 PM

12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 East Asian East Asian East Asian East Asian 01:00 PM Humanities (131) Humanities (131) Humanities (131) Humanities (131) 131 02463 131 02463 131 02463 131 02463

1:30 – 2:48 1:30 – 2:48 1:30 – 2:48 1:30 – 2:48 Principles of Principles of Introductory Biology Introductory Biology Macroeconomics Macroeconomics 02:00 PM (671) (671) (541) (541) 101 02695 101 02695 201 06926 201 06926

03:00 PM 3:00 – 4:18 3:00 – 4:18 Principles of Principles of Microeconomics Microeconomics 3:30 – 4:30 (544) (544) Allied Medical 04:00 PM 200 06904 200 06904 Survey (145) 100 00926 4:30 – 5:30 Photography: Digital 05:00 PM Camera (261) 300 01878

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later. Appendix F. Sample Course Schedule Charts April 2009 F-9

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT CLASSROOM COURSE SCHEDULE, AUTUMN 2007

Building Name: Hughes Hall (042) Room Number: 100 Room Type Code: 1C – Lecture Hall Room ASF: 4,780 Room Capacity: 382

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:00 AM

9:00 AM

10:00 AM 9:30 – 11:18 9:30 – 11:18 9:30 – 11:18 9:30 – 11:18 History of The World of History of The World of Rock & Roll (285) Classical Music (57) Rock & Roll (285) Classical Music (57) 252 14741 251 14734 252 14741 251 14734

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

12:30 – 1:30 12:30 – 1:30 Voice-Principal (19) Voice-Principal (19) 01:00 PM 201 14656 201 14656

1:30 – 2:30 1:30 – 2:30 1:30 – 2:30 Music History (85) Music History (85) Music History (85) 02:00 PM 241 14728 241 14728 241 14728

2:30 – 3:18 2:30 – 3:18 2:30 – 3:18 Opera Tech (10) Opera Tech (10) Opera Tech (10) 03:00 PM 710 15086 710 15086 710 15086

04:00 PM

4:00 – 6:18 4:00 – 6:18 4:00 – 6:18 4:00 – 6:18 Opera Performance Opera Performance Opera Performance Opera Performance 05:00 PM (13) (13) (13) (13) 312 14777 312 14777 312 14777 312 14777

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from The Ohio State University Note: Does not include classes beginning at 5:00 PM or later.

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

G Responses to the Registrar’s Office Web- Based Classroom Survey

Pool Classrooms, Physical Environment

Pool Classrooms, Technology

Pool Classrooms, General Improvements

Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Department Classrooms, Technology

Department Classrooms, General Improvements Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. Knowlton Hall, School of Architecture April 2009 G-1 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-1 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

1 (i). Make sure heating and cooling produce the right temperature. One of my classrooms has been severely overheated this fall. (ii). Make sure there is chalk available at the start of 31, 43 each class - I usually have to bring my own. 2 A little more space between chairs so that tests can be administered where copying from each other becomes less obvious. 42 3 A lot of classrooms students seem to be sitting on top of one another - fewer students in the given space would be helpful. 42 4 All classrooms need to be tech capable. 2 5 All classrooms: The heating is way too hot in the winter and the A/C is way too cold in the summer. My classroom (Derby 060): There are far too many desks and there is no 2, 31 ,42 technology so I can't show any media. 6 Although the technology in Jennings 060 is wonderful, it is almost pointless to use it because there is no way to darken the room sufficiently that the projected images can be viewed 13 well by students (even with all lights off, which is not conducive to learning). 7 Around 15%-20% of the time there is no chalk in some of the rooms. 43 8 As an instructor, I prefer students to sit at tables versus small chairs, it leads to better classroom interaction, and gives students more space (ex. if they bring a laptop) 41 9 At least two of the six classrooms I have taught in appear as if they were never cleaned. 38 10 basiclaly, the lighting in my large lecture hall (in Campbell hall) cannot be adjusted -- thus, powerpoints and videos, etc. seem washed out on the screen -- since images are a big part 13 of my ocurse it is defintiely affecting course quality 11 Before this year the amount of chalk available was often insufficient after the middle of the quarter. 43 12 Being in the new Scott Lab, the new environment would be difficult to exceed. Facilities are great. 17 13 Better care should be taken to replace burnt out light bulbs. I do not think that students can concentrate too well in a dim room. 43 14 Better cleaning; repair blinds in rooms with windows. 43 15 Better climate control, attention to repair of damaged furniture, available lecterns, regular replenishment of chalk and erasers. 31, 43 16 Better contol of heating and cooling. 31 17 Better control of heat and air in classrooms 31 18 Better enviornmental control 31 19 better lighting 13 20 Better lighting! There should be more adjustment so students can still take notes while the lighting is dimmed for the presentation of important visual material. Most of the time it is 13 either too bright or too dim. 21 Better lighting. 13 22 Better lights. 13 23 Better seating/line of sight to screens in rooms where visual presentations are made espcially Hayes and Hopkins 41 24 Better temperature control Cleaner 31, 38 25 Better temperature control would be nice in most buildings. 31 26 better temperature control. 31 27 better temperature control. 31 28 Bigger classrooms! A class of 26 students cannot fit in a classroom intended for 20. 42 29 broken chair, ceiling etc need to be repaired timely. 9 30 Caldwell 109 has broken window blinds, old noisy inefficient room air conditioners, pools of chalky water staining the floor at the front after someone wiped them the previous night, too 9, 38, 43, 48 many bulky chairs for the space which makes it not a good environment for giving tests, and which also makes it difficult to use either projectors or overheads since the students in the front have to be pushed back to make room for the equipment and there is no room to push them back. Baker Systems 130 has chairs that are old and squeak loudly. The room was apparently originally connected to another small room used for a classroom also, and there is a connecting door, permanently locked, at the front of the classroom....sometimes the noise coming through that door from the other classroom is overwhelming...if it's not going to be used as a connector any longer, can't it be permanently closed with something that absorbs the sound? 31 Caldwell lab needs major renovation. 5 32 Central classroom building has heating and cooling issues--often temperature very uncomfortable. Loud fans make communication difficult. 31, 48 33 Certain of the Schoenbaum classrooms have video projectors and screens arranged such that instructors can not write on the board while information is displayed on the screen. 40, 53 Certain other rooms are configured for both. The latter are much more enjoyable for teaching. 34 chairs and tables could be replaced 41 35 Chalk boards in MP1000 need improvement. They often break during the quarter. 40 April 2009 G-2 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-1 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

36 Chalk, erasers, markers. Larger whiteboards/blackboards. Places for students and teacher to hang up their coats. A computer at the lectern in every room (not just a projector). 11, 40, 43

37 Chalkboards in DL 0113 are not weighted correctly and so they continually slide upwards blocking other boards. They also are routinely cleaned but not "re-touched." When a clean 38, 43 board is written on, the writing does not erase for several uses. The solution is counter-intuitive, but simple: after cleaning a board to the shinny surface, the DIRTY eraser should be rubbed over the entire surface to replace a thin film of chalk which then permits the next layer of writing to be easily wiped off. So a perfect board is not shiny clean, but rather slightly dull. It is an extra step but crucial for such boards. As the current methods go, even the erasers are super cleaned which prevents me from doing this trick myself, so at a minimum, please don't clean the erasers. 38 Chalks on the blackboard, air conditioning units that work, heating that works 31, 43 39 Classroom pool rooms are highly variable depending on location. Great facilities in Scott Lab, Psychology Building. Terrible facilities in Townshend (prior to renovation), Caldwell, 53 Arps. 40 Classroom quality varies a great deal. The best classrooms have good lighting, seasonally appropriate temperatures, decent furniture, and come equipped with technology. 13, 41, 53 Unfortunately, too many classrooms are dingy, poorly lit, have uncomfortable or unwieldy furniture, and have little or no technology. 41 Classrooms are often either too big or too small for the class. Although cramming too many desks into a tiny space has to be much worse than having a space that is much larger than 41, 42 needed. Classroom services needs to be more realistic when it comes to how many bodies can comfortably sit in a room. Also some of the writing surfaces on tablet desks are very small. 42 Classrooms in both Denney and ARPS are consistently dirty; the floors are filthy. In the classroom where I teach, there has been an abandoned hat and stack of papers for the entire 38 term. 43 classrooms w/o natural light, hot, stuffy--unbearably so in the fall. overly crowded with chairs--in particular Central Classroom building. 13, 31, 42 44 Classrooms with chairs that are fixed are problematic, with the exception of the rooms like UH 014 that are laid out nicely. In other words, tiered set seats are fine, but one-level set 37 seats don't work well. 45 Classrooms with long tables are better than those with small desks, especially at exam time. 41 46 Classrooms with projectors connected to the web serve me well. Classrooms without such projects are very painful for me. I got both types of classes the past two years. 1, 53

47 Clean blackboards, place chalk, provide better erasers (19th century technology) Maintain room temperature at a comfortable level 31, 43 48 Clean the equipment regularly. 38 49 clean the floors and the desks. 38 50 Clean them better 38 51 Clean them--Provide chalk 38, 43 52 Clean/sweep on a daily basis 38 53 cleaned more thoroughy & regularly 38 54 cleaner and better lit 13, 38 55 Cleaner floors and PLEASE make it a rule that all instructors have to erase blackboards before leaving their session. I am spending an inordinate amount of time this quarter erasing 38 blackboards from other instructors' previous class session(s). 56 cleaner would be good, also some are just sad looking (could use a coat of paint 38, 43 57 cleaner, better lighting 13, 38 58 cleaner, not just trash which studnets leave behind during the day, but floors, computers and nooks and crannies. 38 59 Cleaning the floor would be nice. 38 60 Cleanliness of the classrooms and the media equipment; Overall neatness, broken chairs, desks, etc. 38, 43 61 Climate control/noise: often it is too hot (year round) and windows are open, which leads to a lot of noise. In Denney windows don't always open and many of the shades are broken. 9, 31

62 Clock has not worked all quarter. Have sent in several work orders, only to be told clock is "on back order." To be without a clock in a classroom for almost 2 months is unsatisfactory 14

63 CM200: Put recycling bins in the classroom (in back and along both sides) and put up posters encouraging students to recycle. This might serve to (a) keep classroom cleaner/more 38, 50 pleasant during the day, and (b) reduce janitorial time/irritation of having to pick up after students. 64 Cockins Hall needs better temperature control. The students are uncomfortably hot in the summer and often have to wear jackets in the winter. 31 65 Consistent and comfortable climate control. Comfortable and flexible seating arrangements. 31, 41 April 2009 G-3 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-1 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

66 Could be cleaner. I teach in late afternoon and the rooms always look so scuffed and dirty, partly from the use of the day -- overflowing trash cans, coffee spills, etc. -- and partly 38 because they take a lot of wear and tear. 67 Daily cleaning and getting rid of trash. Have enough chairs. 38, 42 68 Denney Hall has extreme temperatures that make it very difficult to teach with frozen or boiling students. The lack of facility repair in that building is pretty shocking especially 31, 43 compared to the condition of other buildings in which I've taught. 69 Depends on the classroom. Have taught in FABE 100 & loved it. Also, in AA251 & really didn't like it. Heating issues. Tables vs desks. Physical size (too many students for the 31, 41, 53 room, altho all the desks *fit*. 70 Derby Hall has very small classroom and I have a large class. It would be better if larger classes can be scheduled on bigger classrooms. 42, 51 71 Desk that are not bolted to the floor. 37 72 Desks are old and falling apart. Poor access for students with disabilities. Few large classrooms near my building = large walking distance for students and professors to class. 39, 41

73 Desks were never organized. They were always pushed all over the room to the point that there were no discernable aisle ways. Reminders to instructors that classrooms need to be 38 left in order would be helpful. 74 Desks were very outdated and difficult for students to use 41 75 Dimmer switches; ceiling fans; clock in the back of the classrooms; making sure there is chalk for the boards. Specific light switches for front - side- back, and projection screen. That 13, 31, 43 way I can just turn specific ones off. 76 Do to heave student use, sometimes seats are broken 9, 41 77 Don't use Cunz Hall ever again. 5 78 Dreese labs was cold and my voice was continually drowned out by the soung of the generator. 31 79 Easy to do - put chalk bins in every room, or something to encourage instructors not to leave chalk all over the place. Incredibly frustrating to walk in and have chalk and dust all over 38, 43 the computer desk that I'm next to use. 80 Eliminate the old style chairs with right-handed writing surface. Adult learners require comfortable seating with chairs and tables. 41 81 Excellent 17 82 FIRST A COMMENT ON YOUR SURVEY: IT IS IMPOSIBLE TO CHOOSE THE SAME RANKING FOR ALL THREE. I WOULD HAVE CHOSEN POOR FOR ALL THREE. 31, 38, 43, 48 Temperature control is poor (to hot in October/June to cold or to hot in December/January/February), noise pollution is a problem (construction outside, students in the building hallways), chalkboards are of poor quality, whiteboards are not cleaned properly (don't use water!!!), third floor of Arps leaks in a heavy rain and the floor becomes slippery while your upper body becomes wet and cold. 83 flexible seating to faciliate discussions, small group work 37 84 Floors must be swept more often, trash emptied, blackboards washed. 38 85 Fold out desk space is very small. Students would benefit from more table space for note taking. 41 86 For a class of 30 students, a large stadium classroom shouldn't be used because it changes the more intimate dynamics and makes grouping difficult. When some choose to sit in the 42, 51 far back, the instructor has to set rules about coming way down to the front. 87 For awhile, one classroom I used had a broken clock. It was a source of perpetual frustration, becuase I would look up while lecturing and get panicked that all of my time had 14 disappeared. At one point I even tried to take the clock down, but that did not work either. Little things like this make a large difference. 88 for both of my classes this quarter, I am teaching in a basement room (HH 50 and UH 38) - especially UH 38, with more than 40 students gets extremely stuffy (unless we leave the 42 door open which exposes us to all the echoing corridor noise). For UH 38, the lack of space and the distribution of desks and chairs really hinders my movement through the classroom and makes it difficult to set up groupwork... 89 for honors UG courses, seminar rooms would be helpful (rather than rows of desks). IE rooms with a large table that can accommodate 15-20 chairs. 42 90 For one chalk is never there. Each instructor these days comes with their own chalk box. It should not be this way. Classrooms in Smith Lab are old and the seats and blackboards 43 there are dilapidated. Classrooms in McPherson and Scott Lab are new and fine, though chalk is hard to find there too. 91 Generally good, no problems with desks etc. 17 92 get rid of fliers, advertisements, trash. Clean the chalkboard, and provide something better than dusty erasers 38 93 Having fewer desks in some rooms so that students could spread out and not be shoulder to shoulder. In addition to being uncomfortable and making it difficult to move things around 42 for groupwork, it makes monitering for cheating difficult 94 Heater/Cooler malfunctions are common. 31 95 Heating and cooling problems seem to be common. The AC often seems to not work in the summer, while in the winter the classrooms can be uncomfortably warm. 31 April 2009 G-4 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-1 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

96 Heating and cooling system of very uneven quality 31 97 Heating and cooling systems are inefficient, generally ineffective and wasteful of resources. 31 98 Heating/cooling is a nightmare. My room is a sauna if the outside temperature is above 60 degrees. The room (carpet & chalkboards) is filthy. Extra furniture and equipment are stacked 31, 38, 43 in the corner, creating a safety hazard and an uncomfortable environment. 99 Hmmm: I don't have any: they're pretty good. 17 100 HVAC is out of sync most of the time. Room usually too warm 31 101 I am fortunate to teach in Fisher College of Business 102 I am team teaching a class with Dr. Webber on the columbus campus via videoconferencing. Our classroom at the newark classroom lacks microphones, so we are handicapped in 30 our ability to dialog with our columbus campus counterparts. We need a dedicated videoconferencing room that would fit 20 students. We don't need the other smart classroom features really. We occasionally use internet or dvd projection--that's it. 103 I appreciate some one cleaning the rooms but making them chalk free by removing any pieces of chalk left is not good. I hope that some one would tell the staff members that their 38, 43 good job would be more valuable if they don't remove all the chalk pieces from the class rooms. 104 I did teach a class in Smith Labs 1005 this quarter. I got in touch with classroom services in early September about installing new chairs in the classroom. They said they'd have it 41 done within 2 or 3 days. Its been 2 months and I'm still waiting for those news chairs. 105 I do not like the cart system. I would prefer there being podiums in all the classroom. And often the lighting makes it hard to see the screen. 13, 16 106 I find I have to bring my own chalk as very often there is no chalk or very small pieces. Maybe people are carrying it off. 43 107 I find windowless classrooms kind of depressing, even new rooms that have not yet acquired the dinginess of, say, the basement in University Hall. 43, 46 108 I had no problems. I only used the chalk board. The desks were fine, and there were windows in the room. 17 109 i had reserved the room for a specific week and the first day of that week the room was 80+ degrees becuase of issue in building. Although there was nothing you as the classroom 31 pool could do about it, it made for a difficult situation for the students. 110 I have a column in the middle of my room. That is very distracting and gets in the way of students' vision. Also, I consistently have to find chalk and erasers hidden around the room, 42, 43 as there is there is hardly any left when I teach in the morning. There are too many desks, so the "teaching area" is too close to the students. I have no podium or room for a front table, so I have to put my things off to the side. I teach in CC 222. 111 I have taught in multiple classrooms in which the temperature was not conducive to learning. In one, the window AC was not sufficient to keep up with the afternoon heat (Fall quarter), 31 and was too loud to run during class anyway. This quarter, I am in a classroom that is very cold. 112 I started in Dulles Hall in the basement with no natural light, a cramped space, a humid and musty smell, dust and chalk everywhere, and noise from the other teachers down the 13, 38, 43 hallway. I requested a room change and I'm pleased with my new assignment (in Bolz Hall). 113 I taught for two quarters in Page 40, where a large heating/air-conditioning vent was placed directly behind the podium at the front of the room. It made it nearly impossible to hear 31 students beyond the first row when I was at the front of the room and the entire room was noisy enough from the ventilation that students often couldn't hear others who weren't in the same row. Students also complained about being cold. I have no idea if it's physically possible in the building, but it would help a lot of move the vent from the front of the room.

114 I taught in Jennings 0060. It is perfect for teaching. 115 I taught one class this quarter in Schoenbaum Hall. The environment was night and day with most of other large classroom on campus. Use Schoenbaum Hall as amodel. In 31 particular, improve the blackboards (use bigger white boards). Improve the acoustics and the temperature control. 116 I teach 27 students and it is crowded. There is not much room for small group exercises. There are SO many chairs and it is crowded. 42 117 I teach in Arps Hall this quarter. The room is unbearably hot, and much too cramped for the number of students I have (around 55). People are forced to sit in the back of the class, 31, 42 where they can not see powerpoint slides and chalk board demonstrations. 118 I teach in Denney Hall, which needs to be torn down. The revamping of the classrooms there has been a big improvement, but they are still dirty, the seats are hard to sit in for two 38, 41, 43 hours, and necessities such as chalk and erasers are often missing. Keeping up the maintenance of these rooms would help (perhaps they're better in the morning; I typically teach in the afternoon) as would some more comfortable seating for both students and the instructor. Making sure the blinds work would also be an improvement.

119 I teach in Dulles 027. There is no window and no air. The air quality is so poor that students start yawning after 15 minutes. There is no bell ringing and there is no clock provided in the 14, 31, 46 classroom. 120 I teach most of the time in Central Classrooms and once a week in Hagerty Hall--I am glad there's no longer construction noise in CC but it could still be more cheerful (paint?). 43 April 2009 G-5 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-1 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

121 I teach primarily on the 2nd floor of Denney Hall, which was upgraded and the classes are in very good shape. I will say, however, that when I have had to teach outside of Denney (in 53 ARPS, in Chemistry, in Aviation), the classrooms were dreary and dark. 122 I was in the basement of Jennings and could not get a warm temperature last winter. Students had to wear winter coats...not good. 31 123 I was very happy with the classroom--LZ021. As far I know the students didn't have any difficulty hearing me or seeing the screen for the powerpoint. 124 I was working in a computer lab (in East Annex) and it got exceedingly hot. 31 125 I wish I was able to adjust the air conditioning temperature. With the volatility of the weather, there were some days when it was too hot and there were some days when it was too 31 cold. 126 I wish the rooms weren't so hot during the winter. 31 127 I wish the windows could close. I wish there wasn't any construction taking place on the floor below. I wish the a/c had been turned off in early October. 31 128 I would like to see: Less background noise (construction, loud air conditioners, etc.) Larger blackboards. Flickering florescent lights replaced. 13, 40, 48 129 If there is a chalkboard, there needs to be erasers. If there's a dry erase board, there need to be rags to erase with. Overhead projectors are old, and the cart is always covered with 38, 43 chalk dust. The table with the lecturn is not adjustable, and the one "office" type chair is cruddy looking. There is not even a hook to hang a coat on. When there are guests, there's no place for them to hang their coat (or jacket or sweater) or to sit, as students occupy all the chairs. The room needs a few more basic "amenities."

130 I'm thinking specifically of some of the classrooms in Smith labs (rm 1186, maybe?) where the desks are bolted to the floor. This is impractical for doing group work and the desks are 37, 41 too small (and the seat can't be separated from the desk, etc.) for those students who are obese. Please replace all desks and include working windows, new paint, non-cracked floor tiles, etc. 131 Improved cleaning (floors, desks, etc.) 38 132 Improved cleanliness. 38 133 improved climate control, updated furniture 31, 41 134 Improved desks and work stations for students. 41 135 In a typical classroom, there are usually 50 students in my class. This makes it extremely difficult to get into small groups or have effective conversations. 42 136 In classrooms w/whiteboards, more attention paid to marker and eraser supplies. "Unpacking" classrooms so that students can be students rather than sardines crammed in a can, 42, 43 and so the instructor doesn't have the first row of students mere inches away. Ensuring podium lecterns in each classroom. 137 In crowding too many chairs into even the newest of classroom settings it takes what could be a more positive environment and turns it into a negative one. Rarely does a classroom 38, 42 give the appearance that someone is regularly cleaning them. The trash containers are emptied, but other than that I'm not certain. It might be more efficient to have a sign up sheet in each classroom with spots for environmental services staff to sign when they have cleaned a space. This form might give the individual the opportunity to update the reader on how much was cleaned, when, and by whom. 138 In one room, the heat was much too high. It was winter and there were barely the number of seats for the students -- no place for coats, book bags, ... In another room, things were fine. 31

139 In Page Hall 10 the air system can sometimes overpower voices. 31 140 In some classrooms, the overhead projector is old and projects poorly. Also, where desks are bolted to the floor, the projector is necessarily close to the screen, and the projected 43 image is small and difficult to decifer from the back of the room. 141 In some of the classrooms, the noise (either from the fan or heating/AC) is too loud. Also, some classrooms' heating and AC are not working properly. 31 142 It could be cleaner. Students need larger desks to write on, as well as more space in the room for them to do group work. There always needs to be a table of some sort for the 38, 41 instructor so that she/he can arrange handouts and assignments. 143 It is very difficult to move around in classrooms with fixed desks, and almost locks the instructor into a lecture format, which may not always be best. 37 144 It's been a while since I've taught in a room with bolted down chairs. 145 It's so cramped! Perhaps fewer desks per classroom. 42 146 I've had very good luck the past two years because I got to teach in a new building, so my comments are limited to Hagerty Hall, where our dept. has a semi-dedicated classroom. My 40, 43 one concern would be the furniture--the writing-arm chairs in the Hagerty classrooms seem flimsy and easily broken...they don't seem to accommodate the size of some of our participants well. I would like to see more blackboard space in the rooms in general...or see next comment re: technology... 147 I've taught in classrooms in one of the engineering buildings that had broken chairs and leaks in the ceiling. The temperature control system was also problematic. I've also been in a 9, 31, 43 class in the John Glenn building where the heating system made loud, distracting noises throughout the class. At one time, it became so bad that we had to end class early.

148 Keep broken desks in repair 9, 43 April 2009 G-6 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-1 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

149 Keep erasers, chalk, etc off of overheads & carts. Fix the clock in CL 135. Moderate classroom temperature. It is either too hot or too cool (CL 135). 14, 31, 43 150 keep the blackboards working 43 151 Keep the same types of student chairs together in one classroom. 41 152 Knowing the name of the person to DIRECTLY contact if the building has an issue with temperature control, water dripping, etc. The building coordinators typically DO NOT report 43 problems. I know first had from speaking to workers. 153 Koffolt Laboratories is never anything but HOT, HOT, HOT! The air conditioner was on in September and there was heat coming out. Now, we open windows because it must be eighty 31 plus degrees. I have sent in two requests to fix this, but so far nothing has changed!!! 154 Less desks in the classrooms would give instructors more options in how they teach. When classes are overflowing with desks, those desks cannot be rearranged to form discussion 42 circles or discussion groups, and the ability of the instructor to discourage and prevent academic misconduct (i.e. cheating) is greatly affected. 155 Less students per class and less desks per classroom 42 156 Lighting in some classrooms is miserable (Pomerene Hall). Windows don't close properly. Temperature can't be controlled. Pomerene should not be used for rigorous science 13, 31, 43 classes. 157 Loud air conditioner not conducive to discussions 31 158 Lower the max occupancy. (Currently insufficient room--desks packed too closely). Complete building renovations (causes distraction during classes and exams). 42 159 Make sure the heating/cooling work as they are suppose to. And make sure there is sufficient chalk in the rooms. 31, 43 160 Make sure the rooms are able to have the temperature controlled with out opening the doors. PAES 105 was really hot and the lobby was noisy so my students were usually able to fall 31 asleep easily 161 Make sure the technology is working. The classroom clean. The temperature comfortable. Someone paying attention. 29, 31, 38, 43 162 Make sure there are always sufficient chairs for the number of students that might be in the classroom. 42 163 make the chalkboard longer 40 164 Many classrooms are cramped with as many desks as will physically fit inside the room, such that a 50-person room on this campus is the same size as another campus's 30-person 42 room. The crowding is very unpleasant, especially during winter when everyone has extra winter bulk in their clothing. 165 Many classrooms are subject to occassional disruptive noises from outside the building. It would be useful to examine how sound proofing could be improved for these rooms. 48

166 Many classrooms would benefit from paint. In a dreamworld they might actually have carpet. Classrooms are frequently very crowded. 42, 43 167 Many days way too hot to effectively teach. 31 168 Many of the classrooms are very small. The heating is uneven; the windows don't open, and when they do, there's construction noise outside. 31, 42 169 Many of the classrooms in which I have taught have been rather dingy - lacking natural light (probably the most serious problem) or just in need of fresh paint or more modern furniture. 43, 49 In order to inspire students to learn and help them to concentrate, the classroom environment should be both professional and modern. 170 Many of the large classrooms in TO are crammed with many small wooden desks - students complain that these are quite unconfortable (especially for the taller students). It is also 41, 42 hard to navigate up and down the rows in these classrooms, as the desks tend to get all jumbled together. 171 Many outdated desks and windows could be replaced. I'm primarily in the business college, which is in great shape. However, off the Fisher campus the building quality drops off 31, 41, 53 substantially. Old windows and HVAC systems cause problems. Desks are antiques offering little comfort and preventing group work. 172 Markerboards are more visually appealing and less messy. Overall cleanliness could be improved (dusty equipment, sticky floors). Also, the shades on classroom windows are 34, 43 sometimes defective and/or difficult to adjust. 173 Mopping the floors more regularly--they're filthy, especially in winter. Dry erase boards instead of chalk boards to reduce dust Too many students in too small of a space; they can't 34, 38, 42 move at all, and I can't make it down the aisles to reach all of them. 174 More attention to details. Make sure students can move around the classroom to get to and from their seats; have more left-handed desks; reinforce walls where chairs will hit against 31, 41 them so that the walls aren't damaged. Maintain a liveable temperature -- the basement of University Hall is quite hot, while Bolz Hall is quite cold. 175 More choices in terms of seating modules. But, I realize I don't have a choice of rooms so may not be aware of classrooms with such flexibility. 37 176 more comfortable chairs, more desk/writing space 41 177 more media options available! 2 178 More modern classrooms with technology 2 179 More modern facilities needed. Larger class rooms, better seats, less crowding. 41, 42 180 More seminar tables for the smaller classrooms (it creates a much different environment than a cluster of those chairs with the built-in desks). More reliable (and season-appropriate) 31, 41 climate control. April 2009 G-7 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-1 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

181 more space for students, less chairs. No room for teachers to walk around 41 182 More space, regulate temperature better, equip with up to date media and technology, make sure media/internet is working, make sure light bulbs in overhead projectors work, 2, 7, 31, 43 fix/change desks that are broken 183 Most, if not all, rooms equiped with computer/projector equipment. 2 184 Movable chairs, functioning HVAC 31, 37 185 my classroom (TO 247) has very inconsistent trash pickup and janitorial services. it is also just barely large enough for my 70 enrolled students, making exam administration difficult. 38, 42

186 My classroom has been cleaned only once the entire quarter. The students have mentioned how dirty it is. Also, the classroom is much too small for my class size. 38, 42 187 My classroom in Scott Labs this quarter is 80F on a regular basis, and I cannot for the life of me find the contact info for the person who could fix this. This is annoying, and it is 31 irresponsible of facilities management. 188 My classroom never has chalk, is hardly ever cleaned, is dusty, etc. 38, 43 189 My previous classroom is in Watts building, and the classroom doesn't have any windows. Often my students would feel physically uncomfortable due to the poor ventilating system. So 31 I hope that classrooms like this should have better ventilating equipment. 190 N/A 191 Need more windows to the outside environment. 46 192 need windows for temperature regulation 31 193 needs to be cleaner...security on class room doors...ability to lock doors from the inside in case of a lockdown. 38 194 New desks, chairs 41 195 New seats need to be placed in the room that I teach in. 41 196 Noise -- utterly impossible to conduct classes about half of the time. Climate control -- apparently, there is none. Chalk. Replace the blackboards from 1890. 31, 40, 43 197 Noise is the biggest problem--mostly street noise from buses and construction, sometimes also noise from old heating systems etc. It can be very disruptive. 48 198 None 199 None - I love Page Hall 10 200 None. 201 Occasionally there are heating/cooling issues, especially in the fall or spring, when the transition between heating and cooling takes place. Teaching in a classroom that is 80 degrees 31 or warmer is very challenging. 202 Occassionally check ventilation 1. Make sure working 2. See if it is noisey 31 203 often find no erasers, no chalk. In 1015 McPherson lab and 1000 McPherson lab the mechanism for raising and lowering chalkboards were broken for months! Months! These 43 rooms were used to teach 1000's of students and the university was not able to get the chalk boards repaired within a few days. 204 Often, my students were crowded into a room. I think more attention needs to paid to enrollment versus size of the room assigned. 42 205 On weekend be sure someone does not turn the heat up to 80 degrees so that a 7:30 class on Monday is in an oven. 31 206 Page Hall 0010 was freezing when I taught in it in Winter 2008. The air conditioning ran every class, and students had to sit in class wearing their hats, scarves, coats, and often 31 gloves. 207 Painting, carpeting, would made a nicer physical environment, but I don't think that's nearly as important as classroom equipment--esp. technology. That's where I would focus 2, 43 resources. 208 Place slide down screen for projector in way that allows the simultaneous use of chalkboard when necessary. In the class I use, once I start to use the powerpoint, I am unable to use 40 the chalkboard, and this is simply because the slide down screen for the projector covers the chalkboard. 209 Please remove all desks that are physically nailed to the floor. 37 210 Provide chalk in the classrooms 43 211 Provide proper lighting and HVAC, and protection from dust and noise due to construction or physical operations. 13, 31, 48 212 Question 1 is not properly programmed because I couldn't enter the responses that I wanted (i.e. the same response for more than 1 question). I had one very bad classroom in the 42 past 2 years. I had 26 students jammed into a room that shouldn't have sat more than 20. I was lecturing about a foot away from the front row and had to chance the background color of my slides from white to black because white was blinding when sitting so close. 213 Ramseyer Hall is a mess. I like how there are modular desks, but that's about where my positive comments end. The desks are generally in poor condition, too small to fit larger people. 34, 41 Chalkboards are long outdated and unbearably messy. 214 Regular cleaning, regular repair of broken chairs/desks, regular replacement of burnt-out light bulbs, fixing missing or damaged ceiling tiles 38, 43 April 2009 G-8 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-1 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

215 Regular repair of chairs/desks Regular replacement of fluorescent tubes More proactive attention (systematic evaluation rather than response to complaint) 43 216 Remove all the tiny, bolted-to-the-floor, 1960's desks. 37 217 Repair seats (or get new ones); paint the walls; clean the floors and chairs more frequently; check lighting regularly. Most of this is more applicable to large lecture halls, although some 38, 43 of the classrooms could use more frequent attention, as well. 218 Replace old chairs and desks. Improve the lighting systems. Too many lights are out and what lighting remains is typically bad (unless you're in a new classroom) 13, 41 219 room is consistently over 80deg F. (winter or summer) cool the room! 31 220 Rooms and equipment in Scott Labs are great. Ramsayer Hall room was awful, but technology OK. 53 221 SB 200 is VERY cold. My students wear gloves in class it is so cold. The A/C may have been on as late as November. This is a waste of money and makes for a difficult learning 31 environment when students wear coats and gloves and can't wait to leave. NOTE - the survey on pg. 1 would only allow one vote of three. 222 Schoenbaum 105 - lighting near the board difficult to moderate - students sometimes had difficulty with on screen presentatiins (there was a glare) 13 223 seats are always in rows; a "u" formation is better for discussions 37 224 Several classrooms I've been in don't seem to be cleaned on a regular basis, particularly the floor. 38 225 several lights out all quarter in EA 170 9 226 Simple way to connect the instructors laptop. It can be done but is more difficult than it should be 227 Smith 1153 is an embarasment. It has been for a long time. 5 228 some are overcrowded with furniture; furniture can't be moved around within the classroom 37 229 Some are well equipped, others are dingy and unequipped. In either case, chalk is usually lacking and I use the board a lot, I guess. Hence my ""neutral" evaluation - I really don't like 16, 43 dragging in equipment for occasional classroom use, so I guess I'm spoiled. 230 Some classroom have far too many student desks to be practical. Keep classrooms relatively clean. 38, 42 231 Some classrooms (in particular, I'm thinking of Caldwell labs) have impractical chalkboard layouts; not much that can be done about it though. 40 232 some classrooms (thinking of Arps 012 in particular) are not cleaned regularly. Even the computer equipment is dirty. Also, some classrooms are stadium seating, which doesn't work 37, 38 for group exercises very well. 233 Some classrooms are extremely hot in the Winter (especially in Ramseyer) and there is no way to adjust the temperature. I've had to open windows while it's snowing outside. 31

234 Some classrooms are just in old buildings or have no windows, so there's nothing to improve these rooms easily... 46 235 Some classrooms need to be cleaned more often, however it really is building specific. 38, 53 236 Some classrooms that do not have technology also do not have adequate chalkboard space. In addition, the condition of some of the rooms and the desks could be improved as they 2, 40, 43 are beyond the normal "wear and tear". 237 Some of the classrooms in older buildings are too small and student barely have space between rows of chairs. 42 238 Some of the rooms are very much better than others. Most of the problems are climate related- loud fans, excessively hot/cold classrooms. Some of the classrooms have more extreme 31, 53 age-related issues. 239 Some older rooms need to be repainted 43 240 Some projectors are dim and require turning off nearly all classroom lights, creating an environment for sleep. 13 241 Some rooms have not been cleaned very well. When it is hot,it is useless to try the A/C since it's too loud. (modernization issue?) 31, 38 242 Sometimes too hot or too cold. Better regulation of the climate would be good. 31 243 Sound proofing, AC, Desks/Chairs 31, 41, 48 244 Space between blackboard and front row too narrow. 33 245 Stillman hall room 145, there are lights that do not shut off so the screen is difficult to see. Either the blinds need to be replaced with room darkening shades or there needs to be a 13 shut-off for all of the ceiling lights 246 Stop trying to cram as many desks as humanly possible into each classroom. 42 247 Technology in every room, reliable heating and cooling. 2, 31 248 Technology needs to be installed in all classrooms. Computers need to be installed also. Often providing technology is an obstacle to use for teaching. 2, 11, 16 249 temperature 31 250 Temperature control 31 251 Temperature control 31 252 Temperature control in the building (Koffolt) needs to be improved. Some days the rooms are cold, other days way too hot. 31 April 2009 G-9 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-1 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

253 Temperature control is often poor (too hot, too cold, poor circulation (stuffy)). Tell the clean-up people not to rearrange the chairs. 31 254 Temperature control needs to be addressed. During the last exam, the room temperature was over 85 degrees. The lecture hall I was in last year and the year before is very 31, 43 antiquated. The paint is chipping and has faded to a disturbing mauve color. Several seats were broken. 255 Temperature control would help. In comparison to other rooms I have used, the ones in Ramseyer are the worst. 31 256 Temperature in the room I was in was too hot with little ventilation. 31 257 temperatures were off--either too hot or too cold. I was in the basement of UH and it felt like a dungeon. It was in the corner and not a good learning environment. Also, at times I was 31 uncomfortable in that my cell didn't work, the class was in the corner and if something bad would have happened, I'm not sure how I would have gotten help or out of the room.

258 Temprature control, size, light 13, 31 259 The addition of technology would be a big help. Quieter window air conditioners would help, too. 2, 31 260 The air circulation is bad, so I have to keep the door open. But since it's a narrow hallway and the classroom is besides the door to the hallway, the students are distracted all the time 31

261 The best atmosphere for discussion is in rooms that have the desks that can be put together to create tables of any size. I use a rectangle with an opening to get to the inside to collect 37 papers, etc.; a table, rather than separate seats with writing arms, creates a more collegial feeling. The tables and chairs can also be moved to allow for small groups, or put in rows for films. 262 The chairs are outrageously uncomfortable--I have to give students breaks just so they can get out of their chairs and stretch. 41 263 The chairs in the College of Social Work are very small for bigger people. There needs to be new technology for the black boards incorporated 24, 41 264 The chairs/desks are falling apart in many classrooms, window blinds don't work, there is a general air of shabbiness. 43 265 The chalkboards are Scott Lab are difficult to work with. If you are the first class of the day, the boards are perfectly clean, but if you erase what you already wrote on the board it 40 becomes impossible to read anything you write from that point on. 266 The classroom I am currently in is small and cramped. My students immediately complained about the room on the first day. It is in the basement of University Hall. There are some 42 nice rooms in the basement of University Hall, and I have taught in some of them. But my current room is difficult to teach in. The students are on top of each other and the desks are small. It is difficult for them to take notes. 267 The classroom rarely matches the class size. A better fit would be nice to encourage discussion. 42 268 The classroom technology is not always reliable and different units function in different ways in different classrooms. Window shades in Hagerty basement difficult to lower and raise. 3, 43

269 The classrooms are very crowded, which makes it difficult to conduct quizzes and exams. 42 270 The classrooms in CC are often too small for 25-students courses. I think that the theoretical capacity often doesn't match the reality. 42 271 The classrooms in Orton were newly remodeled and nice, but the bathroom facilities were old and needed attention. There were also too few bathrooms. For a classroom for 75 54 students, 2 toilets per sex isn't enough and there is a line at the mid-class break that took too long. 272 The classrooms in Pressey Hall are always filthy. 38 273 The classrooms in the Business complex are great. If business classes are taught outside the complex, then the rooms really need to be updated with white boards to begin. 40

274 The classrooms need to be cleaned. I seem to share my room with someone who has parties with food and there are food particles on my desks and on the floor. Also, the chalkboards 38 and erasers should be cleaned better. 275 The classrooms tend to be too small for the number of desks placed in them, and too many classrooms have no technology in the classrooms (except for overheads). 2, 42 276 the clocks should changed to correspond with daylight savings time 14 277 The desks were consistently poorly spaced in the classroom I was teaching, such that some rows were very narrow, while others were quite wide. In addition, the students at the back of the classroom had a VERY difficult time seeing things that were projected when they were located on the bottom half of the screen. 278 The environment is fine. 17 279 The floors are always dirty. 38 280 The floors aren't cleaned consistently and chalk is constantly lacking. 38, 43 281 The floors were usually dirty, so be sure the floors are swept everyday. The chairs and/or desks are decades old and very uncomfortable to sit in for 2 hours of class or more. New 38, 41 chairs and desks with a cushioned seat would be great. April 2009 G-10 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-1 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

282 The furniture in some rooms I have taught in is old, unsightly and falling apart. The heating and air conditioning has also been spotty. (Rooms with window unit air conditions are tough 31, 43 to teach in -- the units are too loud to leave on during class, which means the room heats up.) The chalkboards in some rooms are not cleaned very well either -- chalk dust accumulates, along with little nibs of chalk, and it becomes a mess. In some rooms there is also too much "extra" furniture near the front of the room -- old chairs that don't get used, multiple overhead projectors that are unbalanced, etc. 283 The heating and air conditioning are completely out of whack. It's either hot or cold as hell, but nothing in between. 31 284 The majority of the classrooms are good. Some of them have really small desk-chairs that make note-taking difficult. 41 285 The number of light switches is a bit overwhelming and it takes a few tries to figure out the right combination so that students are not blinded or left in the dark. 13 286 The physical environment has been good in almost every classroom in which I've taught. 17 287 The physical environment of the classrooms in Hagerty are great. Overall, however, I would like to see instructors and faculty be able to teach in the same building in which their offices are located. 288 The physical environment was older and slightly dingy, but it was satisfactory for the purposes. 49 289 The room in Dulles where I teach is very small, for the amount of students in the class. 42 290 The room in Smith is dark and dated. 13 291 The room is crammed full of chairs and doesn't even have a working clock 14, 42 292 The room temperature in Bolz 101D was not well controlled. During late fall, it dropped substantially. Also, there are some leaks from the ceiling. 31, 43 293 The room was always extremely hot (and I taught during Winter quarter). 31 294 The rooms are sometimes too hot or too cold. 31 295 The rooms in the older buildings could be cleaner. The student seats in some of the lecture halls are pretty beat up. 38, 41 296 The server has gone out in each of the last two sessions and we can't get to Carmen. 9 297 The space would work better if fewer students were assigned to a section. Right now, the classrooms can be very crowded. 42 298 The temperature in some of the classrooms seems to vary widely. Perhaps some of the temperature control keypads could be improved, or easier to use. 31 299 The temperature of the classroom was very unstable. Unfavorable conditions make it hard for students to learn. 31 300 The temperature should be easy to control. There should be room for students to turn around to communicate behind them. There should be COMPUTERS in EVERY SINGLE 11, 31 CLASSROOM. This I cannot stress enough, it is ridiculous to have to teach in a room without a computer. 301 The variability in classrooms is huge. Some rooms I've been assigned have been great, but others have awkward setups or are too hot/cold. 31, 53 302 Then are not very clean. 38 303 There are immense difference between buildings that should be improved. Teaching in the basement in Dulles, for example, is particularly uncomfortable. 53 304 There are many "extra" things that could be done or provided, that are truly not necessary. Overall I believe that most classrooms contain all of the necessary materials to teach, and for 17 students to learn. 305 There are too many desks crammed into the smaller classrooms. There should be a table at the front of the classroom in addition to a podium. 42 306 There could be lecture halls with long, skinny tables instead of individual desks. This would allow for better group work. 37 307 There is a LOT of variation. my comments pertain to University Hall 014 and Jennings 060, where I taught in 2006 and 2007/2008. In previous years, I have taught in 1315 Kinnear rd 8, 37, 53 and in other buildings where there are no in-room AV capabilities and where desks need to be re-arranged prior to each class. 308 There is no technology in my classroom. There is not even a clock on the wall! My class is from 11:30 -1:18 and there are a lot of other classes at that time, so if I want to show a video 2, 14 or DVD, I have to either reserve that at the very beginning of the quarter, or pick up the technology cart myself and drag it across campus. 309 There needs to be a clock in every classroom room. Period. No exceptions. 14 310 There seems to be a great disparity at times when it comes to the classroom environments. Sometimes the rooms are new, with great technology, but other times, the rooms are in 53 rather poor condition. 311 There should always be chalk or white board pens and erasers. 43 312 there was a light right in front of the projection screen that was on automatic sensor and not controlled by a switch. 13 313 There was no technology in the room for computer projection of power points. Equipment had to be imported for each class. The classroom was to small for small group break-outs 16, 42, 51 and I use these regularly. A new classroom could not be found. 314 There's a wide range of variability between classrooms--some of them are fantastic, some of them are dreadful. Making the hook-ups and features of the classrooms more standard 3, 53 across the university would be a giant step in the right direction. 315 They are often too hot and stuffy. 31 April 2009 G-11 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-1 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

316 They are often very, very dirty with trash all over the place - I usually walk around the room and pick up trash myself. I don't know how often these rooms are cleaned but it doesn't 38 appear to be on a daily basis. 317 They could be clean and have no damaged furniture. 38, 43 318 They could be more technology friendly with approriate hookups, outlets and the like 2 319 They need to be cleaned more often. Many times there is trash and other things left from previous classes and or quarters. It would go a long way in improving the appearances of 38 many class rooms. 320 this classroom (CL1109) may not be too bad to hold a class only if it has fewer than 10 students in and it is taught mainly in discussion style. It is very poorly structured for 100 level 42 class that has 35 students... 321 This survey is flawed as one room I teach in is very good and one is bad. Since I assume that you want to know about the bad one, that is how i replied. The bad room is in Hayes 2, 38, 43, 53 Hall. The place is dirty, the chairs are askew and don't match, and the technology is primitive. 322 Tiered seating is helpful because I am able to see each student's face from the front of the classroom. 323 Tiny basement classrooms should only be used for small classes. 42 324 Too many seats in a room. Engineering classrooms need large desks. 41, 42 325 Transition from chalkboards to whiteboards for dry-erase markers. 34 326 Ugly furniture, old building! Remodel and refurnish, please! 41 327 Unfortunately, it seems that many of the classrooms are just old and worn down so I'm not sure what specifically could be done to improve them. A simple improvement would be to 40, 43 make sure that all the blinds are working properly. In some of the large lecture classrooms the boards that move up and down are too stiff, so improving the mobility of those boards would also be helpful. 328 Updated seating (broken desks, etc) 41 329 Upgrade projectors and classroom computers in rooms where technology is >5 yrs old (e.g. Townshend) 23 330 Upgrade the facilities. 331 -ventilation, even temperature (not too hot, not too cold), replacement of old chairs (stuffy, heavy, small writing space) 31, 41 332 very nice and clean 17 333 We don't have to put everyhting on a computer. We have had problems with lights and microphones becasue the computer had problems. 9 334 We need chair-desk combinations that accomodate large and handicapped people or enough free-standing desks and chairs without attached tables. Many people cannot fit into the 39, 41 chairs with built-in desks on them and there are only 3 free-standing desks and 4 free-standing chairs in the room I taught in (Stillman 135). This is the case with most Stillman Hall classrooms. As the instructor, I use one of the chairs without an attached desk and the teaching assistant uses another chair without an attached desk. This only leaves 2 chairs without attached desks in the room. This is not enough for each table to have a chair, and not enough to meet the needs of more than 2 large or handicapped students. I recommend having at least 4 free-standing desks/tables and at least 6 free-standing chairs without attached desks in each classroom.

335 We really don't have any control over heat or a/c. Sometimes the temp is a little off. 31 336 We were a smallish (17) workshop format class and found the arrangement of the tables constraining -- people were too far apart for conversation. 42 337 We were in Denny - on several days there were building level alarms going off that everyone needed to ignore because no one knew how to turn them off and they did not seem to be 43 'about' anything. This is dangerous, because it teaches people to ignore alarms (not a good skill during a fire, for example). This isn't a classroom, but the bathrooms were not clean and the plumbing was faulty (e.g. there was a continuously flushing toilet in the women's for over a week). 338 well - I was in Townsend and their was no air; it was noisy and I felt like I was in the middle of a construction site! 31, 48 339 Windows didn't work too well (not the computer kind)... Also, the room was constantly in a state of disarray, with chairs pretty much everywhere. 43 340 windows or more natural light 46 341 windows should be able to open. it is impossible to keep people involved when they are faint from heat. 31, 43 342 Windows sometimes don't open, shades are broken, rooms can be very cramped, outside noises are often distracting. 43, 48 343 Wish class size were smaller - 45 each year 344 Working blinds, labeled light switches, clocks with correct times, a consistent set of furniture (e.g. a table up front that doesn't leave the room mid-quarter) 14, 43 345 working technology pleasant atmosphere clean rooms 29, 49 April 2009 G-12 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-2 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

1 ... when the technology works, it's great. When it doesn't, it can ruin a class. Just taught a large class in Evans Lab, and (to be honest) it's a crap-shoot whether the mics are working 16, 29 or projectors come on or images bounces around a screen etc. And this deal about crossing between Macs and PCs is awful--a bad and unnecessarily complicated compromise that sends me nuts and that I just don't trust. The only time I was in a classroom with one of these mini panels on the wall, I gave up using any of the classroom technology and had a DVD and projector brought in each class--that never worked consistently, and the explanations how it worked non-existent. Otherwise--just to reiterate, because in general I'm very happy with the technology--when it works well, the technology is very good indeed. 2 A guide to what technology was available in the room and how to use it would be helpful. 4, 19 3 A set of starting instruction would be helpful as all classrooms are not the same. 19 4 above 5 Across the board this needs to be improved. I've had to "borrow" overhead projectors from other rooms for example. In general you should ensure there is a projector and computer 1, 11 console in each room. The greater the technology the better it is for all involved. Also it should be spread around, not as a "random gift" if you manage to find yourself in a building that just was renovated. 6 Actually supporting the existing equipment would be helpful. I've had burned out overhead projector bulbs that I called in about after every lecture, each time I was promised they would 29 be fixed by next lecture, and they never were (I eventually had to take a spare bulb from another projector in the building and fix it myself). I have also had classes in rooms that were SUPPOSE to have two overhead projectors and only had one for half the quarter. 7 Add computers to all classrooms 11 8 Adding technology to all classrooms (not all CC rooms have computers/projectors) 2 9 All classrooms need updated. in terms of technology. They need equipment to use PowerPoint, display DVDs, etc. Classrooms are stuck in the 1970s. It is very very frustrating as an 2 instructor to have to bring my own laptop and borrow a projector every class period just to teach my class. This shouldn't be. I went to a small private school with better technology prior to coming to OSU--they had far less money. 10 All classrooms should be technology equipped, including automatic projection screen movement (instead of manual). 2 11 ALL classrooms should have computer capabilities and video projectors available at this point. 1, 11 12 All classrooms should have sympodiums (SMART technology) that would allow for more interaction with the technology being used in the classeooms. And there should be more 2 technology-equipped classrooms. 13 All the computers should be up to date with quicktime and powerpoint-- it is hard to use media in the classroom if one is always getting an error message. 23 14 At a minimum, have a working overhead projector in each room. Ideally, a smart set-up, with multimedia project, etc. 2 15 At the beginning of the quarter, do a run through of all computers in classrooms, making sure they have internet access, adobe reader, and other useful tools 29 16 AV equipped classrooms are excellent; the delivery of materials to non AV classrooms is appreciated, but the quality and readiness of the equipment varies widely. 16 17 available in more classrooms - i.e., all rooms have a video projector 2 18 Base configuration in any room should be such to permit bringing own laptop to plug into present projection system. 1 19 better and easier printer availability 20 Better and more convenient sound systems 8 21 Better blackboards, and more of them. 40 22 Better internet hookups needed everywhere, esp. in Central Classrooms. By now an internet hookup that works (and works the same way as all the others) is as essential as a 7 chalkboard. 23 Better lighting control in 250 Knowlton Hall. Have video cords available for use with laptops. Make the rooms compatible for both Macs and PCs. 13, 28 24 better, happier lighting. temperature control. 13, 31 25 chalk provided, good quality not the cheapest brand 43 26 Check regularly! 29 27 Classroom with laptop hook-ups should also have a desktop computer. It is incredibly inconvenient to haul around a laptop, notes, books, and students' assignments. 11 28 Classrooms could be greatly improved by the addition of wireless clickers and laser pointers for Power Point presentations. The greatest challenge I face in the classroom is being 32 "tethered" to the computer mouse while teaching. An instructor's ability to move throughout the classroom and interact with students while presenting information on screen during lecture is essential to creating an interactive teaching environment. 29 Classrooms should all be equipped with computers (with monitors) & projectors to best facilitate learning and lecture-styles. 1, 11 30 Clean and calibrate overhead projectors. 1 31 Clear instructions in technology classrooms for use of technologies, particularly remote operation of overhead projectors. 4 32 clicker technology readily available for every class/instructor 32 April 2009 G-13 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-2 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

33 Computer and projector in all rooms 1, 11 34 computer for vedio equipment is old and obsolete 23 35 Computer projectors that work, overhead projectors that work, instructions on how to use the "technology" the first time that one is in a given classroom. 4, 9 36 Computer systems in all classrooms. e.g. powerpoint technology... 2 37 Computers and attached projectors in every classroom would be great, but expensive. 1, 11 38 Computers and Projectors in every classroom would be nice. 1, 11 39 Computers should have a User Profile when you log in. This technology has been available for well over a decade. The user profile should include the ability to save files. If you don't 21 know what this means, contact Dan Vehr ([email protected]) who oversees the College of Engineering Region 1 Computer Labs. 40 Consistency would be great. I've found classroom services very helpful whenever I've had problems with technology in the classroom, so keep up the good work! 3 41 Consistent standards for equipment (better than before, but still much to be desired), better maintenance, attention to details of room lighting - most rooms are not lit correctly for 3, 13, 29 modern digital projection (lights that shine on the screen, fluorescents up front that can't be turned off, ...) 42 Create an easier way to interface with all of the mechanisms in the classroom; blinds, shades, lighting, internet, screens, etc.. Many times the wires are hanging and it is not clear 4, 13 where to connect them for the laptop. Why should the instructor have to do that. The laptop should already be connected 43 Current arrangement is adequate. 17 44 Daily checked-out computers from the technology center should be customized further to avoid several software startup screens and configuration panels. 21 45 Denney 245 is a good model; it provides all I really need. It would be great if it were standard issue. 3 46 Depending on the building, it can be difficult to order technology. Some buildings seem to have more technology available for delivery than others. 3, 16 47 Distribute it more evenly. There is great technology in the large lecture halls, but nothing more than overhead projectors in most classrooms. It seems that installing computer 3, 16 projectors in a more widespread manner would be the most beneficial so that students in smaller classes could have the same benefits as those in larger classes.

48 Don't use Cunz Hall ever again. 5 49 Dual Screens, Smart Boards 24 50 Dust equipment regularly. 38 51 DVD player jams, computer can use updated media codecs. 9, 21 52 Each classroom should have appropriate overhead projectors and computer support for PowerPoint presentation capability and each room should be equipped with outlets for students 1, 11, 35 laptop computer usage as a standard feature. 53 Each classroom should have AT LEAST an instructor's machine with an in-ceiling projector. 1, 11 54 Each classroom should have its own computer and projector, rather than simply the old-fashioned overhead projectors. This would encourage instructors to use power point more 1, 11 often, and students would not have to jump through as many hoops to access equipment for presentations. Having computers on site would also enable instructors to show students online resources. 55 Equipping all the classrooms would be a help. It's unclear when one should bring one's own equipment, or what to do if there's no equipment at all. 2 56 Excellent 17 57 Explicit instructions about putting files on the computer systems and what happens to files left on on the desktop. I just experienced deletion of several files that I put on one evening for 4 the next day's event and the next morning all files had been erased. 58 Find a way to arrange rooms so the projector can be used at the same time as a white board, overhead transparency projector, or other source of on-the-fly written material. 37

59 First, I think we need more classrooms to be hooked up for dvd and computer projection. Second, we need to make sure this equipment works. I often have to call technology services 2, 29 or our DMP group to get someone to fix the sound or the projector, and there are times when I just give up. 60 First, include a computer in every classroom. The technology in the classroom services building is terrible. It goes in and out of working. The volume control is never loud enough - 11, 29 or, it will be one day, then the next day, it doesn't work. The laptops you rent out barely ever work perfectly. They won't play the required files, and they seldom boot up easily. Also, if a projector in a room is not working, CC should have a backup room that people can move to. If a projector isn't working for a few days, especially. We work hard on our PowerPoint lectures, and to be unable to show them is a disservice to us and do the students. 61 Fit all classrooms with projector equipment. This seems to be ongoing, but is not yet there. Also, make sure the equipment remains in working order- I've had problems with broken 1, 29 internet sockets, etc. 62 for the past couple years, I have had a smarted classroom - it is great 18 63 Functioning overhead projectors. 29 April 2009 G-14 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-2 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

64 Give language classes classrooms with technology - dvd player, computer and projector in the room. 2, 5 65 Given that computers are integral to today's learning, being able to teach with tools on-line would have been very helpful. Students today need to have multiple senses accessed at 16 once in order to learn. I found so many things on-line but trying to rent equipment (and also have on-line access and a screen) made it ultimately too difficult to initiate.

66 great job 17 67 Have a remote control for the projector; have the control panel and the computer located at a more convenient places. Allow DVD sound heard at far site, allow teachers able to see 32, 33 students at the far site when using DVD. HH145 68 Have more classrooms with computers and projector systems already set up 1, 11 69 Have some. The small handful of "tech" classrooms is completely inadequate and never available, and apparently nobody thought of considering where the instructor has to stand to 16 use an overhead projector. 70 Have technology in all classrooms. In rooms with just projectors, every thing is a problem and nothing works smoothly. 2 71 Have technology in all classrooms. It is difficult to switch back and forth depending on the technology you have in the room. 2 72 having MAC adapters for those who wish to plug laptops into the projector system. 28 73 Having technology in the classrooms would be a start. Just a computer where one could play powerpoint, music, etc. 2 74 HH 0062 has excellent technology. No improvement needed. 75 I am happy with the technology of the rooms I have used. 17 76 I am teaching in a classroom in Boltz Hall. We have old desks and no AV equipment (besides two thirty-year-old Zenith TV's). It does not both me as much because I do not need the 8 equipment and I understand upgrades are expensive. I can easily say though that my presentations would be a great deal more excitied (?) if I had AV equipment at my disposal.

77 I am very pleased with the scope of the technology, however there has been interuption of service due to breakdown of equipment...all in all technology at the OSU campus is well 17 above average. 78 I am very pleased with the technology. 17 79 I could use a projector that could project a computer file of images on the last day of class, but I realize that you can't have one in every room. On the other hand, I may get around to 1 ordering one. 80 I don't really have any opinion one way or the other; I teach small courses using a chalkboard. 17 81 I don't use "technology" 82 I find it delightful, especially since I've taught off campus. 17 83 i had some technical difficulties getting the usb port to work. i called before classes had started, and was told that there was no guarantee that the equipment would work until the first 9, 10 day of classes, which is an odd policy because obviously by that time you are screwed. anyway, first day of class the usb port still wasn't working, so they sent someone over and while i appreciated that they came so quickly, it was rather disruptive because i kept having to talk to him while trying to teach my class. 84 I have always been happy with the technology in my classrooms. Additionally, OIT has been extremely helpful whenever I had a problem. My only issue has been the clocks. Either I did 14 not have a clock, the clock was broke, or it stopped working during the quarter. I have to use my cell phone to keep track of time. 85 I have been pleased with the technology so far. 17 86 I have had bad experiences in the past with classroom services' delivered technology, especially VCR-DVD players and projectors, and laptops and projectors. There are many 3, 9, 23 different brands of equipment delivered, and some it is rather old. Sometimes these items arrive in the classroom properly hooked up, sometimes not. I have had problems, especially, with trying to show international DVDs, since the players are not multi-zoned and since the laptops often have problems communicating with the projectors. It makes for a very frustrating teaching experience. If the university cannot equip classrooms with decent technology, then it needs to invest in better equipment that can be delivered, and it needs to insure that equipment arrives properly hooked up and with back-up instructions attached to the equipment. 87 I have had repeated issues getting proper software/plugins on computers in classrooms. The tech support has been very poor. 10 88 I have had trouble getting a classroom with a computer/projector, and even when I can get one the equipment often doesn't work properly. I have found that it takes several calls to OIT 9, 10 to get any problem fixed. Also, the overhead projectors on the carts in classrooms are usually old and don't work well. 89 I have not had an issue 17 90 I have not used the classroom technology. 91 I have only had one classroom with installed technology, and it has met all my needs. For other quarters, I have ordered technology from OIT and it has worked fine. 17 92 I have run into the situation a few times where the podium technology is not available when I clearly have the classroom reserved, not sure how that happens but is dissappointing 16 when 150-200 kids there expecting an orientation. April 2009 G-15 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-2 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

93 I have taught in a number of classrooms where the projection screen covers the chalkboard, leading to an either/or situation where many instructors like to use both screen and 40 chalkboard. This could be easily (and cheaply) remedies in many instances by providing a small auxilliary chalkboard alongside the screen. 94 I have taught in classrooms complete with DVD, CD, internet, projector, etc. This makes teaching much more professional, effective and easier. 95 I have to bring a computer to class that is reserved through classroom services. I wish all classrooms had a smart desk/computer. 2 96 I hope computers and projectors will be available in most classrooms. 1, 11 97 I like the classrooms with the overhead projectors that can be used in conjunction with the whiteboard (e.g. SB330). I wish all the classrooms I teach in had this facility. 98 I only had an overhead projector. Whilst a computer would have been the ideal, any sort of technology would have been helpful 11 99 I taught in Scott Labs. One feature that would have been nice to have is the ability to control lights from the computer panel. But I do not think this is a major issue at all. 13 100 I teach in BE 180, but before I requested a switch I hated the Aviation Building. It should be condemned or redone. I am amazed and disappointed that Ohio State would even hold 2 classes in a buildign so outdated with NO TECHNOLOGY. THEY OVERHEAR WAS AT LEAST 20 yrs old. 101 I think that all language courses should be scheduled for classrooms equiped with technology. Ordering a media cart for every class is only a partial solution. The teacher has to set up 2, 5 the media (including plugging in the cart, starting the computer etc.), which takes some time and leads sometimes to delays, especially when the class before runs over its time.

102 I think that making more class-rooms computer friendly would be helpful--classrooms such as Denney 238 and Denney 250 are great for all kinds of educational purposes. It would be 2 nice to have the technology in smaller classrooms as well. 103 I think the technology is great. 17 104 I understand having computers in all classrooms is expensive, but it is becoming a must in today's environment. I had to bring my PERSONAL laptop into class in order to teach with 1, 11 powerpoint. At least having a projector in every classroom, so we don't have to wait for the tech people to bring the projector, would be good. 105 I use overhead projectors, some of them are in really poor shape. 29 106 I used portable projectors in Caldwell 109 and Baker 130. It was somewhat a hassle being sure to make reservations enough in advance to have equipment available....apparently 16, 29 there are not enough laptops for loaning out sometimes and not all of us have our own.... Maybe too few of us use the overhead projectors any more, but the ones in those rooms are old and filled with chalk dust inside so the projection quality is extremely poor....could someone take them apart and clean them? 107 I was pretty satisfied with the technology in the classrooms in which I taught. 17 108 i was unable to modify the picture on the overhead projector, so the colors are often distorted 9 109 I wish it had been wired with internet. 7 110 I would have liked a projector like is in Rm 252 Campbell hall where I can place an open book/printed page under a camera and have it projected onto the screen at the front of the 1 room.(Like the lower tech opaque projector.) 111 I would have liked to have had computer projectors available to use. I realize funding is tight, but I have been at many other schools of a much lower rank than OSU and they have 1, 9, 25, 43 computer projectors in every classroom. Also ELMOs are really nice and have much more to offer than Overheads. On more than one occasion the overhead projector wasn't working in my classroom. Again the chalkboards were not of high enough quality or had been poorly maintained and the whiteboards in EA where not being cleaned properly and are probably unsalvagable at this point. A well maintained whiteboard should have zero streaking when you erase the marker. I believe that (depending on the type of board) they should be cleaned with a special product that leaves a thin layer on the board to ease in erasing. 112 I would like to see a classroom that is equipped with flexibly deployable laptops or computer workstations that would allow students to work together in small groups to research or do 11 group presentations together; the addition of whiteboards and remote tools for students to collaborate and present their results through the projection system would also be an excellent addition to classrooms where languages are typically taught. 113 I'd put the two control panels on the same side of the room. Also, I'd update the panel on the teacher's podium. 114 Ideally, every room would be equipped with 'smart' technology that would make it possible for instructors to integrate media into classes smoothly and seamlessly. 2, 18 115 If possible, I think it would be beneficial for all rooms to have computers installed. One room I used last year had a projector but no computer. As a result, I had to acquire a laptop 11 from OIT before each class. Setting up the laptop on a daily and troubleshooting when they were problems took up a lot of class time. 116 If the acoustic in the room is particularly bad, for example, provide microphones that work. Make sure that chalk is available if there is a blacboard. 30, 43 117 I'm generally happy with what is available in the technology rooms. One disappointment is that the overhead projectors have disappeared, even from rooms that have two screens but 15, 32 only on computer projector. I sometimes like to put a drawing up on an overhead projector while continuing to advance through PowerPoint slides related to the drawing. For the future, increased access to clickers is worth looking at. 118 I'm much happier with the immediate access to technology in HH--it's annoying to order equipment for my room in CC. 16 119 Improvement would be secured by making technology available in more classrooms. 2 April 2009 G-16 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-2 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

120 In classrooms where a microphone may be required, wireless microphones should be available. Wired microphones make it difficult to move around, which, in turn, hurts the quality of 30, 40 the lecture. Also, some classrooms have too little chalkboard space, which hurts flexibility in lecture. 121 In Schoenbaum rooms, need to be able to use the projector and the whiteboard concurrently. 40 122 In some classrooms with projection equipment, the screen completely blocks the chalkboards. A chalkboard (perhaps a movable one) should be available to the instructor for improptu 40 notes during a slide show. 123 In some classrooms, certain technology (VCRs) do not work. 9 124 In stillman hall, room 145 the sound is too quiet when screening VHS materials. 8 125 In that same classroom, I had to check out a laptop from classroom services every day. As if this was not already a pain, the technology didn't work at least once a week. It was always 9, 16 a different problem - one day the lights were constantly flickering, another day the projector didn't work, etc. Classroom services was great but they were certainly busy.

126 In the aforementioned room there was no technology (other than a blackboard) and only one electrical socket that worked. Buildings such as these need total technology overhauls. 2, 35

127 In the computer labs, it would be nice to freeze the students' computers -- this was available in some labs I think, but not mine. 21 128 In the hot room, the document camera failed often. In the other room, the camera, pc, and overhead projector all worked fine. 9 129 In the past 3 quarters I have had limited or no technology in my classroom. This is a real challenge because I use power points and show DVDs almost every time I teach. The time it 2, 9, 19 takes me to hook up my computer and get it to appear on the screen could be used much more productively. And there have been times when glitches of one kind or another have either delayed or eliminated my ability to use technology at all. Classroom Services has provided prompt and amazing support several times, but two quarters I was in a basement with no cell phone service, so even that was not an option. I suggest a system whereby planners have a list of those who use technology frequently so room assignments can be made with that in mind. Or even better, invest in full technology in every classroom. 130 Include overhead projectors that are not broken (or take away broken projectors). Add more technology to the classrooms (add screen projectors with hook-ups that we can use to 2 connect our laptops). 131 Installed PC is a must and projector. The external projector you borrow from classroom service is alright ONLY when you have a larger space. To situate properly (at certain distance), 1, 11 it takes up 2 to 3 sitting places. It is annoying when your classroom is so small and you have over 30 students. 132 Interactive whiteboards would be nice, as well as a document reader. 6, 24 133 Internet connections often unstable -- slow, hang-ups -- especially in late afternoon. 7 134 It could be there. The Technology office does a wonderful job providing equipment, but it is always more work to bring a laptop, connect it, etc. 16 135 It had to be delivered daily and the cart took up room in the classroom further prohibiting movement. 16 136 It is a hardship to access the smart classroom technology in the College of Business buildings. Because the computer terminal in each classroom is only accessible to Business 16 instructors, I must bring a laptop and the requisite cords to class every day. It is time consuming to set up and tear down the equipment. It is dangerous when my students and I trip over all of the cords plugged into the wall. The absence of a podium or high table for my laptop leads to an unwieldy setup when I am lecturing. This is a struggle everyday in class that could be ameliorated if classroom pool instructors received access to the computers locked in the closets of Business classrooms.

137 It is a time when most instructors want technology rooms and will not teach in a room without it. They want it working while they are teaching also. 2 138 It is frustrating to find the 'old', cumbersome technology in classrooms. The 'new' systems controlled from the desktop are excellent. 23 139 It is helpful to be able to use both Powerpoint and a blackboard at the same time. 40 140 It is not dependable. Many days Classroom services has to be called. When called they are VERY responsive and effective, but more pro-active service of equipment is needed. 9, 29

141 It woul be great to have a remote for switching slides in the large lecture halls. 32 142 It would be great if a poster could be hung on the wall over the equipment jacks with explanations on how to do simple set-ups (e.g., what kinds of plugs to put where in order to attach 4 a computer to play a video with sound, how to use the device selector, etc.) 143 It would be great if technology were available in more classrooms. 2 144 It would be helpful if all classrooms had hard-wired and wireless AV hookups, with built in projectors and speakers. It is an absolute plague to teach in unwired classrooms (DE 206 & 2 257) this quarter. 145 It would be helpful to have directions in the room for the technology. My first night in the PAES Building was a bit overwhelming until I finally found a phone # for the "Help" desk. (I had 4 only taught in Arps before...what a difference!!!) April 2009 G-17 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-2 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

146 It would be nice if all classrooms were equipped with technology; it's good that Central Classrooms have the projectors built in, but it's a pain to have to lug your own computer and cord 2 around. 147 It would be nice if all classrooms, including smaller ones, would have the same technological features. 2 148 It would be nice if all the rooms could have computer technology. Otherwise, we have to depend that it will be delivered, and this is very stressful. 2 149 It would be nice if there was consistency between the classrooms on campus. I feel there is a movement towards this, but it is just a matter of time. 3 150 It would be nice to have a computer available. I had a cart delivered every time, which worked well, but was inconvenient at times. Also, the wireless didn't always work down in the 7, 11 basement. 151 It would be so helpful to have a computer in each classroom. 11 152 It would just be nice to have some technology. I wanted to show some digital stories and a power point this quarter but since I don't own a lap top I would have had to pick one up as 1, 11 well as request the tech support for the lap top. That's a lot of trouble to go to for a 15-20 minute segment of one class. Any way you could streamline this would be wonderful!

153 I've found the technology-equipped classrooms fully adequate to my needs. I only wish there were more of them. 2 154 Just make sure the existing technology in the classrooms is working. 29 155 Keep it clean and in working order 29 156 Less overheads, more computer projection 1 157 Live wireless network connectivity to overhead video projection and large screens. 7 158 Mac computers should be more available; there are frequent problems with the PCs. 28 159 Make all classrooms "smart," regardless of location and size. Is it possible to block wireless access so that students can't use cellphones and laptops during class? 7, 18 160 Make everything commensurate with the highest tech rooms (that is, keep installations up to date). 23 161 Make it available. We do not always have time to go around campus carrying laptops, and projectors. 16 162 Make sure all the overheads work; it would be nice to just have media available in all classrooms, although that's a bit of a stretch. 2 163 Make sure that technology is serviced on a regular basis. This doesn't seem to be consistent. 29 164 make sure that the rooms have adjustable lighting and that the computer systems work (though that has not been an issue recently for me) 13, 29 165 Making sure there is a computer in every classroom - having to bring in your own labtop for lecturing or check one out is incredibly inconvenient. 11 166 Many classrooms are without computer capability. This limits the choices of visual presentations. Also - some rooms are so packed with desks there is no room to maneuver the 2, 34 overhead projector. While chalk boards work, it might be nice to have magic-marker boards. The chalk really gets on everything (and it doesn't help if one accidentally inhales chalk dust) 167 Many of the classrooms require that you provide your own laptop. That's just not feasible. When you do check out a laptop, it's a different one every day and operates differently. Such 3, 11 technology issues take away substantially from class time. It would be nice if they were more uniform. 168 Media in all classrooms 2 169 modernized/in working order, universal set-ups around campus, & available in ALL classrooms 2, 3 170 More A/V rooms and rooms with A/V equipment should be able to be fully darkened for video projection. 2, 13 171 More built-in technology (computer, projector, DVD player). Use of such technology has become routine in almost all of my classes, but there aren't enough such classrooms to go 2 around and bringing in portable equipment has more often than not created problems that leave me and my students quite flustered. 172 More Carmen ready classrooms and internet access 7 173 more classrooms need technology 2 174 More consistent, especially for instructors who teach in several classrooms. Have the same kind of set up across campus. Don't run updates on software or hardware in the 3, 29 classrooms during times when the room is being used. 175 More control for lights (for the ppt presentations) Updated programs (students use the 2007 ppt version, but the classroom is the 2003 version) 13, 23 176 More instructions in the classroom on how to trouble-shoot problems Make them mac compatible 4, 28 177 More projectors 1 178 More stable computer system--especially when software licenses roll over. 21, 29 179 More standardization with touch screens in all classrooms 3 180 more technology classrooms, the classrooms with technological capabilities are great, there just aren't enough of them 2 181 more uniform equipping of as many classrooms as possible. 2, 3 182 More upgraded software. 23 April 2009 G-18 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-2 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

183 More up-to-date equipment. Clear instructions posted on how to use the equipment. Provide a FAQ for common problems. 4, 23 184 most of the classrooms lack computers and projections 2 185 Most of the technology I've encountered is fairly good and uniform. For some of the older sets instructions for getting the most common functions (powerpoint from desktop) would be 3 nice, but it isn't too hard to figure usually. The best thing is consistency across rooms so that you never have to worry about what resources you will have.

186 Most rooms do not have projectors or computers. 2 187 My classroom does not have any projector or speakers, I had to request to have one every day... 2 188 My current room does not have technology at all. When I requested technology to be delivered, the order was not entered correctly and the equipment never arrived. Then when I 2, 9 called the emergency help line, my call did not go through - twice. Last year I also taught in Hayes Hall, and the technology was nice except the machines were broken and I was told they wouldn't be fixed. I moved between two rooms. My students had a choice of either watching the films in green or without sound. 189 My overhead projector is extremely old and since my classroom is so small I can't even use it because I can't put it far enough away from the board to see. 9 190 My technology is actually very reliable. Classroom services delivers it promptly and when I've had problems they come quickly to resolve the problems. 17 191 My transparency projector has not worked correctly all quarter. I have made several requests for it to be fixed, but so far Media/Technology has not fixed it. 9 192 N/A 193 N/A 194 N/A. 195 Need better sound equipment in the speech/audiology rooms. 8 196 Need more standarized technology in the classrooms. Place clearer instructions on desk in each room. 3, 4 197 Need operation instructions posted somewhere. Once I tried to phone for help, but cell phone did not operate. 4 198 Need overhead data projector in each classroom 1 199 Need posted instructions in classrooms or lecture halls on how to turn on and use the equipment. If it can't be posted these instructions should be available online. Also dual screens 4 should be mounted in lecture halls. It's easier then to make side by side comparisons. 200 needs regular check-ups 29 201 no problems 17 202 no suggestions at this time 203 none 204 None 205 NONE 206 none 207 None - I love Page Hall 10 17 208 None in Fisher. 209 nothing. it was great. 17 210 Often problems with the microphones, even in new buildings 30 211 OK for my use. 17 212 On occasions, overhead projectors were missing. The person in charge should also check that transparencies are also equipped with back up bulbs, should one fail. 29 213 On the rare occasion that I have gotten a classroom with technology, it has been great. But, it's been rare. Provide technology is MORE classrooms!! 2 214 Over the past couple of years, I had tech problems for Powerpoint in Campbell Hall as well as the Psych bldg. They were often resolved, but sometimes the same issue returned 29 weeks later. 215 Overall very pleased with the technology. 17 216 Overall, I found it reliable and serviceable. 17 217 Overhead projectors are very old, and often not bright enough and tend to be dirty/fuzzy. There are still instructors who use the overhead projector, and given their relative low costs, I 9 suggest to replace all old projectors in classrooms. 218 Page Hall 0010 has a lot of great technology, but I taught a film class in it and its dvd player does not have the capability of jumping to a specific time stamp (e.g., if I wanted to go 29 exactly to 27:10 in the film). When I scheduled rooms for this upcoming year, I was told that no large lecture rooms have dvd players with this capability. This technology could be improved immediately by making sure dvd players in classrooms have this capability, which is vital for teaching film courses. 219 Perfect. 17 April 2009 G-19 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-2 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

220 Perhaps some sort of "quick and easy" manual on the desks with the computer and projector items. Also, have firefox more updated, I had to switch to internet explorer on certain flash 4, 23 sites. 221 Place a Sympodium in each of the large classrooms. 222 Please just continue adding it to as many rooms as possible! 2 223 Please see above 224 Possibly a printed, laminated instruction sheet at the computer kiosk (although I know you provide online tutorials). 4 225 Previous classrooms were smart classrooms, and they were great. This quarter, I'm using a "tech cart," and, as often as not, components aren't hooked together, the cart gets in the 18 way of students being able to see, and the computer monitor is at such a strange angle that I can't see it if I'm in front of the class. I miss the smart classroom! 226 Projection screen is nearly impossible to read from 1/3 of all seats in the room. Dual screens and projectors set on angles would promote visual learning for all students. 9 227 Projection system usually works well so no complaints. Would be nice to have new technology available, such as clicker systems. 32 228 projectors 1 229 projectors and screens set up so that all seats can see the whole screen. 1 230 Projects with either computers or copmuter hook-ups in every room 1, 11 231 Provide a laminated set of instructions with the equipment. 4 232 Provide access to computers to students in the classroom so that they can interact with lecturer 7 233 Provide it! 2 234 Put it into every classroom. It's wonderful in the rooms where it is available. But it's very difficult to teach one quarter in a room with the tech, so you can use power point, youtube, web 2, 3 content, etc., and then the next quarter you're in a room with absolutely nothing but a blackboard and overhead. 235 Put screens, projectors and computers in every room! We can't provide suggestions on how technology in the classrooms can be improved if there is no technology. For those 2 classrooms with technology, the best screens are the ones that electronically move up and down. 236 reliable access to the computer system and the video projector 16 237 Remotes for LCD projectors would be handy 32 238 Roll back the Vista upgrade. The machines are terribly slow now and I have had a glitch getting the projector to display the computer screen that I am certain is Vista related. It seems 9, 21 not to happen if I have rebooted the machine instead of logging in. I have lost portions of two class sessiosn due to this. 239 Rooms with good technology are great, just not all of them have it. So no specific suggestions, but the more available the projectors, computers, etc can be, the better. 2 240 Schoenbaum 105 - computer acts up - sometimes can't access the internet, sometimes freezes 9 241 See above 242 see above 243 Should provide interface (cable etc) for connecting laptops. Right now, instructors have to carry their own. 26 244 smart all of the classrooms with equipment that works. provide a computer in each classroom so that instructors don't have to bring their own laptop. 11 245 Smart boards are a good tool. They allow the teachers to be able to write directly on the screen. 24 246 Smart boards! My 3rd grader's classroom is 100% better than mine. Touch screens in many of the Denney rooms are worn out and not responsive, getting stuck and jammed. 9, 24

247 smart classrooms (!!!!!!). if not, make the classroom ready to be hooked up with laptop (rather than making us go to CC, check out cable and/or laptop, carry the laptop all day long, 18, 29 worry about late turning in which means penalty)... 248 SmartBoards are a wonderful tool. 24 249 Some classrooms have truly excellent technological equipment, including good projection quality for PC presentations and DVD's for showing film clips. However, other classrooms do 2, 3 not, and although the portable equipment available from Classroom Services can be a stop-gap measure, it doesn't project an image large enough or crisp enough for 40 students to see adequately. I know cost can be prohibitive, but it would be wonderful if every classroom on campus had equal access to projection technology.

250 Some minor compatability problems with external drives hookup or laptop interface 9 251 Some of the rooms I have been in do not have a touch screen for the equipment but rather have the buttons that you push on the eqiupment on the wall and one of my classrooms in 9, 24 mcquigg would turn off on me randomly throughout lecture. the rooms with touch screens are fantastic. it would be great if we had money to get more of the opaque projectors - i love them and they are only in select rooms. 252 Some projectors are very dim (e.g., Jennings 60). Some of the setups are old and not so good (I'm thinking of at least one room in Baker Systems Eng.) 9 253 Some rooms need smart technology. 18 April 2009 G-20 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-2 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

254 Some smaller class rooms have one overhead projector and one screen. In some classes it is very benefical to have two overhead projectors and two screens. This allows the 2 instructor to refer back to a previous slide. Having two overheads and two screens would be especially useful in some chemistry lectures. 255 Sometimes the oldest least sophisticated method works best, chalk and a chalk board. This class needs the big fat chalk because of how far away some students are from the board. 43 The computers and projector were fine, though sometimes took forever to warm the lamps. 256 Stability. 257 Standard should be rooms like those in Scott Lab. 3 258 Still tough to get a technology enabled room 16 259 Tech equipment and functionality in HH 50 and UH 38 is excellent! 17 260 Tech OK. 17 261 tech was just updated so it was great 17 262 Technology in media classrooms is great. Not everything works all the time though. 17 263 Technology is fine in rooms that have it. It makes is difficult to teach languages, etc., when there is a lack of technology in assigned rooms. 53 264 Technology is great in the wired classrooms in which I've taught. 17 265 Technology is quite good. I would like to be able to load my files onto the classroom computers further in advance of teaching my classes, but this doesn't seem to be possible, since 17 the computers automatically clean off files frequently. 266 Technology should be in all rooms. 2 267 Technology should be in more classrooms. I did not have technology this quarter, and it made things difficult. 2 268 Technology should be integrated into all classrooms. A/V carts are helpful but they can sometimes be a pain because one has to remember to order them for future class sessions 2

269 Technology was adequate, if chalk and erasers had always been available -- they weren't 17, 43 270 the audio for the vcr never worked wireless podium would be nice so you aren't so far away from students ability to draw on the ppt slides so we don't have to use transparencies 8 (reduce waste) 271 The classrooms that have a computer and projector capability on hand are great. Having to request a projector for every class session gets old rather quickly (especially if it doesn't 1, 11 arrive until class is supposed to start and you have to rush to get it set up properly). 272 the computer crashed numerous times every day 9 273 The display unit, especially in older buildings like Baker Engg keep crashing in the middle of class. Please get these replaced. 9 274 The few times I have had technical problems, Classroom services was slow to respond and not very skilled at resolving the issue, leading to loss of instructional time. 9, 10 275 The internet capacity doesn't not seem to be enough. At what must be high-traffic times, I cannot show videos from the internet because they won't stream consistently. 7, 9 276 The IP technology integrated into Scott Lab's classrooms in up to current state of the art 17 277 The lecture hall I am in this year has no computer terminal, so I must bring a laptop. The microphone is not good. It would be much better to have a wireless microphone. 11, 30 278 the ones that are "smarted" are great, the ones that are not are not so nice 18, 53 279 The only tech in the classroom I currently teach in is an overhead projector. 2 280 The positioning of the computers below eye-level in some labs in the Math building are problematic and need to change. They are bad for the back and are difficult to use under the 33 class containers that hold them. 281 The Sympodiums in EA 160 and EA 170 are good additions. 17 282 The tech. in the classrooms is fine. 17 283 The tech. is pretty good. The internet cord could be longer to allow flexibility when using the tech. cart. NOw, the cord is so short, I am stuck in the corner and have to be careful to not 26 trip over it. 284 The tech-equipped classrooms are great. 17 285 The technology in Parks Hall is outstanding. All classrooms should have access to this technology. 2 286 The technology in the room I used worked well and was easy to access. 17 287 The technology is good, but we have frequent problems with computer crashing/freezing. 9 288 The technology is good. No complaints on that count. 17 289 The technology is ok -- but again in TO 255, the main control area (to plug in flash drives, etc) is across the room for the computer and other equipment. 33 290 The technology that is already established in many of the classrooms is excellent. However, there are still many classrooms that need the technology. 53 April 2009 G-21 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-2 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

291 THe video-data classrooms are fine. The HUGE, ENORMOUS problem ( which makes the first three items on this questionnaire impossible to answer) is the large number of 53 classrooms that have NO technology in them. Instructors are pushed and prodded continually to use technology, use powerpoint, use film clips, and then they are given classrooms with no capacity to do that. It's a little crazy. 292 The wireless microphone levels in DL 113 are not adjustable and the reverberations are too strong to allow them to be comfortably used. Perhaps what is needed is a clearly labeled 4, 30 nob or instructions on how to fix this. 293 There could be Sympodiums in more lecture halls, especially IH100 and HI131. Clickers could be attached to the desks in the large lecture halls so the students could use them when 32 they came in, but not wonder off with them. 294 There could be updated technology. Not just ancient overhead projectors, that are often of poor quality. 2 295 There is an overhead in the room, but it disappears from time to time, so I can never count on being able to use it. 16 296 There is none right now. 17 297 There is none! I have the occasional overhead in my classroom left over from a previous instructor, but no other type. 2 298 There is wide variance in the technology provided. The crash carts in some rooms are time consuming and difficult to set-up. It would be nice to see all classrooms equipped with a 16, 53 podium that has the technology already set-up and all in one place. 299 There needs to be some, not all, classrooms that have access to smart boards and overhead projectors instead of having to rent overhead projectors and bring them in. 16 300 There should be video (VGA) cables in the computer rooms. In computer labs, all the computers should work. There should be a standard approach to network file storage so that 3, 9 students in computer labs can save files from one class to the next. 301 There was no computer screen in my classroom, such that when I went to use the computer, I had to situate myself so that I was looking at the screen while trying to maneuver the 9 wireless mouse (which was great - otherwise, this would have been very difficult!!). I didn't realize how much I appreciated a screen for the instructor until I didn't have one in a classroom. 302 There was no computer station or PowerPoint station for the lecture. 1, 11 303 There was no technology except for an overhead projector. 2 304 There was no technology in most of the rooms at all! You might start by adding technology. When I had to request technology carts, their functioning was not always reliable. When I 2, 16 had rooms with technology built in, they generally functioned properly. 305 There was no technology to speak of in the room I used, in the Baker Systems building. 2 306 This quarter it's excellent (Scott Labs, A/V equipped room) 17 307 Those two were very good. 17 308 throw those new mac dual boot systems in the garbage where they belong 9 309 To have built-in computer access in Ramseyer would be wonderful. Other buildings I have had classes in have had these accommodations. 53 310 To optimize the effectiveness of the substantial investment already made in technology, more than light filtering sunshades are needed. It's nice to be able to look out two walls and 13 see the outside, but that's not where I need students' attention to be. 311 Treat the projectors as "second monitor" so that instructors can take advantage of the two-screen capabilities in powerpoint for lecture notes. 1 312 Try to make it more consistent across buildings and departments. 3, 53 313 update all rooms to at least have a projector in them. 1 314 Update older classrooms to provide a computer and projector. 1, 11 315 Upgrade computer. Include more podium machines, with more projectors. 1, 11 316 Very difficult to teach well in a room without a projector. All rooms don't need those stations with computers and vcrs and dvd players, but if rooms could have a projector ONLY, then I 1 could hook into it with my laptop. I know my lectures are dramatically enhanced when I can pull up art images and etc. to help give cultural context. Very hard to do this on an old overhead projector or with handouts. 317 We have some rooms in MacQuigg that can not be darkened enough because of glass walls. Some kind of shutter system might help. No need to computerize each classroom. 13

318 We need more classrooms with video projectors. For those classrooms without projectors, Classroom Services does a great job bringing in mobile projectors, but their fleet of 1, 9 projectors needs to be updated. This quarter I repeatedly received a projector that mixed up colors, showed red as black, etc. I had to describe in words to the class what was really on on the slide. 319 We needed microphone input, and had in fact purchased microphones, but the adaptors did not work and we had to wait a year until we had the budget to buy adaptors for the 7, 30 machines. We need some kind of planning process to prevent this kind of thing. Some machines will not contact the net; it is hard for students to understand how to get onto the wireless net w/ their osu ids. If one is using Carmen or the libraries or any remote site in class, this is a problem. April 2009 G-22 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-2 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

320 When I was in the classroom, technology had to be rolled in on a cart and then connected. A time consuming process. Recently made a smart classroom. 16 321 When there is technology, it is great. It would be great to see more rooms with technology available. I have been happy with the technology delivery service that is offered. 2, 53 322 Where present it is relatively good, but many projectors and screens are off center to the degree that the instructor cannot even see the screen 33 April 2009 G-23 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-3 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

1 "Clean and updated" covers all of it. 38 2 2 and 3 basically cover it. Noise pollution is out of your control, but the University should consider it when designing new classrooms and retrofitting old and it should be taken into 1, 48 consideration when planning the schedule of construction. Computer projectors fixed in each room would be a huge improvement. 3 A "perfect" classroom should give the instructor maximum flexibility in their teaching style. This means that desks should be mobile (allowing for small group discussion or work), there 1, 11, 37 should be a computer & projector and large chalkboard/whiteboard in every classroom (to facilitate both instructors who are excellent at prepared lectures and those that are excellent at "responsive" lectures). Classroom design with an eye toward flexibility is a good path to take in designing and renovating classrooms. 4 A fresh coat of paint and a good cleaning would help many of the classrooms. 38, 43 5 A list of important numbers needs to be posted somewhere in the classroom. I never know who to contact for what issue. 4 6 Above 7 above 8 Adequate supply of chalk, spare projector bulbs and extension cord (if necessary) 43 9 Again, consistency in available technology would be fabulous. 3 10 Again, it's the old buildings that pose problems, where you have a deep room that virtually forces the prof into a lecture format. The squarer the classroom, the easier it is to foster 53 discussion. 11 again, more seminar rooms to facilitate discussion 33 12 Air circulation especially in CH 31 13 All classrooms should have a computer terminal with internet access and wireless microphone. 1, 7, 30 14 allow departments (mine is History) to make regular use of the same rooms, to put up maps and pictures, and make them more attractive and useful 43, 49 15 Also, make sure the clocks are synced :) 14 16 Appropriate air conditioning/heat control Windows (need to be closed) 31 17 At a previous institution, all classrooms with chalkboards also contained wall-mounted chalk holders with a supply of chalk. This was always very helpful and should be instituted here. 43

18 availablility of chalks for blackboards 43 19 Avoid using basement classrooms that feel like shoeboxes. 5 20 basically, once the list of issues based on faculty input is in hand, proceed to systematiclaly fix the problem areas, classroom by classroom 21 Basically, see above. 22 better chair and lighting 13, 41 23 better chairs. Most of the classes we teach ar 1 hr 48 mins, the chairs are very small and uncomfortable to sit for that time 41 24 Better colors (paint), add some life to the rooms 49 25 Better desks. Carpet. 41, 44 26 better seating. moveable chairs and desks. adult-sized. 37, 41 27 Better temperature control. A/C is too low (i.e., too cold) and the heat is also too low (i.e., too cold). 31 28 Buy more new desks/chairs to replace the many that are falling apart. Make most of the classrooms smart classrooms with full integration of technology--this is going to become more 2, 41 and more essential as more faculty and staff use technology as a teaching tool. 29 Can't think of anything other than #4 & #5 responses. 30 Central Classrooms 3rd floor is a good example of a good renovation, though the exterior noise level is always high. Derby is a travesty and Mendenhall is also atrocious. 5 31 Chairs and tables are generally preferable to desks in my opinion. 41 32 Chalk for chalkboards; freshly painted walls; evidence that OSU cares about the facilities. 43 33 Chalk! 43 34 Check the light bulbs. I sent in a request for a light to be replaced when I noticed it early in the quarter. 7:30 a.m. is dark and the light on one end of the blackboard has been out 43 making it difficult to see student writing on that section. 35 Classrooms can be utilized as they are. What is important is to assign appropriate classrooms to appropriate classes that are taught. 51 36 Clean and working classrooms really make for a positive experience for students and faculty alike. Students tend to be more excited and even feel special in clean, well cared for 38, 43 classrooms. 37 Clean classrooms, functioning cooling/heating systems. 31, 38 38 Clean them more frequently, put smaller classes in smaller rooms 38, 42 April 2009 G-24 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-3 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

39 Clean them more often. 38 40 Clean them more regularly 38 41 clean them?! 38 42 Cleaned up and brightened. 38, 49 43 Cleaner. Many times when I go into a classroom in another building it is not clean (paper/other debris on the floor, dirty floor, etc.) 38 44 Computers in the classrooms, projectors in the classrooms, new chairs/desks that are comfortable, keep the classrooms clean, and schedule an appropriately-sized room for the class. 1, 11, 38, 41, 42 I once had to teach nearly 25 people in a classroom that was way too small. 45 Consistency. 43 46 Do something about the heating and cooling! I have to teach under difficult temp. conditions sometimes 31 47 Don't try to cram too many students into one room. 42 48 don't try to pack so many chairs and people into small rooms and in classrooms w/o windows, provide kinder lighting--better control of heat. 13, 31, 42 49 Don't use Cunz Hall ever again. 5 50 easier to use and a more automated way to report that something in the classroom is broken. 43 51 Emphasize to students that other people attend class in those rooms and please pick up after themselves. Unbelievable! 38 52 Fitting room assignments with class size (i.e. number of students enrolled). 42 53 General cleaning more often, including tables, chairs, floors, chalkboards and erasers. 38 54 Get the heating/cooling under control. 31 55 Getting the classrooms to a more level playing field so that you don't get a good one one quarter and a terrible one the next would be excellent; increased ability to regulate classroom 31, 53 temperature would also be excellent. 56 Getting to class and not finding chalks is a rather maddening problem. This is a far too common problem. Some one should go to every morning to each class and leave a box of chalks 43 in each class room. 57 Give departments who don't have their own classrooms a chance at halfway decent ones in their building. 5 58 Have a computer in every classroom. If instructors want to bring laptops, there should be hook-ups too. Do not assume that all instructors (especially graduate students) have laptops. 11 I have a laptop but I do not want to carry it across campus every time I teach. 59 having trashcans in the rooms would be nice, and the erasers are problematic - they are difficult to hold without dropping, and they don't do a very good job of erasing 38, 43 60 Heating and Cooling systems needs to be updated in many classrooms that I have been in. Also, installing motion sensors for lights will greatly improve our energy efficiency. 43

61 Hire more or better maintenance people to take care of the buildings. Hire more plumbers. Hire more tech folks or ask them to check connections more often. 38, 43 62 I feel that maybe there should be clear instructions for instructors on how to leave the tech equipment before they leave the room. Whether that be shutting everything down, or leaving 4 everything on...whichever the tech dept thinks would improve the quality and usability of the equipment. 63 I had a student this quarter who was too large to fit in the desk/chair. She was truly challenged in sitting through the class (it was painful for her physically and emotionally), and she 41 stopped attending class at all. Perhaps some classrooms could have chairs with desks that swing to the side rather than that are permanently in place or that cal only swing up and down in order to accommodate students who might be physically challenged (not just by size) with the standard desks in the classrooms.

64 I have seen some very nice classrooms just down the hall from me in the CC building. I know that money is tight, but please make sure that people don't get the "smart classrooms" 43 are slighted by not giving them adequate chalk/erasers and a hospitable classroom set-up. 65 I know most of the classrooms in CC are renovated, but the ones at EN, PO, and in science buildings are terrible for courses from Humanities/Arts. 53 66 I know there is a shortage of large technology-assisted classrooms (at least those available to those of us in the Humanities). 2 67 I like classrooms that allow for mobility for myself and my students. Classrooms with large tables make it difficult for my students to talk with each other when we have large group 37 conversations. 68 i really like being able to walk around in my classrooms and a lot of these rooms have so many seats crammed into them that it is too difficult for me to walk around and interact with my 37, 42 students. there are several rooms I have taught in that made me feel like I was barricaded in the front of the classroom behind the podium because the students were so packed in and so close to me. It would be great if rooms could be arranged for better movement - it would allow for more student/teacher interaction and create a more inclusive classroom environment. April 2009 G-25 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-3 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

69 I think the classrooms need to be consistent. It is unfair to the instructors, and then as a result to the students, when some rooms have technology and others do not. Lesson plans 53 need to change dramatically whether or not there is technology, and the level of teaching changes as well. Having technology in the room allows for more options in learning and helps makes the instructor's lessons much clearer to the students. 70 I think they're okay. More seminar type rooms for 15 and 25 students are necessary for the kind of teaching I do. 17 71 I understand that there would be great expense, updating to tables and chairs as opposed to bolted down student desks would go a long way. Some rooms appear to have just become 41, 43 neglected in their old age. 72 I was satisfied with the classroom in which I taught. 17 73 I'd be nice if they were cleaned more regularly. I teach first thing on a Friday morning. 38 74 I'd like to have more classrooms that had technology available without having to request it. 2 75 If the above-two things were taken care of, the classrooms would be excellent. It's just hit and miss as far as classroom assignments are concerned. 53 76 I'm pleased with 200 CM overall. 17 77 In addition to adding appropriate permanent technology, the cleaning crews need either some incentives, or some disincentives or at least better training and supervision. The attitude 38, 43 is that if something is broken, they don't care and apparently don't report it. If they leave a pool of chalky water on the floor after wiping the blackboards, so what. If the wrong chairs or the wrong number of chairs are in the room, so what. If they walk out at the end of attending to a classroom and leave the lights on, so what. They have little sense of how to set up the chairs in a room for actual room usage (witness the usual setup in 185 Baker Systems....not workable). Apparently there is much turnover in that job and poor or nonexistent supervision, so they take no ownership of doing it "right". Students when confronted with a cruddy environment have no incentive to keep things nice themselves. Of course, some students are deliberately destructive (feet on furniture, picking at fabric, carving in wood) so more attention needs to be paid to ordering comfortable useable furniture that is less easily destroyed 78 In general I wanted to say "poor" - the survey form would not allow me to enter this option. 79 In general the classrooms are fine, however some of the older buildings could use some updates, especially concerning the layout and the desks. 53 80 In general the classrooms I have used are in decent shape. 17 81 In general, the classrooms need updated to provide a projector with a usable projection screen 1 82 In MacQuigg, those who clean the rooms often dispose of the chalk, so I resort to bringing my own supply to class. Purchase better quality chalk (breaks too easily) and erasers that 43 erase smoothly (don't wash them--that makes them stiff). I bring my own to class. 83 In rooms like SB 200, the room should be set up in the other direction so that the students are closer to the screen; some of them have trouble seeing from the back of the room and I 33 have trouble seeing them. If the projector and screen were large enough and positioned properly a wider audience would work better - more like a case room. 84 In some building, better HVAC, cleaning standards, and general maintenance 31, 38, 43 85 In some classrooms, it would be nice to be able to move chairs/ desks around for group work but I realize this cannot always occur in rooms such as large lecture halls. 37 86 In some of the older buildings, perhaps better insulation for winter! 31 87 Indications of when the classroom will be used for another event. For instance, last week HI 131 had LARGE lights scattered throughout the balcony and stage. It made seeing the 51 stage and screen difficult for students. 88 Install technology and update the desks, white boards, leave chalf in them etc. 2, 41, 43 89 It is a pain in the backside to have to ask the admin for a time/place then they have to ask you, then you confim to them then they back to us. Too many places for error. Why is this not 51 direct on-line with final approval status from you guys. We have had issues with this about every other quarter and I end up wearing the blame while I am not convinced it is my blame to wear. 90 It would be helpful if the projection screen does not cover the board. It is often useful to show something on the screen while doing board work. 40 91 It would be nice if broken chairs, desks, ect were replaced promptly. 43 92 It would be useful to have desks for left handed students in all the classrooms. 41 93 Janitorial services vary greatly, from quite good to quite poor. Some are without air conditioning in the summer. Be sure to provide basics, like chalk and erasers. 31, 38, 43 94 Keep them cleaner. Keep their function educational rather than storage for excess chairs, desks and outdated equipment. Functional window coverings. 38, 43 95 Keep working on updating/upgrading the desks to newer ones. Some of the older desks are in terrible shape and are too small. 41 96 Language classes need technology and a livable space. 2 97 Larger classrooms, stepped seating and larger control over lighting 13 98 Less clutter in old buildings, better seats and fixed seats 38, 43 99 Less students per class: if my 200 level courses were no more than 35 people, it would be better in there. 42 100 Let each room adjust the heat rather than having it be blazing hot by order of Central Command. 31 101 Main campus facilities have been very good for the most part, but Pressey Hall is disappointing. 53 April 2009 G-26 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-3 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

102 Make Hitchcock Hall warm!!! 31 103 Make it possible to control room temperature with class 31 104 make sure there is a chair for the instructor in every classroom 41 105 Make sure there is enough chaulk in the classroom and clean them better. 43 106 Make sure there is no construction in buildings during class time. Drilling during teaching is horrible. This should never happen. 48 107 Make sure they ALL have video-data capacity. Never mind the windows. 8 108 Make them larger, with fewer desks, and have them all be equipped with technology 2, 42 109 Make use of the space! Retrofit old rooms to make them useful! 43 110 Many classrooms have change little in 20 years. Students need learning environments that address learnig needs. 43 111 More availability of rooms in the range of 100-150 seats 33 112 more chalk, erasers, makers etc per classroom; they somehow disappear throughout the year 43 113 More classrooms at OSU should have permanently installed technology. This really helps with flexibility in teaching. 2 114 more classrooms with technology 2 115 More compatible with students working in groups. 37 116 More consistent use of technology (could all eventually at least have projection capability with a lap top); better lighting 3, 13 117 More frequent check on chalk. More frequent check on cleanliness. It would help if students were neater, but I don't know how you could improve this. 38, 43 118 More larger classrooms greatly needed. 33 119 More left-handed seats! More access for handicapped students or persons of large size. 41 120 More modern facilities needed. Larger class rooms, better seats, less crowding. 41, 43 121 more modern facilities, esepcialy in older buildings. 53 122 More money needs to be spent on classrooms, especially in older buildings. Teaching in a room with a computer/projector should not be a luxury! Before classrooms are renovated or 1, 11 built, input from teachers should be solicited (e.g., focus groups). 123 More natural lighting and brighter colors. I think winter classes could be helped by this. 49 124 More real media rooms. Better fresh air supply. Clocks in every classroom set corresponding to campus time. 14, 31 125 More screen capabilities, lighting needs to be improved for viewing overhead projections, seating must be improved, need for more power outlets for students to plug in laptop 13, 35, 41 computers 126 More 'smart' classrooms 18 127 More space and resources such as chalk, markers, etc. 43 128 more space less chairs and desks are too close to the board and a lot of unused staff like cables etc. in front of board 42, 43 129 More state money!!!!!!!!!!!! 130 More tables and fewer individual desks. Students have no room to take notes or manage their materials. 41 131 More technology 2 132 More technology based classrooms. 2 133 More technology classrooms would be a huge help. It seems to be harder to get technology-equipped classrooms in locations convenient to my office. 2 134 More technology. 2 135 More technology. They should all be like Bolz 314. 2 136 More wireless access in classrooms. 7 137 Most of the classrooms I've seen are pretty bare bones. They look like lighted boxes. No color on the walls, no features in the rooms to make them look like an attractive learning 49 environment. Granted, hundreds of students occupy those spaces daily, but even a basic upgrade would be an improvement! It would've been a great idea to actually provide a significant number of classrooms in the PAES complex. It's a great facility, but it has few classrooms. What was the reasoning behind that? 138 Most of the other courses I've taught have been in Denney Hall, and they've been more or less fine. Another small annoyance is in Denney 262, which does not have chairs but rounded 42 tables. There are enough tables for about 24 students, but the circle ends up being massive in size. This becomes particularly stark when a class has 15 or fewer students, as everyone is incredibly spread out. I'm not sure rounded tables are actually superior to easily rearranged square ones. 139 Most of the rooms I've been in just feel dingy. General sense of updating (through painting, new flooring, better lighting, new seats/chairs, etc.) would be useful. 43 140 Most rooms are very traditional = desks lined up in neat rows, making it difficult to use active-learning methods (group work, for example). 37 141 Mostly they are good -- just try packing fewer people into the same space. 42 April 2009 G-27 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-3 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

142 Need to be consistently cleaner and with fewer chairs. 38 143 NEVER let unwitting instructors schedule two-hour classes in rooms without accessible windows. Psychological studies show that a florescent environment makes people just plain 46 sleepy. I have taught a dynamite two hour course which when we scheduled for a basement windowless room, simply died . A student finally brought me a scholarly paper in psychology explaining why. If I were king, I would have NO windowles classrooms. . If they are necessary, then I would not have florescent lighting. LBB

144 nicer desks, more tech. classrooms and updated looks. 2, 41, 43 145 no suggestions at this time 17 146 None - I love Page Hall 10 17 147 Often the biggest problems are maintenance-related. (Not enough chalk, things are broken, ect.) 43 148 On the cheap side, making sure there is chalk in all the classrooms would be a plus. There is nothing more frustrating then having to scavenge for chalk before a lecture can begin. 43

149 One reason my answers to the first few questions was the variability of the classrooms. Some are excellent, but others are horrible. 53 150 One time I taught in Fisher, and I couldn't believe the difference in the "feel" and comfort of their rooms and the abilities and consistency of their technology. It was like night and day 38, 43, 53 compared to the conditions I'm used to teaching under. We need more classrooms like that across the university. In addition, just making sure the classrooms are clean--no empty soda cans on the floor, no trash cans overflowing, no 3-inch dust on the instructor's desk--would be a big improvement, as would ensuring they are all equipped with chalk or whiteboard pens, and erasers. 151 OSU classrooms are a delight. Teaching an OSU class in the Columbus Public schools is a nightmare for technology. Because they have such high security walls, almost all of the 53 Internet clips one is going to show can't be shown (in a class such as the one I teach, illustrating special ed issues is a must). For off class courses in schools, the university should provide a wireless laptop card for loan to put in one's laptop so that this isn't the major problem it is. Because the equipment in the CPS is so inferior, I bring my laptop, projector and cords each time which is a burden, but better than dealing with their often malfunctioning equipment. Each time I'm in a CPS classroom library or wherever they put me, I say a silent prayer of thanks for the great OSU equipment and classrooms back on campus.....and wish I was teaching in one of them.

152 Other classrooms in different buildings are awesome. 53 153 Other than my frustration with technology, I have been happy with my classrooms. 154 Other than technologly issues identified above, no other usses. 155 overall classrooms are good, but consistency between newer and oldre buildings would be helpful. 53 156 Overall more attention to cleanliness in the classrooms, stairways, etc. Chairs that are comfortable and not broken. Moveable tables and chairs for group discussions. 37, 38, 41 157 Overall very pleased with the classrooms. 17 158 Overall, I am quite happy with my experiences with the classroom environment. 17 159 Overall, they are good. The aesthetics could be updated so that some of the rooms (parts of Denney for example) don't look like they're stuck in a different decade. 49 160 packed classrooms diminish teaching effectiveness--limit the instructor to front of the classoom direct instruction 42 161 Perhaps you could stress to students the importance of cleaning up after themselves. Also consider improved seating. 38, 41 162 PLEASE FIX THE CLIMATE CONTROL SITUATION!!!!! 31 163 Please provide computers in every smart classroom. Connecting one's laptop to the wall for every class causes numerous problems, including a safety hazard when students and 18, 26 instructors trip over the cords. 164 Provide classrooms with all the same equipment. Smart classrooms should be provided to all. 2, 3, 18 165 Provide coat racks? 33 166 Provide technology! 2 167 Really, it's all about climate control and access to A/v (including networked PCs) 8, 31 168 Regular updating the teleconference facility, and make more teleconference site available. Have well trained techy available during the school days. 10, 23 169 Remove bolted tables. It is very difficult to have discussions in rooms with bolted tables. 41 170 Replace chalkboards with whiteboards. 34 171 Replace old desks. MQ 264 is horrible. 41 172 Schedule classes according to the number of students and the type of class. Language classes require movement, this is hard to do in tight spaces 42 173 See #2 above 174 See above April 2009 G-28 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-3 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

175 see above 176 see above 177 See above. 178 See above. 179 See comments on seating and comfort for adult student learners (more funds needed to enhance student learning in the classroom). Other examples, enhanced cleaning of rooms, 31, 41, 43 appropriate heating and cooling of classrooms, etc. 180 See questions 4 and 5 above. 181 Smart all classrooms. Remind those teaching in the classroom to leave the room as they find it or better. 2, 18 182 Smith Lab classrooms should be redone, just like they were in McPherson. New chalk should be provided frequently, probably on the weekly basis, maybe even twice a week. 43

183 Some are not as clean as they should be but much of that is due to the poor treatment they receive from students. 38 184 Some classrooms are uncomfortable and embarrassing to teach in. Something as basic as regular cleaning and routine maintenance would go a long way towards making them more 38, 43 attractive. 185 Some classrooms need newer chairs and tables. Classrooms without windows could have more natural lighting. 13, 41 186 Some classrooms with windows are difficult to adequately dim to be able to see projected images well. Improvements to window coverings would be helpful in these cases. 13

187 Some of the classrooms are dated. The classrooms where the chairs are locked in place make it difficult to conduct group activities. 37 188 Some of the old buildings have very bad black boards. They bring out too much chalk powder. I don't know if it is the chalk or the board. By the time I am done teaching for two classes 53 my hand and body is soaked in chalk powder and also I don't feel well for some time after it. 189 Some of the older rooms do not have things like VCR's--at least not a few years ago. 2 190 Somehow make sure there is chalk in every classroom with chalkboards. Many of still use chalk regularly and have to carry it with us to be sure it is available. 43 191 sound proof, loud hallways make for noisy classrooms. 48 192 Stability and whiteboards. 34 193 Standardized set up for electronic equipment so it is easier for faculty who teach in different classrooms to know how to use it. 3 194 Students always seem to complain about the temperature. It doesn't bother me. 31 195 Take into consideration that cap 45 Humanities classes might want to do more than lecture and in-class discussion, calculate the room size in relation to number of students, have 37, 42 more flexible/movable seating units. 196 Technology should be updated, and furniture for students could be more comfortable, and modular enough that multiple configurations (for different classroom activities) are easily 23, 37, 41 possible. Thank you for asking! 197 Technology. 2 198 Temperature control is often an issue. 31 199 The classrooms are old and need to be redone. 43 200 The classrooms in Denney Hall always seem very drab, and on cold days, terribly over-heated. 31, 49 201 The classrooms often do not have chalk for the chalkboards. 43 202 The College of Social Work, the floors get REALLY dirty by the second week of classes and stays that way. They need to do a better job of cleaning up the classrooms. 38 203 The heating and cooling systems -- At the moment my classroom is too hot. Last spring, starting in May, my classroom was extremely cold. 31 204 The movable tables during the renovation of Denney Hall were a mistake. The first few minutes of class are full of the noise of people moving tables around, and somehow there are 41 always either too many or too few seats, or no way to arrange the tables so that everyone can see everyone else. Chairs would be easier to manage, with less noise.

205 the other classroom pool classrooms I've seen and worked in before Hagerty could be improved by being 1) cleaner and brighter 2) have movable furniture if it is a regular classroom 3) 2, 37, 38, 49 be equipped with technology 206 The quality of classrooms seems to me to be largely dependent on the type of building and what department it is for. Some of the science buildings have wonderful classrooms (non- 53 lab), but the education buildings are falling apart. Better distribution of resources to some of the "poorer" disciplines would be nice. 207 The quality of classrooms varies widely across campus. I taught in AV in winter once where there were air cond units falling out the windows (i.e., lots of gaps to the outside), which 31, 53 gave the room a nice brisk chill. Other rooms (e.g., in CL) are grimy, dark, and gross, without any reasonable heating/cooling or even A/V equipment. Why, again, does the RPAC look pristine, while lots of spaces where people actually get their education (e.g., Lord Hall) are condemned???? April 2009 G-29 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-3 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Pool Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

208 The rooms sometimes look dirty and not cleaned enough. 38 209 The table-top attached to chairs are not good for two reasons. First, larger students literally cannot fit in them. Second, the small desk space cannot accommodate both what a student 41 is taking notes on and the reading they are supposed to be referencing, let alone a laptop. 210 There is a lack of large rooms and technology rooms to accommodate when students want to take courses and teachers want to teach. 51 211 There is great inconsistency between older buildings and new buildings as far as the availablity of technolgy. 53 212 There needs to be a podium in every room. I teach public speaking and have to look often for a podium from another classroom. Then the podium is shabby - with no ledge at the 33 bottom to hold notecards or papers. 213 There should be more rooms with data projectors. Rooms with a data projector and a laptop connection are a good idea for doing this cost effectively. 1 214 They are usually too hot. Try saving some energy. 31 215 They could all have technology. 2 216 They could be cleaner and furnished uniformly. 38 217 They're pretty good, I think. 17 218 Think about the timing of delivery and trash trucks driving around near classrooms. They are loud and a major distraction during a class. 48 219 thinking about aesthetic aspects – way to make the classroom environment more inviting? Could do room “auctions” to help offset cost and let various units compete for the opportunity 49 to design rooms 220 Try to eliminate as much as you can, backboards with the use of chalk. Try to install boards to use with erasable markers. Also, projectors, computers, document scanners. 1, 11, 27, 34

221 Update seating 41 222 Update technology and make sure there is ample chalk. 23, 43 223 Updated technology in each room. 23 224 Upgrade the technology so that it is consistent. 3 225 Usual problems with maintenance (nothing egregious but it could be better) - but given our likely budget situation for the next couple of years, just holding steady would be good work. 43

226 We need a few more large lecture rooms that would allow more flexibility in scheduling. It also seems that classroom scheduling in general is difficult, so I fear that we don't have 51 enough classrooms for the courses we teach. This will become even more of an issue when we switch to semesters. 227 We need more rooms. Stop wasting money on fancying up buildings and construct an real classroom building. 228 We need quiet ceiling fans - sometimes it gets so hot it's hard to teach (i'm sure it's hard for students to stay awake). See above suggestions for improving physical environment. 31

229 While the blackboards are generally well taken care of, there is frequently no chalk. Some universities maintain chalk storage in the class rooms. 43 230 While there is nothing that can be done about the age of the university - it might be nice to upgrade a few things like chairs, broken and flaking plaster, antiquated A/C units either don't 31, 43 work or too loud, etc. While there is a great feeling of history here, it might not be a bad idea to also foster a feeling of progress and modernity that comes from an atmosphere of gleaming newness 231 white boards and dry erase boards 34 232 Whiteboard (dry-erase board) Only putting classes of 15 in the basement of Dulles. 34 233 You've been steadily improving them since I have been at OSU. Please keep it up and make sure that the classrooms are well-provided with chalk. Thank you! 17, 43 April 2009 G-30 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

1 1) Cleanliness -- classroom often not clean, wastebaskets not emptied 2) Inflexibility -- many classrooms can't be re-configured to meet the needs of the class 3) Heating/cooling -- 37, 38 classrooms often too hot or too cold and there is no way for the instructor or students to adjust the comfort level. 2 a computer that works; projection equipment; chalk would be nice 1, 11, 29, 43 3 A new floor made for dancers ought to be installed in Pomerene – the wood and concrete flooring is hard on the body and prevents one from being able to teach a full range of 5, 44 movement. 4 a) Clean them!!! Many rooms in which I teach are disgracefully dirty (floors, chairs/desks, walls) b) Many classrooms are not ADA compliant -- e.g. Independence Hall, where I taught 38, 39 for a quarter. Although it has a disabled entrance, that entrance was often locked; and even when open IT LEADS TO THE STAGE AND THE ONLY RESTROOMS ARE UP 30 STEPS. ****THIS IS A DISGRACE*** 5 Add reliable internet connection Prevent theft of equipment Install proper a/v equipment rather than relying on faculty to transport Provide adequate light, heating, and a/c Prevent 7, 8, 22, 31, 48 leak-through of sound from other classrooms 6 Adequate air conditioning for a computer lab; better line of sight 31 7 Adequate blackboard space (two large blackboards or more) 40 8 Adequate seating for students, adequate heating and air conditioning, working overhead lights. 13, 31, 42 9 Adjust HVAC systems for comfort according to individual needs of each location 31 10 Air conditioning in summer; windows that close to keep winter out. Exchange desk-chairs for tables so students can use their computers and have places for their books. The 31, 41 classroom I taught in this quarter was disgraceful. I had a guest speaker who took OSU off her list for her child after seeing the classroom we were assigned. No other classrooms were available! 11 air conditioning that works white boards instead of black boards no broken/crummy chairs do not crowd too many students into a classroom 31, 34, 42 12 All the rooms I have taught in thus far have little to no temperature control; repairs to walls, ceilings, or floors are needed; and there are only chalkboards (no dry-erase boards). If 31, 34 these items were fixed in the classrooms on campus, the classrooms would be a much better place to teach. 13 Allow for classroom temperature changes. I've been in classrooms when the heat was up to 80 in warm weather and the air conditioner was on in the winter. As the instructor, I had no 31 way to change the climate in my own classroom. 14 allow some access to students that are larger than normal to be able to sit bohind a desk 41 15 As a chair, I have over the past years started to improve the physical environment. Our classroom has been lower on the list of priorities, but it need much better sitting and at least a 31 coat of paint. It also suffers from an A/C system that is much too loud and this impedes communication. 16 As far as teaching in lecture halls, within Newman-Wolfrom and McPherson Labs I think the environment is satisfactory. However, I think the environment of any classrooms located in 5, 23, 41 Evans hall needs improvement whether it just be updated seating/desks for the students that they can actually fit/sit in as well as the incorporation of newer technology projectors, etc. As well as improvements in the Celeste Labs to a more updated look. 17 Basic things like erasers and chalk should always be available so instructors do not waste time going to other classrooms to look for these materials. 43 18 Basically classrooms need to have current technology in order to provide the students with the maximum learning experience. 23 19 Better chalkboard erasers 43 20 Better climate/temperature control. 31 21 Better control of lighting so that lighting may be adjusted when lecturing with powerpoint slides. 13 22 Better control of temperature 31 23 Better controls to optimize lighting for viewing computer onscreen, temperature controls in Kottman Hall 13, 27 24 Better desks (bigger writing surface) for all students. And I'd like to see seats and desks that are more accommodating to larger students. I've seen overweight students on more than 41 one occasion struggle to fit into the seats. 25 Better desks (student and instructor). 41 26 Better desks and work stations. 41 27 Better desks/chairs; better lighting 13, 41 28 Better heating and cooling. In the winter the rooms are too hot and the students get sleepy. In the summer the rooms are too cold (at least the students stay awake!). 31 29 Better heating/cooling control 31 30 Better heating/cooling control. 31 31 better HVAC control, more cleanliness 31, 38 32 Better layouts of black boards 40 33 better lighting 13 April 2009 G-31 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

34 Better lighting options, window covers, enough space for the number of desks in each room 13 35 Better lighting, more lighting control, available damp cloth and wiping equipment for chalk board rooms (and not a piece of chalkboard eraser that leaves more marks and makes the 13, 43 environment more dusty!) 36 Better lighting, seating, heat control. 13, 31, 41 37 Better Lighting, uncluttered, cleaner and updated 13, 38 38 Better lighting. Carpeting on floors. 13, 44 39 Better padding under the carpeting on the floor. 44 40 Better projection screens, clocks that are accurate, ceiling mounted projectors. 1, 14 41 Better room temperature control. 31 42 Better temperature control 31 43 Better temperature control in 244 Kottman. 31 44 Better temperature control. Sometimes it's extremely cold and sometimes it's umbearably hot. 31 45 better temperature control; better ventilation 31 46 better temperature regulation 31 47 better temperature regulation more flexible seating arrangements 31, 37 48 Bigger classrooms needed. 42 49 Bigger classrooms with more desk space. In some classrooms in Evans Lab, students are packed like sardines. 42 50 bigger room 42 51 bulletin boards 45 52 Caldwell hall is a disaster. Either freeze to death during summer, or die of heat stroke during winter. 31 53 Certain physical facilities need more attention than others...some of the older buildings like Ramseyer need updates. 53 54 chairs and tables could be movable for group work 37 55 Chairs organized. All lights functional. 13 56 Chair-tables too small, many with broken edges. Lecture classroom too small for so many students. Temperature was always either too hot or too cold. 41, 42, 31 57 chalk in classrooms; making sure that people do not leave a lot of equipment cluttering the room (in my small classroom there was an overhead projector and 2 slidemachines this 38, 42, 43 morning);don't put too many desks in a room (there are a bunch stacked in the corner) 58 Chalk or whiteboard markers should be provided and the boards should be washed at least once every two weeks. Many of the rooms I've taught in are not thoroughly cleaned, have 9, 13, 38, 43 broken or unused equipment stored in them, and even have broken desks and other furniture. Lighting can be a problem in some rooms. 59 Classroms need to be up dated. Old seats, peeling paint, in some cases, and chalkboards etc, out of the 1960s 9 60 classroom clocks should give accurate time...... 14 61 classroom was narrow and long; dark; tight for students; bad overhead projector; no technology facilities whatsoever 9, 13, 42 62 classrooms in the medical center are pretty good 17 63 Classrooms I've taught in are often dirty, some seats broken, just not that nice. 9, 38 64 Classrooms need cables to go with laptop connections. While I have my own audio and video cables, I find I have to loan then out to people who prefer to use their own computer over 26 the slower windows based towers. 65 Classrooms need to be cleaned more frequently (including floors and blackboards) 38 66 Classrooms need to be cleaned on a regular basis. I often bring a sweeper from home to sweep the carpet in one of the classrooms in which I teach (329 Ramseyer). 38 67 Classrooms need to be cleaned, painted and updated 38 68 Classrooms should be square, not rectangular, so students can be closer to the board and screen and find it easier to ask questions and join the discussion. 33 69 Classrooms tend to be unclean sometimes. 38 70 Classrooms tend to be very hot when heat is in operation, or very cold when air conditioned. Creates difficult learning/teaching environment. 31 71 Classrooms without windows are depressing 46 72 clean better, accommodate flexible seating in more classrooms -- don't nail down the desks 37, 38 73 Clean floors, trash collected, shades that work, alternative lighting, more display space, new furniture for students 13, 38, 41 74 Clean the floor regularly. 38 April 2009 G-32 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

75 clean them once in a while. provide more chalk, less desks in the tiny space. denney hall is disgustingly dirty, always has coffee spilt on the floor and is dusty and probably full of 37, 38, 42, 43 germs. it is impossible to arrange desks into a circular shape in the CC classrooms because of the tight space. 2nd floor of denney is updated, but 3rd floor is ugly and old-looking

76 Clean them! Floors are consistently filthy, windows/blinds don't work... 9, 38 77 Clean them. 38 78 Clean, replace old carpet, new desks & tables, remove junk, sound proof, clean windows, fix blinds 38, 48 79 Cleaner, universal projections and media, comfortable rolling chairs, more incubator classrooms that test new arrangements and technologies 1, 38 80 Cleaner. I had a classroom that didn't look like it had been vacuumed in weeks. 38 81 Cleaning, up-keep, reduce over-crowding, better furniture -- in fact, there is very little that couldn't be improved. Windows broken, shades falling down - the whole situation is a disgrace 9, 38 really 82 Cleanliness and maintenance could be improved; better control of temperature. 31, 38, 43 83 Cleanliness could be improved. Missing or broken chairs need to be replaced. Projection screens with stains, marks or tears need to be replaced. 9, 38 84 cleanliness is an issue temperature control is non existant seats are uncomfortable for the students one room has no left handed desks 31, 38, 41 85 Cleanliness is the most pronounced issue in many classrooms. A more aggressive cleaning strategy would be appreciated, as many rooms were unsatisfactory. 38 86 Cleanliness of general classrooms not the best. I try and make sure my students dispose of any cups, bottles and/or papers they bring into the room. Some rooms however need a 38 good scrubbing with soap and water! 87 Complete renovation to 21st century standards! 23 88 Computers are not trustworthy. Sometimes they work, sometimes not. Temperature of classrooms are very varied....almost always too hot. 9, 31 89 Consistent control of lighting across rooms. Many are all or nothing as far as lights are concerned. 13 90 Consistent heating and cooling. 31 91 Consistently and easily functioning blinds for windows. The quality and state-of-repair of seats and desks is variable, though generally good. 9 92 consistently have board markers available that are not dried out 43 93 Control heat and cooling 31 94 Control over the temperature would be helpful. 31 95 --Control temperature--80% of the classrooms I've taught in are too hot or too cold. --Allow full control of the lighting (I've taught in classrooms where it's impossible to get full black-out-- 13, 31 a big problem when you are teaching film). 96 correct amout of chairs in the room (too many) 42 97 Could be cleaned better esp. around the technology -keyboards often are dirty looking. 38 98 Could be kept cleaner, including washing the boards, cleaning the erasers, and replacing the chalk more frequently. 38, 43 99 Could have more chalk ready for the room and/or have better erasers to clean the boards. 43 100 Decent projectors would help tremendously. An atmosphere that was conducive to discussions would be so helpful. 1 101 Decreasing the number of students, or expanding the classroom sizes. 42 102 Denney hall classrooms are drab, but my classroom there this quarter was nice because it was a computer lab classroom. 5 103 Desks and chairs are decrepit and rickety - they should be replaced. 41 104 Difficult to adjust lighting when using compter projection or videos--either too dark totake notes or too bright to see the images clearly 13 105 Encourage students not to leave leftover, food, drink, newapepers, etc. in the classroom--impossible I know, but you asked! 38 106 Ensure that all classrooms had adequate lighting. Some of the labs I have taught in were pretty dark. 13 107 Ensure that everything is working and is not broken. 43 108 Equipment often not working for over 1 year Position of projectors sometimes in the way of optimal viewing 9, 33 109 Even if they aren't new, they could stand to be cleaned! Specifically, parts of Dreese and Caldwell 38 110 Every classroom should have computer and projector. 1, 11 111 every seat needs an electrical outlet, lighting and ventilation needs to be top notch for proper learning and health 13, 31, 35 112 First, the initial questions were very difficult to answer due to the stratification of resources in the university. I am currently teaching in Mendenhall, and the classroom there is wonderful. 37, 41 However, most of the classrooms I have taught in are awful. The most simple suggestion would be to make sure that every classroom has movable desks with adequate writing space for students. Make eliminating small (<65) classrooms with stationary seating the top priority. Then, invest in desks with a full size desktop or workspace. April 2009 G-33 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

113 First, you need to separate classrooms from academic offices...Then you need more buildings that are EXCLUSIVELY used for undergraduate courses. 114 Fix and/or replace worn or damaged surfaces 43 115 fix the heating and cooling 31 116 for a seminar it would be helpful to have tables and chairs 117 For biology lab, it's better to have the side to side setting instead of front to back setting....meaning no students need to sit away from the board/ instructor and close to the noisy fume 5 hood. 118 For my courses we are sometimes packed in like sardines. I would be interested in more large lecture halls available. Our lab space is VERY outdated. Money to update lab space. 42

119 For rooms in buildings that house chemical research, the main teaching rooms should have periodic tables on the walls. 5 120 Fresh paint and seating conducive to discussion. 37 121 fume hoods are loud, forces TAs to speak loudly so all students can hear 5 122 Furniture, including desks & chairs, electronic support for computers, adjustible lighting, and window treatments to support AV use are needed in almost all rooms. 8, 10, 13, 41 123 General cleanliness would help. Visually, many rooms get "cluttered" with equipment, extra furniture, etc. Need more flexible environments in most classrooms. 37, 38 124 General upkeep. For example in my classroom there is a broken window and broken lockers. The sink that we use is in poor shape. 43 125 Get rid of all chalkboards and replace them with whiteboards. 34 126 get rid of the junk! keep them stocked with chalk, erasers, white-board markers, laptop connectors. get rid of broken furniture, dusty unusable tables. 43 127 Hagerty 180 is about as good at it gets. Were that all OSU lecture halls that good. 5 128 have a clock in the classroom 14 129 Have built in computer and projector technology in all classrooms. 1, 11 130 Have more materials (chalk, etc.) available, better heating and lighting. 13, 31, 43 131 having a clock that works is good so students don't need to wear a watch or keep out their cell phones during class. also, the temperature (i usually work in dreese) has a tendency to 14, 31 be guesswork as to how hot or cold it might be. the room itself is very "cold" and "sterile" feeling. 132 having people that work inthe labs actually know how to fix things, I'd like to get paid to sit around and do my homework but they should at least know how to put paper in the printer 43

133 heat and cold. not consistent and often hear students complain.. 31 134 Heat and cooling are often issues in the older science classrooms and labs. 31 135 heat/cooling controls need to be operational; furniture should be replaced. 31 136 Heating and air conditioning needs improvement 31 137 Heating and cooling are not always optimal in the classrooms. Sometimes rooms are too hot or not warm enough 31 138 heating and cooling controlled locally 31 139 heating and cooling need to actually work. sometimes its 60 degrees in a summer classrom and 80 degrees in the winter classroom 31 140 Heating and cooling remain a problem in old and new buildings 31 141 heating and cooling should be manipulated locally--within the classroom. Chairs and tables should be moveable for various activities in class. 31 142 Heating and cooling systems need improvment probably along with lighting. 31 143 Heating and cooling systems that are controllable in the room to reflect the needs of the occupants. 31 144 Here's my only suggestion. I suppose this is financially unfeasable but I'll just give you my perspective as a teacher. I need internet access to teach my classes, so often these classes 37 are scheduled in computer labs. These labs - at least the ones that I have been in - are poorly designed for teaching. In some of them I have to stand on my tiptoes or roam around the room to make eye contact with students in the back rows. In another one - I can't remember the name of the building, but it was an older building on Neil, across from Mirror Lake - there was an awkward projection system that the student in attendance couldn't help me with (never did get it figured out). I often have to ask students who are using the rooms for their own access to please leave - they'll try to hide out among the students who are there for class - or fend off kids who waltz in during the middle of a lecture. It's just not optimum from a teacher's point of view. That's really the only complaint I have. 145 Highly variable--I teach in some rooms that are badly designed for sight lines, have uncomfortable seating, inadequate blackboard/whiteboard, no lectern or table for instructor to use, 40, 41, 53 very crowded at front of room--and some other rooms are OK 146 Hopkins 182 (Art & Tech lab) is divided by an awkwardly placed wall that makes instruction in the lab very difficult as not all students can see the presentation screen at the same time. 33 Additionally the wall prevents faculty from engaging the class as a whole by separating the room into two separate environments. 147 hopkins hall, where teach, needs a major physical over-hall 5 April 2009 G-34 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

148 Hughes Hall is unsafe. The rooms are very hot in the warmer months and freezing in the winter. The building will finally be renovated when someone is seriously harmed. 5, 31

149 Hughes Hall needs a complete overhaul 5 150 Hughes Hall needs to be renovated or replaced. 5 151 HVAC systems extremely noisy. Makes it hard for students and faculty to converse. Quality of light should be factored into the classroom. Could replace cold blue florescent lamps 13, 31 with warmer color temperature lamps. 152 I am allergic to chalk dust, so removing chalk boards and moving to dry erase would be great. 34 153 I am content with the physical environment of the classrooms I've taught in. 17 154 I am in the Medical Center and use classrooms in Graves Hall. Internet connections are often weak. Also, there are no clocks in some rooms and some rooms do not have white 7, 14, 40 boards. 155 I am teaching math, so the requirement on physical environment is not really demanding. 17 156 I favor white boards to chalk boards. One of my rooms is in Schonbaum, and everything is immaculate, one is in evans lab, and the door to the room only works on occaision (it is quite 34, 43 a battle to even open the door.) The desks are rather crowded and low to the floor, and the front row (perhaps all rows to a certain extent) can't see the bottom and maybe some of the middle of the board because of the giant desk in front. Fixing the doors and placement of desks more intelligently would be a plus. 157 I have classes in two different buildings MWF and both classrooms are absolutley freezing! Turn the heat on 31 158 I have made numerous calls to the people responsible for cleaning this past week. The cleaning people just toss erasers and chalk in and on the lecturns, the overhead projector carts, 38, 43 etc. This is causing a lot of chalk dust to accumulate on the projects, the lecturns, the tables, etc. There's no reason for this mess and I'm having trouble getting it rectified. It seems to be a general situation all across campus. Messes that might be made by people doing demonstrations, etc. aren't cleaned up -- maybe that should be the teacher's job. I have an overhead project cart in one classroom that has had some kind of sticky mess on it almost the whole quarter that is being ignored by the person who did it and/or the cleaning people. Last week I had difficulty finding chalk -- none of the classrooms had a good supply. 159 I have only taught in the Younkin Success Center and the rooms are great. 17 160 I have taught in Knowlton Hall, Evans Lab, Caldwell Lab, and Bolz Hall. Knowlton Hall was fine. My classroom in Evans Lab has numerous issues: the chairs are bolted to the floor, 31, 37, 46 virtually eliminating any chance of group discussion and making it uncomfortable for students to participate in discussion (they are sitting close enough to each other to touch); also there are no windows and when the classroom doors are open the hallway noise is very loud--with closed doors and no windows, the room is very claustrophobic. In all but Knowlton Hall, the temperature has been uncomfortably hot, to the point of being distracting. 161 I have taught in the Aviation Building, Central Classrooms, and Caldwell recently and the rooms are too small for 24 students and there is no available technology. 2, 42 162 I mostly teach in Arps. Some of the classrooms are physically in poor shape. 163 I need a visual classroom so moveable chairs instead of tables is preferred. 37 164 I often feel as if too many students are crammed into the particular classroom I was given. 42 165 I primarily teach in Arps Hall. The hallways, bathrooms, and classrooms are old, ugly, and worn out. I see the staff cleaning everyday, but the place never seems clean. I think HGTV 38 would say some dramatic updating is necessary. 166 I taught a class in Weigel 174. The room was extremely dirty (large dust balls, papers, food wrappers, etc.) for most of the quarter. I think the only cleaning that happened was when 38 instructors and students picked up the trash in the room when things became unbearable. The room should be cleaned much more often. 167 I taught in a classroom in Cockins Hall in the summer. The conditions were horrible. If I turned on the air conditioner, I couldn't lecture because of the noise. If I did not, it was too 31 miserably hot to do anything. 168 I taught in Koffolt Labs. The room was hot and dirty due to the chalk. We had a hard time opening windows to get air. Get wipe-off boards and tables in each room. 31, 40 169 I taught in Townshend Hall last Winter on the 2nd floor and the classroom was a nightmare. It was dirty and noisy and there was not any control of the temperature. The "technology" 9, 38, 31 was barely usable as the video cable to the projector had a bad wire and all the colors were wrong. It was not fixed even though I turned it in several times. 170 I teach art. the glass labs are great, but I would like to see better teaching technology available. ie digital projectors and av equipment 2 171 I teach in a very new up to date room. It is just right for my/students needs. 17 172 I teach in Central Classrooms, and it can be horribly hot, even on a cold day. There should be regulation of the temperature, as it is very hard on the students. 31 173 I teach in Hughes Hall much of the time; ther eis littleone can do with this building to improve it for music. It needs central heat and air and sound-proofing from room to room. It needs 31, 48 ventilation and cleanliness. It needs entrances that are more eye appealing. 174 I teach in Newton Hall, primarily 172. The room is cramped, dark, and not conducive to learning at all! 5 175 I teach in Scott Lab, McPherson and other science based classrooms. Inevitably, the chalk dust on the podium is so thick that (a) I have to get a wet paper towel in order to use the 38 keyboard, and (b), I am coughing halfway through class. We need better chalk or more cleaning. April 2009 G-35 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

176 I teach in several classrooms in Kottman Hall. There is no control in the heating / cooling system in Kottman. Many classrooms are either hot as hell --90 F (rm 244) or freezing (below 9, 31 60F --KH 102) in the winter. I taught a class in KH 102 where student wore coats through the entire quarter! In the spring --the air conditioning makes several rooms ice boxes -- students wear coats in the winter or freezing. The windows in Kottman Hall all leak --you can hear the wind whistling through them -- I am tempted to caulk the windows --they don't open anyway --why are we loosing all our heat to this nonsense? How can students keep their attention in freezing or baking environments? They can't. I am told that Kottman Hall has always been dysfunctional. We are rated poorly by the Physical Faciltiies on energy use. Governor Stickland's energy advisor, Mr. Shanahan, is coordinating efforts to reduce energy use (BTU) by their agencies --state agencies are required to document their BTU use and reduce it. Does the Governor know how wasteful Ohio State is? Maybe we should join the Governor;s efforts and try --just try --to stop wasting energy and tax dollars. Is it true nothing can be done? or more like nobody gives a damn? We should have more control 177 I teach in the Biological Science building 3rd floor labs. I understand that they will be remodeled soon. That is the only way they can be improved since now they are not pleasant at all. 5

178 I teach mainly in 1080 and 1116 Derby Hall. Both are a pleasure to teach in for the class sizes that I teach. 17 179 I teach only in Graves 1195. The room is fine for our group (10-15 students). 17 180 I think it is generally ok - there is a mix, as you'd expect in a university with bldgs of various ages. More to the point is trying to get the right match between the course needs and the room, technology, etc. 181 I think that many if not most of the rooms are not 'flexible' enough to adjust to different ways of teaching, the model is basically chairs positioned in rows facing forward. I think chair and 37 table configurations need to be rethought. 182 I use chalkboards and whiteboards. I'd enjoy seeing both cleaned a little more often. But this is obviously VERY low priority. I have once taught in a windowless basement room. 38 ANYTHING that would make these rooms more pleasant is worth considering. Fresh paint, clean floors, non-broken desks are all worth more when the surroundings are essentially a dingy concrete box. 183 I was teaching Bio 101 lab in Smith, which was a temporary location for Bio 101 labs until Jennings was refurbished, so this probably isn't the best representation of Ohio State 5 classrooms. With about 25 students in the class, there was not a lot of room to move around. I think OSU has already fixed this problem; Jennings classrooms are probably larger.

184 I would like heat when it is cold, and fans and air circulation (not frigid air) when it is hot. 31 185 I would suggest having the trash emptied twice/day or putting larger waste cans in the rooms. By the mid-afternoon, they are full (sometimes overflowing). Need more chairs for large 38, 41 students or ones that are armless. 186 If possible, limit the number of students per classroom. I taught in Derby Hall with 21 students and the classroom was extremely crowded. Additionally, in Central Classroom, there are 42 never enough seats for all the students. 187 I'm not in typical classrooms because I teach activity courses. The classrooms I teach in could be improved with dust control, temperature control and better technology for music. 8, 31, 38

188 Improve acoustics so that students and teachers can hear each other better. Fix temperature controls in Hughes Hall to avoid the distraction of uncomfortable classrooms. 31

189 Improve control of air temperature. 31 190 improved cleanliness, more interactive space (but NOT movable individual seats) - could use group tables for example, need white board (chalk is incredibly dusty) and lcd projection 34, 37, 38 on DIFFERENT walls! - not either / or. 191 Improving sound quality in large lecture halls. 8 192 In Animal Sciences 210, I am not happy with the proximity of the podium and the projector/screen. The podium is on one end of the classroom and the projector/screen is on the other 33 end. In addition, because the podium is close to the front of the classroom, there is a very limited angle from podium to screen. You are almost parallel with the screen, which makes it less than ideal for the instructor to view the screen and point to features on each slide. 193 In large classes, students seem to be crammed. Access to larger rooms would be nice. 42 194 In most cases, there is just a cleanliness issue. The floors are never swept, the chalkboards need cleaning, etc. In many of the labs in Smith though, the chalkboards are far to small 38 and the space is extremely cramped. 195 In some rooms, I am not able to decrease the lighting at the front of the room where the projection screen is located. I would like to be able to keep the students in adequate light while 13 having the class room dark enough at the front to easily seen the presentation. 196 In the Architecture Building accoustics within the classrooms and studios is awful. That should be improved. 8 197 IN the classroom at Hale Hall, the classroom #134 is either too warm or too cold, never just right. Adjusting the temperature to a comfortable level would be an improvement. 31 April 2009 G-36 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

198 In the computer classrooms in DE, in particular, there are often issues with the temperature, and not all of the air conditioning units are always working (at least one is missing a knob). 31 The heat of the room can be distracting to both the instructor and the students. 199 In the older buildings, such as Smith Lab, you should invest in some new desks. 41 200 Increase lighting, better seats 13, 41 201 Independent Climate Control Abilities for EACH ROOM so I'm not sweltering or frozen when it gets in the 70s in January or 40 in August! Oh Ohio weather... 31 202 It varies, greatly, depending on the building. In general, I've found that the basics are provided and are easy to use. However, some of the equipment needs a little tutorial in order to 4, 53 be able to use it. Not complaining- usually it's well worth it and IT folks have been very helpful. 203 It was fantastic 17 204 It would be hard to improve the Chemistry labs, and I'm not sure if they could be improved. 205 It would be nice to get new chairs & desks in some of the older classrooms where there are only the wooden connected desks. They are very uncomfortable. 41 206 It would be nice to have classroom that has enough chairs for the number of students enrolled. 42 207 It would be very helpful to know BEFORE one designs the syllabus exactly what facilities will be available. It may also help to not put some discussion-based classes in a lecture 19 theater environment, but I understand that arranging this is very difficult. 208 It's the little things. I've never made it an entire quarter without the classroom clock going out for at least a week. Built in microphones often generate feedback whine even when turned 14, 30, 31 off. Air conditioning/heating issues make students unhappy to be trapped in a room for over an hour during temperature transitions in fall and spring. 209 I've had some very good classrooms and some awful ones. The awful ones had climate control problems and/or an unpleasant atmosphere to work in. Making sure students are 31, 53 physically comfortable enough to concentrate on class should be a priority. 210 I've only taught in Bevis where the classrooms are fairly new and in Graves hall where they're hopelessly bad. 5 211 I've only taught in one room, and that room was equipped with the latest technology and was well-designed. I have no complaints or suggestions for improvements. 17 212 Keep chalk and/or markers stocked in classroom 43 213 Keep curtains/blinds in repair. They are often not adjustable, and hanging awry--not a good classroom image--very shabby looking--and annoying as well when trying to optimize 9 student comfort in the class 214 Keep updating rooms and repairing problems as they arise 43 215 larger desk/workspace for students 41 216 Larger... 217 Lazenby computer lab needs an overhaul - both in terms of the machines and the projection screen and data projector. 5 218 Less ambient noise 219 Lighting can become an issue when bulbs burn out. 9 220 Lighting in large lecture halls should be maintained on a more regular basis; it's difficult to take notes and exams (let alone stay awake) when the lights in the audience are too low and 43 there's no way to adjust them. 221 location of the black/green boards or the projector screens leave much to be desired. Many times, the projector screen is position over the board, so you can do only one activity at a 40 time - either use the projector or the board. I would like them to be placed better. 222 Locations are often bad, leading to congestion at the beginning and ending of classes. Often dark interior rooms. Dismal atmoshpere 13 223 make it easier to find chalk when the room is out 43 224 Make rapid adjustments to bring the temperature within the comfort range when the room temperature becomes too hot or too cold. 31 225 make sure all classrooms have smart technology - a minimum of a lcd and at least a place to plug in a laptop so I can run power point 2 226 Make sure that overhead equipment has lightbulbs that work. 43 227 Make sure that the seats are uniform and well maintained. More blackboards. Perhaps, having a few inspirational posters of Nobel laureates (or similar distinguished scientists) and 40, 43 their work would help motivate students. 228 Make sure there is always chalk in classrooms. Make sure there are always working overhead projectors and screens. 43 229 Many classrooms are dirty, lit by unpleasant flourescent lighting, have old, ugly and mismatched furniture, and have no windows. Correcting this would help a lot. 38, 46 230 Many classrooms are just plain cold without much "warmth" or concern for decor. Sorry this is so general but I am not sure what to recommend for improvement. 31 231 many classrooms at OSU have seen no physical improvement in decades 232 many classrooms that I have taught in are dirty and generally grim looking (little or no natural light). Many have faulty heating and cooling systems, so that I and my students stifle or 31, 38 freeze. Some of them actually stink. 233 Many have no technology capabilities. 2 April 2009 G-37 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

234 Many of my classrooms have been fine, freshly painted and welcoming. However, I had one in central classrooms with peeling yellow paint and a disintegrating ceiling. There was 43 nothing functionally wrong with the room, but it certainly had a neglected air about it. I think that some fresh paint and matching chairs would have gone a long way to make the room look valued and inviting. 235 Many of the classrooms have uncomfortable desks, inadequate lighting, and poor temperature control. 13, 31, 41 236 Many of the classrooms in specific dept.s are used for multiple types of classes, but are still used primarily by that dept. It would be nice if they had general things helpful for teaching 5 that type of class (ex. not all the chemistry rooms have a periodic table displayed). 237 Many of the rooms I teach in are old and the temprature in the room is bad due to window units. 31 238 matching chairs, chair that are not broken, podiums for teachers, fresh paint, a few pictures or aesthetics 43 239 maybe more adjustable set-ups of chairs? 37 240 Mine was in a newer building (Davis HLRI) and in their main lecture hall that is serviced by paid audio-visual staff...... that is a luxury and from what I'm told is not available in other big 5 lecture halls.....which is ashame. 241 More attention to adjusting the heat and cooling with changes in the weather. 31 242 More blackboards. Better chairs for students. 40, 41 243 more chairs in room, blinds should close for media projection 9, 42 244 More Chalk 43 245 more chalk, better erasers 43 246 More classroom availability. 247 More color, such as wall paint. 43 248 more comfortable instructor's chairs 41 249 more computer tech that satys in teh classroom i.e. more mart classrooms...we should try to incorperate smart tech for the students as well instaead of certian places buying expensive 18 chairs perhapes the money should be used to buy equipment for all the students 250 more flexibility from the rigid tables and chairs 41 251 more flexibility of the seating to accommodate different learning situations 37 252 More homogeneous air conditioning / heating in labs. Some are freezing while others are way too warm. 31 253 more inclusive and participatory settings; space for student's backpacks, coats, etc.. always in the way of focusing in the task at hand 37 254 More informal meeting spaces/interaction spaces. More flexible use of space/furniture. More discussion-friendly rooms. 37 255 More Natural Light. Change the benches. Put white black boards on which you can write with markers. 13, 34 256 more settings to promote collaborative efforts. No individual chairs/desks. Rooms that allow for flexibility in arrangement 37 257 More space in rooms crammed with desks and chairs; appropriate lighting; appropriate ventilation 13, 31, 42 258 More space, we had a large lab group, and could barely get every one around the equipment. 42 259 More student friendly, more light adjustment 13 260 Most classrooms that I have taught in are generally dirty, non-technology, and non-climate controlled rooms. I believe that classes should be clean and comfortable in temperature in 31, 38 order to be conducive to learning. I have been forced to teach in rooms in which windows have to be opened in January due to excessive heat. I have also had students walk out due to excessive heat. Further, if a class is very dirty and dilapitated, it is not quite conducive. 261 Most of the rooms have tables and chairs - this works well for engineering classes. Please avoid tablet chairs 41 262 Movable boards should be operational and not take months to repair. Lighting that is adjustable should have switches that function logically. 9, 13 263 movable desks for recitations, don't squeeze tons of people into small rooms (such as the aviation building) 37, 42 264 Move all the book shelfs and other stuff not related to class out of the room. 33 265 Much of the furniture needs to be replaced. The wooden desks are not comfortable. 41 266 My classroom has no panic button or classroom phone that I could use to dial 911. There is also no phone available to call tech services. At the school where I previously taught, both 47 things were available. Although I never had to use the panic button to call emergency services (thank goodness!), I used the tech phone often. 267 My ratings are based upon my experience in classrooms outside the Department (Anthropology). Basically most of the classrooms have not been conducive to learning. The 31 acoustics, lighting, heating and cooling, and seating make the experience for the students less than ideal. Some remodeling that takes these factors into consideration would be great for both the instructors and students. Of course there are excellent classroom facilities around the campus, but they are limited. 268 n/a 269 N/A April 2009 G-38 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

270 n/a 271 N/A 272 n/a 273 Need better control of temperature and lighting, as well as consistent availability of a half-podium. Lighting is often completely on-off in many classrooms. In others, such as Page 010 13, 30, 31 and 020, it is not possible to kill enough lighting to damp the glare on the screen. Classrooms in Page Hall are designed for one-way communication--information download from the front of the room only. If you try to hold a discussion, the acoustics are terrible in these stadium seating rooms 010 and 020. They are designed with a fixed microphone up front. I can carry my voice to the back of the room, but students cannot be heard from the back three rows of the room, unless they really shout. These are newly refurbished rooms. Obviously the University planners regard discussion as an out-of-date mode of teaching. I have to fight the design of the room daily in order to get the students to become engaged participants in knowledge rather than fit the designed role as passive recipients of information. Information reception is not the same as understanding. In fact, passive information reception is often antithetical to genuine learning. Why cannot the designers of these rooms ask those of us who care about teaching how to make the rooms work?? 274 Need more rooms that hold 50-100 students; rooms need to be retrofitted so students can use their technology (plugs, etc). 35, 42 275 Need more space between chairs for students. Entire room is very run down: walls should be painted, windows replaced, chairs modernized, cushioned. 42, 43 276 Need new desks/chairs; update the overall appearance as much is the orginal equipment from when the building was built 41 277 Need space and furniture that support team work. 37 278 new carpet is needed! The carpets in the DHLRI are very badly stained. Also, the walls are damaged and in need of repair 44 279 New chairs, ceiling, paint, almost everything Smith Lab is out of date in every way and a bad place to teach. 43 280 New desks/surfaces, paint, cleaning, better lighting, better seating 41, 43 281 no air flow in the room. i teach dance classes and the air can get stale. having some control of the air in the room would be nice. 31 282 No complaints here! 17 283 No suggestions 284 no suggestions 285 No suggestions: it was a brand new building 286 Noisy fan was distracting. Excessive heating was a problem. And these were in a newly renovated building.... 31 287 none 288 None 289 None. 290 Not much can be done now, it's an architectural issue that would require building modifications. 291 Often, the desks are very old and of poor quality. 41 292 Often, the temperature is either uncomfortably hot or cold, and it is impossible to do anything about. 31 293 ok 17 294 Only three classrooms in my building are technology enhanced. Most of my teaching occurs in these classrooms. Since others in the building have discorvered these rooms, they are 2 booked solid making it difficult to access the room for preparations. EVERY room in the building that is used for a classroom should be technology enhanced.

295 our building is rather old, and the college has done a good job of upgrading classrooms as indicated, but this comes out of college funds, so scope of projects is limited by available budget 296 outlets for laptops 35 297 overall, good, in architecture building, chairs & tables go missing, so, each day, I am never sure if I will have enough for all of my students. 42 298 Perhaps different options for layout, as far as tables/desks, etc. 37 299 permanent seating so that chairs cannot be arbitrarily shifted from one class to another 33 300 Photo classrooms need appropritate ways of putting up photographs to critique. ( the current situation is a wall we fight to put push pins into-not a cork type board at all. Too hot or too 45 cold. 301 Please provide lecture lights onthe podiums. When we turndown the lights to run slide shows, it imposible to see lecture, class notes, etc. 13 302 Postle Hall needs updated. 5 303 Problems searching for classrooms, classrooms large enough for number of students in class, then when large classroom is found, need to request and check each session on A-V 42 equipment, computer access, etc. 304 Projectors are loud and rooms are designed in funny way that make it hard to see the screen for the instructor 33 April 2009 G-39 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

305 Provide better quality desk/chairs 41 306 provide chalk and white board markers. 43 307 Provide regular janitorial services Most large classrooms are full of trash 38 308 Provide Technoology! Computer, Laptop inputs, a clean overhead projector! 2 309 Providing adequate HVAC both for comfort and to eliminate need to open windows for temperature control which may increase noise from outside. 31 310 Quicker attention to repair of blinds and shades 9, 43 311 real control of the HVAC, not just a non-working thermostat. 31 312 Regular cleaning of chalk boards, instructor's desks/consoles/tables (which accumulate chalk) and more frequent trash removal. In Arps Hall, this has been an ongoing issue. 38

313 Remove the old junk in many of the classrooms (several big desks/tables). Provide better air circulation while controlling the amount of light from windows and other external sources. 31, 43

314 Removing unused projectors, etc. from the classroom could free up space for the instructor/students to use. 43 315 Renovation of Smith 1153 is long overdue 5 316 Renovations are needed in many classrooms -- I've taught in rooms with peeling paint; exposed pipes; and marked up walls, desks, and chairs. 43 317 Repaint? 43 318 Repair floors and ceilings so that walls and floors are all covered. Also, clean the rooms more oftern. 38, 43 319 Repair windows (seal them, etc.). Provide sound insulation. 43, 48 320 replace instructor's stool in 240 Atwell 5 321 Repsonses vary greatly by building. Some buildings are modern, comfortable, and condusive while other buildings are very outdated, lead students to be distracted and unorganized. 53 This statement applies to technology as well. 322 room 048 should not be used as a classroom- it is dark, dingy, smells and should be used for something else. 5 323 Room 1187 Graves hall has a split screen- the room is wide, the speaker never knows what screen to address. 5 324 Rooms are always overheated as the colder weather arrives in Autumn Qtr, and this overheating often continues through winter. FOD needs to work on temperature control and 31 reducing waste by not overheating; it amazes me that numerous air conditioners are running during winter because of the inability of FOD to moderate heat. 325 Rooms are hot and noisy. 31 326 satisfied 17 327 Seat backs either straight up or broken and students had to lean back. 9 328 Seating arrangements should be conducive to communication and learning, but also comfortable. Often classrooms just don't have enough extra space to rearrange seating easily, so 37 we are stuck with the traditional rows which are not very conducive to group work or to students in the middle or back of the class seeing the board/projector screen.

329 Seating in many classrooms is very poor. New chairs, tables, desks, etc would be welcome. 41 330 Seats are completely outdated in Evans Lab. Way too small and cramped. 41 331 Setups of computer classrooms are often poor and reflect old thinking about them as "labs" and not workspaces. 37 332 Several of our rooms are without windows; Student chairs/desks could be upgraded; Not all classrooms have adequate space for the instructor to place notes/supplies used during 41, 46 class. 333 Since PowerPoint presentations have become the norm even for discussion sections, the classrooms should be equipped with a means of raising and lowering the light level so people 13 can still see handouts and their own computers. 334 Soap and paper towel dispensers in every studio classroom (Hayes Hall in particular) that are refilled regularly; dampening of loud noise and vibration from boiler room (Hayes 234) 5

335 Some blackboards need replacement. 43 336 Some brighter lighting would be appreciated in the College of Dentistry. Improvements to some of the seating in a few of the larger lecture halls would also be appreciated. Some of 13, 43 the others with the old paneling on the walls need a lot of help. 337 Some classrooms are quite nice, others are less so. In classes with a blackboard, it would be appreciated if someone would keep chalk stocked up. 43, 53 338 some classrooms have very old desks that are in poor condition and/or uncomfortable. Most classroom seating does not provide a large enough writing area esp for those with lap tops 41 April 2009 G-40 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

339 Some classrooms in Drinko Hall are visibly falling apart. The carpet is worn and the room has an overall dingy appearance. The desk/tables can't be moved easily and limit the ability 37, 43, 44 to productively use the classrooms. 340 Some classrooms you've obviously put time and money into. Others still feature blackboards (with bare nubs of chalk) that are decades old and repainted cinder-block walls where the 43, 53 best technology in the room is the switch for god-awful florescent lights. 341 Some consistency in terms of seating would be nice. 342 Some lab rooms are great (e.g. new labs in Jennings), however others are quite poor (e.g. museum of biological diversity). 5 343 Some of the classroom floors appear that they have never been cleaned, which gives an overall feeling of uncleanliness. Cleaning regiments would be beneficial. Also, although it is 38, 43 unrealistic to expect paint in all classrooms, the classrooms that are not just a white or gray color are much more stimulating, so perhaps some painting could be done.

344 SOme of the classrooms in Graves are too hot making it difficult to teach in. 31 345 some of the labs (celeste) are poorly lit, esp. in towards the back of the room. 13 346 Some of the rooms I've taught in both in ARps and Ramseyer give the impression that the entire builidng might crumble around us at any moment. Also, the floors need to be swept 38, 43 and cleaned more frequently. 347 Some of the smaller classrooms could use better desks/chairs. Nothing fancy or expensive, just updated. 41 348 some of the windows do not open well in 2nd floor class rooms 43 349 Some rooms are a bit over packed with chairs, leaving very little room for students to get in or out or move at all. 42 350 Some rooms are getting old, need minor upkeep. 43 351 Some rooms are very small for the # of desks. Better lighting (and green). 13, 42 352 Sometimes cold, sometimes hot! Cramped near front podium, hard to lecture informally. Computer controls need to be offset so you are not walking into the screen when talking 31, 42

353 Sometimes the rooms were a bit dirty (trash and papers on the floor, drink containers, etc.). This condition seemed to occur at mid-day as well as in the afternoons when I taught the 38 classes. 354 Sometimes we don't have the right number of chairs. 42 355 Soundproofing between classrooms 48 356 Starling Loving M100 is a terrible classroom. The carpet is filthy, but the Med School has not been willing to replace it. the heating is very uneven, so it is often cold. There is only one 31, 38, 40 blackboard, and it is behind the projector screen, so that you cannot use both at the same time. 357 Sullivant Hall (room 066a) is very nice but showing signs of age. 43 358 Tables make the classroom environment conducive to group work/collaboration. 37 359 Tables that groups can work around. 37 360 Technology in all classroom spaces. 2 361 Temp never seems to be appropriate - either so cold students have to wear coats or so hot students complain and ask if we can move class. 31 362 temperature control in Denney Hall 31 363 Temperature control needs work - too hot or too cold. Room is too cramped - too many seats in size of the room - difficult for group work and to be able to move around 31, 37, 42 364 Temperature control seems to be a challenge in many of the rooms including Bolz and Jennings hall, and if it's too hot and we open windows, traffic noise is a real challenge to teach 31 over 365 temperature controls are not appropriate (either steaming or freezing in the classroom(s)) 31 366 Temperature is often at extremes (too hot or too cold). 31 367 Temperature is uncomfortable at times. Boards and markers are often not well prepared for class. 31 368 temperature of rooms is not consistent (too hot or too cold), chairs and tables are in poor repair, chalk and markers are not replaced. 31, 43 369 Temperature should not be burning hot in winter, and air conditioning should be moderate in summer. 31 370 the ag admin dumpster is outside the classroom window - occasionally we get loud banging or beeping when the truck comes through. Any way to avoid that? 48 371 The AV building is constantly too hot. The rooms in MP have had cold air blowing in them constantly even though it is 20 degrees outside right now. 31 372 The class rooms I hold recitation in SM 1180 and PO 0208. SM 1180 would be improved by being able to move the desks. Students go a lot of group work in the class, so it would be 37 nice if they could group their seats together. 373 The classroom I teach in (255 Townsend Hall) is dirty and across from an open construction site (right across the hall). It has wires hanging down and is just unpleasant to look at. April 2009 G-41 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

374 The classroom is always hot, even though there are computers in it. 31 375 The classrooms and surrounding areas (corridors, restrooms, etc.) need some renovation to bring them into the 21st century. Many look as though they haven't been renovated since 43 they were built, and a few appear not to have been cleaned since then either. A fresh coat of paint and maybe a softer, less institutional color scheme would works wonder. (And replacing light bulbs on time would help too.) 376 The classrooms have poor acoustics, lighting, and seating. 13, 41 377 The classrooms I teach in are far too noisy. I teach one class in a computer lab which has four in-the-window air conditions. I have to shout to be heard over the din. Turn off the air 48 conditioners and it is soon way too hot. I have taught at a dozen institutions over the past 25 years and have never encountered anything as bad as Hughes Hall. I also teach in other rooms in Hughes that are also very noisy -- mostly traffic noise, but there is also music from other rooms. Horrible. 378 the classrooms I used for autumn are great. other classrooms however in Hughes and Hopkins are dilapidated. School of Music needs a new center or building. 5 379 The classrooms in the new annex of Stillman Hall are excellent. 17 380 The classrooms need to be cleaned regularly, windows washed, floors swept and mopped, surfaces dusted, blackboards wiped clean, chairs arranged 38, 43 381 The classrooms should be cleaner and generally kept in better repair (paint, etc.). 43 382 The College of Education classrooms are shameful - some of the furniture is older than my parents. I am lucky that the classroom I teach in is not in Ramseyer.... 5 383 The dance department has substandard studios and classrooms. As compared with peer programs, our facilities are frustratingly embarrassing. They are consistently the wrong 5, 31, 43 temperature--a tremendous problem for dancers. They are ugly. There seems to be mold on the ceiling. We are missing ceiling tiles, and once during class a bat came flying out of the ceiling and circling the classroom. There has been a rat in our offices. The sound proofing tiles are flaking off. The theatre is misshapen. 384 The Dept of Art painting classrooms, graduate and faculty studios are like ruins- it can only be described as malicious neglect. I am ashamed for my students dealing with the leaky 43 roof, broken office furniture in the halls, no common areas for meetings, dismal lighting (for the visual arts lighting IS important), horrid waste disposal (OSU is one EPA inspection away from a major fine because no one cares about the dept. and more telling, the health of its students and faculty), sinks that don't work, poor air quality, filthy studios that the maintenance crew never enters and the fact that any towels, soap, cleaning, etc comes from departmental budgets and decreases $ available for students. Really- and this is not an exaggeration, everything is bad. 385 The desks in Smith Labs should be replaced with desks that are not bolted to the floor. 37 386 The Drake Union is old and the performance lab classrooms are in disrepair. We could use better rehearsal furniture, standardized rehearsal blocks chairs, tables and roll-away beds. 5 You could make the classrooms 100% more functional by spending $500 on building new rehearsal blocks. 387 The durability of windows, blinds and curtains in recently renovated buildings needs more attention from the University Architects. 43 388 The environment is uneven -- some good, some bad. Basically, local units simply do not have funds for updates, so something central needs to be provided to make classrooms more 25, 53 student and faculty friendly. I have been to many state of Ohio universities to give talks, and I am embarrassed to say that we seem to have among the worst if not the worst teaching rooms. 389 The first row is very close to the white board. I feel like a giant standing there because I am so close and there is barely any space. 42 390 The first row should be seated at least 3ft from the blackboard. The room should not be too wide. 42 391 The front of the classroom could be more well lit. The light switches/controls could be accessible, rather than hidden behind a cabinet. 13 392 The fume hoods in the biology classrooms of Jennings make it a little difficult to be heard in the back of the rooms. I'm not sure if anything can be done for that. 5 393 The General chemistry lab equipment is very mediocre. The glassware is often dirty, rubber hoses have holes in them, the hoods are small and somewhat ineffectual. 5 394 The glass lab was fine in a physical sense. Other classrooms on campus, I have always found the lighting to be an interesting problem it's hard to show images on the projector 5 because the dim lights go all the way up to the screen and so they must be turned off all the way in order to see color correctly. Maybe take the bulbs out of the lights closest to the screen. 395 The heating and cooling is always CRAZY, especially in Central Classroom and Hagerty Hall where I teach. 31 396 the heating is appalling!!! The room was always so HOT you felt as though you were in a steam bath. No student could pay attention. 31 397 The heating/cooling is sometimes a problem. During October our classroom was far too hot on occasion. 31 398 The individual fume hoods in the general chemistry labs seem to be there pretty much just so it can be said that there are hoods there for them to use. They function very poorly and 5 the odors from lab are not ventilated properly. Even the design is poor as the hood itself can be moved and therefore not be connected to the exhaust properly. 399 The indoor air system (HVAC system) in the law school needs some serious help. Not only does it range from freezing to scorching in the matter of a day, but it is also incredibly dirty. 31, 38 The vents all have staining around them because the air quality coming from them is so low. Such air quality provokes asthma and various allergies, compounded by the fact that it just isn't really healthy for everyone. In general the law school is incredibly dirty. The bathrooms have ant problems, and don't appear to be cleaned on a regular basis. There are often various debris on the desks in the libraries that wouldn't be there if they got a wipe down every once in a while. 400 The labs in the first floor of Mendenhall Lab are never swept or mopped. Its very dusty and dirty. 38 April 2009 G-42 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

401 The large lecture halls tend to be very nice--for lighting options, for seating space, for movement in front of the room, for TAs to sit, etc. The recitation rooms are often too small, dark, 13, 31, 37, 53 and hard to maintain a moderate temperature. Since there are no windows they tend to be too hot and stuffy with no way to vent the rooms, even by leaving the door open and dealing with the noise of the other classrooms on the floor interrupting the discussion in my recitation rooms. Worse than this are classrooms with chairs bolted to the floor; while no doubt there are some students who would find it funny to run off with a chair or two, it makes discussion group activities almost impossible if the chairs are immobile and "groups" can't be formed. If recitations are to be discussion-based and not lecture-based, then the classrooms would be better served by making the classrooms adaptable, moderately soundproof, and vented. 402 The lecture hall I use (Hitchcock 131) almost constantly has light bulbs burnt out. 9 403 The lecture hall in Postle (I think room 1080) was dark and dingy. It was not a comfortable place to be. In contrast, the big lecture hall in Evans is very pleasant to be in. 43 404 The lecture halls are very well setup. My problems arose when some of the rooms were simply too small to accommodate the size of class I had. This is likely a departmental issue, 42 but the only suggestion I would have is to have a lower cap on enrollment for some of those sections with smaller rooms. 405 The lighting could be better. In some classrooms, if I turn off the lights to show slides, we are in darkness and the students can't take notes. Overall, the level of lighting is poor. The 13, 42, 43 furniture is also poor and the rooms often seem cramped especially when we are taking a test. 406 The lighting could be better. The environment is just rather sterile, which is what you get with a shared classroom -- no opportunity for personal touches. 13 407 The lighting could be improved so that it is brighter! None of the rooms I teach in have windows, so having brighter light would be nice. 13, 46 408 The newly remodelled rooms are good - sometimes lighting is an issue - too much light from windows that can't be dimmed enough. 13 409 The problem is variation--in the past year I have taught in classrooms that are spectacular, and also classrooms that barely have screens that will stay on the wall and overhead 5 projectors that actually work--for example Pomerene Hall, 207 and 208. 410 The problems are not much about the class room, but rather about the labs. Lab courses are neglected in many ways even though hand-on experience matters the most. 5 411 The room needs to be cleaned more often and better. The furniture is old and uninviting. But, more than anything, something that is cleaner and less cluttered would be helpful. 38, 43

412 The room where I teach has a chalk board that is covered when the screen is pulled down for projecting PowerPoint slides. The room should have a white board rather than a chalk 34 board, and it should be positioned such that it can be used even when projecting to the screen. 413 The rooms I have taught in are generally pretty good. I have taken course, as a PhD student, in which the situation was not good. Any classroom with desk/chair combo's are poor for most people. I prefer tables, room to spread out or work in small groups is preferred. 414 The school of music needs renovations in all classrooms. The rooms literally are falling apart. Windows should open, door should have knobs, pianos should be tuned, etc 43

415 The second floor classrooms in Central Classrooms building are too cramped with furniture - even 25 chairs/desks in that small room makes it difficult to move around, do small-group 31, 42 work, etc. Also - classrooms in CC and in Denney are almost always (regardless of the weather) too warm and close - makres the students sleepy! 416 The shades in JE 224 are not able to darken the room enough to allow for quality slide/PowerPoint presentation! They're "light filtering" and need to be "light blocking." 13 417 The space needs to be a bit more flexible. And technology needs to be available in more of the rooms. 2, 37 418 The spaces are a bit small for the number of students required. Also, there's hardly ever chalk in my classroom. 42, 43 419 The temperature in the classrooms need to be monitored. I have taught in various classrooms across campus, some are brutally cold and some are so warm that students find it hard to 31 concentrate. A little more ventilation would definitely help. 420 The temperature is sometimes too warm or too cold. Desks should be sturdy enough to endure many students, but light enough to move around if desired. White/wipe boards should 31, 34, 37 be in rooms, not chalkboards. 421 The temperature of the rooms is not always conducive to learning 31 422 the traditional "desk-chairs" are not appropriate for all students and add to the unorganized condition of many classrooms 41 423 The vents in the back of the room often made it difficult for students to hear. 48 424 The worst of them are just in buildings that ought to be replaced. I don't think the problems are with the classrooms per se, it's entire buildings. 43 425 There are only tables in the classroom where I teach kinesiology lab. There should be individual desks and the students are too crowded. 41 426 There are still too many chalkboards & too many classrooms without technology 2 427 There could be more space for the students and more chalk and erasers for the teachers. 43 428 There is a significant range of quality in classrooms. Some classrooms are fantastic in all respects, but others urgently need refurbishing. More consistency is needed. 53 429 There is a tremendous need to accommodate obese students. They do not fit in any of the chairs currently supplied to classrooms or auditoriums. their numbers are literally growing 41 rapidly. April 2009 G-43 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

430 There is literally nothing in the room. No windows. No clock. The color is a depressing cream. Also, the lights constantly buzz, which is distracting when loud outside noises do not 14, 46, 48 drown out the sound. 431 There is no temperature control in my classroom and it gets so hot that students become lethargic and sick. Even with the windows opened on a cold day, it is still hot. It would be 31 better to have more wall space in the room as well. 432 There needs to be an instructor computer and projector in every classroom 1, 11 433 There some excellent facilities on campus, but equally are as many substandard classrooms with poor hvac, seating , asthetics and a/v capability/ capacity 2, 53 434 They are ok now. But... every year at the start of spring they get too how before the cold air starts to work. Having control over air conditioning would greatly improve the environment. 31

435 They are poorly maintained -- messy and in disarray. I was very disappointed to have to use chalkboards again ... at my previous university, we had phased those out years ago. 43

436 they seem fine to me 17 437 they should be cleaned more regularly, and temperature should be monitored more carefully. Many lecture theatres on campus are routinely either too hot or too cold, depending on 31, 38 the season. Students can't function in such an environment 438 They were great. No improvements necessary. 17 439 Too many students in too small a space. Not conducive to engaging students in small group and interactive activities. 42 440 Update esthetics and proper maintenance. 43 441 Update seating and maintain a higher level of custodial service. Many of the instructional spaces do not reflect a high regard for either the customers (students) or the professional 38 standards of instructors. 442 update the lighting/seating/carpet in the CON lecture hall, it is dark, and the power point is faded with poor color quality 9, 13 443 Updated desks for students that are functional; getting rid of stage to allow for more interactive environment 37, 41 444 Updated furniture wuld be helpful. Particularly modular tables that would enhance group work. 41 445 updated furniture/chairs/tables; painted walls with some color; add dry erase boards; replace worn/old ceiling tiles 40, 41 ,43 446 updating chairs in older rooms; updating chalkboards to markerboards. 34, 41 447 upgrade all the seats, disks and clean the floor 41, 44 448 Upgrade the chalk boards to whiteboards. 34 449 Upstairs classroom required A/C, which was too noisy to talk over effectively 31 450 up-to-date lighting 13 451 use podium format for audio-visual. No carts 8 452 very cramped space in some lab rooms. 42 453 walls are dirty; ceiling tiles dirty/stained; drapes are filthy and in may rooms are falling off the hooks 43 454 We could use a second design studio class room. We only have one, and several faculty wish to teach in the space at the same times. 5 455 We have desks that look like they may fit elementary school kids. Most of the furniture is old and really needs to be replaced. The walls are also fairly dingy. 41, 43 456 We have two two-course sequences (each course for 5 credit hours per quarter) that are growing in popularity. The enrollment in one course (>270 students) currently exceeds the 42 capacity of the classroom we use (the largest available). We have brought in extra seats and are still having to turn students away. The other course has grown from 170 students 3 years ago to 212 this year and, if this rate of growth continues, will also exceed the capacity of the largest classroom available. When inquiries were made about plans to build larger teaching auditoria, the course directors were informed there were no such plans--and yet there is a lot of building going on to provide increased space for other purposes. Thus, we have education programs that are increasingly successful but our ability to expand them is limited by the lack of classrooms that are sufficiently large. Having additional sections of these courses is not an option as all of our faculty are very successful with their research and would not agree to spending more time teaching--and the college would not force them to do so. 457 We need a better desk (taller) in front of the stage in each of classroom (hold 120 students) so that I do not have to put a stand for my laptop on the top of the deak. 33 458 We need a total repainting of our studios. The old paint is pealing right off the walls. 43 459 We need heat/cooling systems that works in our building, Howlett Hall. The desks are the ones that came with the building when it was built in 1967. The blinds kinda work, but it is 13, 31 difficult to show Power Point presentations when natural light can't be exculded. 460 We need more seminar rooms where seats can be arranged around tables. 37 461 We need to be able to control the heat and air conditioning in these rooms. They are much too cold in the late spring through early fall (when most people are lightly dressed) and 31 much too hot in the winter (when most of us wear sweaters). This is not only uncomfortable, it is a preposterous waste of energy. April 2009 G-44 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-4 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Physical Environment

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

462 We should have white boards in all classrooms. 40 463 Well, it really depending on the classroom. Smith Lab 2001 is tiny, cramped, has terrible desks (also small, spaced too close together, and bolted to the floor), and no technology. 42, 46 Many classrooms would benefit from having windows. Other classrooms are fine. 464 While I realize that with the number of students we have, keeping up with the cleanliness of the classrooms is a challenge, but bottom line, they could be better maintained. 38

465 White boards instead of chalk boards would be nice. 34 466 Window shades that are much easier to use for blocking the outdoor light when projectors are used. 13 467 Windows, doors don't close properly. 43 468 windows, heating, air conditioning ( there is no) and equipment 31 469 with the advent of using powerpoint to present slides, finding ways to have the slides center stage but not lose the personal touch of the instructor should be explored - lighting issues 13 frequently make this difficult (i.e., to see the slides, lights have to be so low that students can't see the instructor - makes it very impersonal) 470 working HVAC 31 April 2009 G-45 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

1 "Smart" classrooms should utilize high definition projectors so that material presented to the students is easier to see and understand. 1, 18 2 1. Technology needs to be expanded to ALL classrooms. I know it's a big project, but that should be the goal. 2. Technology needs to be standardized across the board, so that less 2, 3 tech-savvy instructors do not have the added barrier of having to negotiate multiple setups. 3 A computer -- or at least wireless access and a projector to which a laptop can be connected -- needs to be in EVERY classroom!!! We certainly don't need DVD players, VCRs, etc., in 11, 7 every classroom, but we can't do without network-connected computers with projectors for them. 4 a course in how to use it would make the transition easier 4 5 A document cam (for use with the projector) would be very useful. 6 6 A projector is necessary for classroom. 1 7 A sheet informing what technology is available and how to operate it would help. Classrooms have completely different technologies..some have pc/mac, some only pc etc. 19

8 A tutorial program should be located on the desktop. 4 9 A university wide shared network drive would be nice. 20 10 A working clock and television with VCR/DVD player would be great additions to the space in Pomerene. Having to reserve another space for video dance viewings and provide 14, 8 directions for students is challenging and very time consuming. 11 Access to projectors and computers in all classrooms (we currently have to sign out carts with projectors in various states of disrepair). 2, 16 12 Add document cameras to classrooms. These are like overhead projectors, but provide real-time image of a paper or book placed under the camera. 6 13 add more data analysis software 21 14 Add reliable internet connection Prevent theft of equipment Install proper a/v equipment rather than relying on faculty to transport 7, 8, 22 15 Add wall-mounted audio speakers to 240 Atwell 8 16 Again--it is new and up to date. 23 17 All classrooms -- Department or otherwise -- need to have computer technology 2 18 ALL classrooms could be made technology ready. 2 19 All classrooms on campus should have technology. If a computer with internet access and Power Point capabilities, and an LCD projector are not possible; at least classrooms should 1, 2, 8 have the LCD projector so faculty can use their own laptops. Also, please keep VHS players available--while it is an outdated format, many educational videos and documentaries still exist only in that medium. 20 All classrooms should be equipped with a console or 'station' so that instructors can use computer, projector, etc. 2 21 All classrooms should be smart rooms 2, 18 22 All classrooms should be smart-rooms--wired for powerpoint, showing films, ect. Moreover, much of the equipment is old; for example, many of the projectors are faulty, meaning that 2, 9, 18 the colors they project are completely off with blue showing as green or grey. 23 ALL classrooms should have overhead projection systems w/computers. we scrable every quarter to get our classes in these types of rooms. It might be nice to have smart boards in 1, 3, 24, 29, 32 some classrooms and even technology to record lectures. also i know clickers can be borrowed.. but have to check out equipment/software etc...make this standard

24 All classrooms should have permanently installed computer/projection equipment (some still require a laptop and/or projector be brought in) 1, 11 25 All classrooms should have projectors/computers and internet access 1, 2, 7, 11 26 All classrooms should have technology to start with. Also, technological equipment often does not function properly, with assistance being slow to arrive when needed. 2, 9, 10 27 All classrooms should have the ability to project images from a variety of media sources (DVDs, VHS, Internet, laptops, Flash Drives, etc.) without the instructor having to arrange 15, 25 services or carry equipment to the instructional space. Many of our classrooms do not meet the standards of typical high school classrooms in the area. 28 All computers need to be updated to accept Office 2007 documents - I had students give in class ppt presentations last week and the computer wouldn't open Vista (Windows 2007) 21 pprs. 29 all rooms should have computers and projectors; more rooms need smart boards and other types of technology 1, 11, 24 30 All should at least have an LCD projector if not also a computer 1, 11 31 Allow for presenter view on screens. 6 32 Allow for use of multiple presentation techniques: LCD projector AND chalkboard, LCD projector AND overhead. 15 33 Although the classroom is set up for computer technology, it does not have a computer only a projector. I have had to check out a laptop every class from IT. 11 34 assuring that technology consistently works (computers have a tendency to freeze) 9, 29 35 At this point, I think all rooms need to have technology and I have taught in some that don't have anything but an overhead projector. 2 April 2009 G-46 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

36 Audio/visual capabilities (digital or not) need continual upgrading. The classroom overhead projectors from Classroom Pool are worn out. Some digital projectors and their screens are 8, 23 "early issue". 37 AV equipment for projecting powerpoint presenations MUST be made available for all classrooms. This is now the STANDARD way in which lectures are provided in all undergrad 8, 25 classes that I am aware of. Presently, if I am not teaching in a new classroom, I must lug my departmental projector to the classroom in which I teach - big pain in the neck!

38 Avoid wires draping across ceiling... 26 39 basic technology... we need a clock put in the room. 14 40 Be able to write on PowerPoint slides 24 41 Be sure to have computers that are < 5 years old in classrooms (sometimes makes file transfer difficult on older machines). 23 42 Because my lecture notes are on Power Point slides, I often find myself carrying a projector to the classrooms I teach in because there is no access to technology. Taking the time to 1, 16 set up and take everything down each time is time consuming. More access to technology (computers, projectors, etc.) would help considerably. 43 Better (louder) speakers would be a smart improvement in the DE computer classrooms. 5, 8 44 Better access to Turning Point, Smart Boards, wireless internet access for students 7, 24 45 better control of lighting to see projector material 13 46 Better instructions available on the podium of how to use the various equipment 4 47 Better projection screens, clocks that are accurate, ceiling mounted projectors. 1, 14 48 Better technology/materials to teach kinesiology labs. Skeletons are falling apart and there are NO models for the muscles. 5 49 both classrooms I used this quarter are fine in terms of computers in the classroom with LCD project etc... however other School of Music classrooms are lacking in technology. no 5 LCD, no computer, or sound blocking. 50 Brighter projector 1 51 Brighter projectors for rooms with lots of windows. Higher-res projectors for all rooms. Many of the laptops have difficulty with the lower res projectors. Decent graphics cards or GPUS 1, 9 in a few labs. Can not show some demos with the poor Intel Integrated graphics. 52 bring computers up-to-date with latest versions of Microsoft Windows and Office 21, 23 53 By ensuring that the overhead machines are always working 29 54 Cables provided. 26 55 ceiling mount computer projectors in all rooms. 1 56 Change from Macs to PCs. 28 57 Classrooms need to be made wireless with sufficient space to allow students to use computers during larger lectures. 7, 41 58 clickers 32 59 Comprehensive access to computers linked to audiovisual devices. 8, 16 60 Computer systems and presentation equipment could be upgraded. e.g., install more ancillary programs on computers to run videos in class - (some PC do not have QuickTime); more 23, 24 "smart screens" on podium so that PPT can be annotated by instructor; computer technology should be available in teaching labs 61 computer too old, overloaded, not serviced enough 9, 23, 29 62 Computer towers in every room -- wireless available in all rooms 7 63 Consistency i.e., all MACs or all PCs within a building. Make sure that software is updated consistently also. 3, 21, 29 64 Consistency in availability would be nice; we've had issues with the document projector in HI 131. Also, the brand-new screen in the JE samller lecture hall (JE 155) squeaks 3, 5 unbearably as it goes up and down. 65 Consistency in technology in different parts of campus, (to help with ease of technology use) 3 66 consistent wireless access (in Denney Hall and in Central Classrooms) 7 67 Consistent working equipment. Easier capability to notify when equipment is broken or missing. 10, 29 68 Consistent. All rooms should be set up with updated clicker technology and smart boards 2, 3, 32 69 Consistently providing instructional technology in all classrooms. 2, 3 70 Continue updating technologyand accessibility of that technology. Continue offering tech support and courses for faculty. Availability to access national programs in numerous 16, 23, 10 classrooms 71 could provide plug-in microphone technology 30 April 2009 G-47 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

72 Current technology for multimedia-enhanced learning needs to be consistent in all classrooms, large and small. Make sure presentation services staff offer consistent and efficient 3, 10 assistance to faculty, have sufficient equipment, and are easy to contact and schedule 73 Currently there is inconsistent availability of fresh batteries for microphones in classrooms. 9, 30 74 Currently, alltechnology employed is portable and improvised. Fully installed equipment would enhance the quality. 16 75 Decent overhead projectors. The caddies they are on are very old and they are extremely bulky. A projector in all class rooms would not be a stretch. In fact, if this can be done, a 1, 6 document camera can replace the overhead projectors. 76 dimmer lights, routine checks for remote control batteries and lamps in projectors 13, 29 77 Directions posted with the new tech-stacks in Arps. They are less than self-explanatory, even with a mildly tech-savvy person. 4 78 Don't worry about the technology until you fix the basic infrastructure. Talking about classroom technology in the buildings I teach in is likely discussing computers in an African village 5, 31 that doesn't have electricity. Sorry to disappoint you but the budget for classroom technology should given to physical facilities. The main priorities are controlling room temperatures so they aren't excessively hot or cold, and so the noise is brought down to a dull roar. The School of Music teaching spaces are an embarrassment. Little better than mud huts.

79 DUMP VISTA...it is soooo bad. Always freezes up, and is difficult. also the multiple sig....sorry, had to resign on to finish the sentence...signons are a pain. 21 80 Each classroom should be equipped with a (computer) projector. 1, 11 81 Each classroom should have a projector, screen, and computer (w/dvd player). Each classroom should have an overhead projector (or better, document camera to display student 1, 11 work). more software such as concept mapping would be good too. 82 Easier A/v set-ups 8 83 Easier to use projectors 1 84 Electrical updates- outlets don't work! Wired for internet and lcd projectors- we lecture in these rooms- the BA, BFA, and MFA degrees in studio art are not technical, blue collar, devil 5, 7, 9, 27 may care degrees. It is not a 2 yr technical college and if it were I am certain that we would have better facilities. Its quite embarrassing. Our disciplines like all others have been dramatically affected by technology and yet it seems like we are expected to work as though we were an early 19th century artist run academy. All one has to do is inquire as to the disciplinary requirements for classrooms from the faculty who work there. Chalkboards or dry-erase would be nice, a projection screen, internet access to use the resources that the libraries provide. It would also be highly beneficial if we had the tools that students in our dept use- opaque projectors, a computer with graphic software in each studio dept for students and faculty - we have very different needs than a generic computer lab will offer. Special scanners, printers, etc are necessary. I confess that I am not hopeful about this survey- I do not see any way that these concerns that I address will be heard. Its demoralizing. Nevertheless I am thankful that I am being asked! Thanks for that.

85 Electronic blackboards could be added. 24 86 Elmo's are often of poor quality - do not focus well with the overhead projection. We need to be looking toward the future with all students using laptops. 9 87 Ensure access to a computer for class (i.e., without having to request it, as in some of the classrooms in Graves) 2 88 Ensure working order - maybe once each week, each classroom would be inspected for problems. 29 89 Equip each classroom with a computer projection system -- very helpful! 1 90 Equip more classrooms with mounted projectors and more A/V capabilities. 1, 8 91 every class should have a built in projection system at minimum 1 92 Every classroom needs to have a projector, DVD player, Internet and computer 2 93 Every classroom needs wi-fi, a DVD player, PC/MAC (or at least hookups for laptops), projectors, and screens. Having to order equipment can be a problem when it arrives late or not 2, 9, 29 at all. Also, the equipment in certain room don't work and are not maintained properly. 94 Every classroom should be fully equipped: web access, laptop connections, av equipment, lcds, cameras. It gets harder and harder to schlep and use my own equipment. 2

95 Every classroom should have a computer (preferable cross platform), computer projector, screen. Some rooms should also have electronic whiteboards and elmo document projection 2, 7 devices. Wireless connectivity is also a necessity. Laptop carts with laptops connected to the internet would be very helpful to add student technology as needed.

96 every room is different, even within a building. i would like to teach with powerpoint and/or the internet sometimes, but it is too complicated in many of the classrooms, and does not 3, 9 always work. The video link works sometimes, sometimes only from one direction, and sometimes the cameras do not switch views. April 2009 G-48 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

97 Everything seems somewhat out dated compared to some other schools that i have been to 23, 25 98 Excellent classroom technical support 10 99 extra space for personal computer and better audio equipment 8 100 First, HAVE technology in the classrooms. From there, just keep it in working order and make sure there is someone on-call or in the building who can help in an instant when things 2, 10, 29 go awry (as they seem to do each time I attempt to use PowerPoint) 101 For a huge lecture hall, a proper projector should be provided. Actually, students sitting in the back rows barely can see transparencies, not to mention that professors might have 1 small font-sized transparencies. 102 For me, being able to switch back and forth between a laptop-driven projector and a blackboard is a huge plus; some classrooms allow this easily, but others don't. 1 103 From personal experience the technology is fine. Maybe setting out protocols on how to operate the systems for teachers would be a good idea though. 4, 17 104 Generally adequate technology; need better lighting for technology use 13 105 Get rid of chalkboards!! 106 Get your you know what into some of these environments and you will see that the technology is not consistent, does not afford easy access to multiple formats, etc. and often no 3, 4, 25 explanation of how to hook up .. user friendly is maybe it, but just it looks like it is their to keep something from being stolen. Some are like urban high school environments.. not a university that wants to brag on itself consistently to the public of being toptenesque. 107 Getting audiovisual access does not have to be that preplanned and bureaucratic. There should be an easier solution 16 108 Go study what smaller schools do and mimic that by grouping buildings together and giving some money to an IT person to organize and implement..... find a way to make it easier on 25 faculty so they can teach and not have to learn technology at the same time 109 have a better procedure to repairing malfunctioning VCRs, computers that need to be rebooted, etc. A few times I've had the technology not work when I needed it most (during a 10 lecture) 110 have all classrooms with internet access, lcd and at least a laptop plug in if not a computer 7, 11 111 Have built in computer and projector technology in all classrooms. 1, 11 112 Have someone make the rounds to all classrooms to assure that everything is in good order, according to a check list. For example, is the overhead transparency projector on a cart or 29 is the cart missing? 113 have webcams 114 Having computers with internet access available for every classroom would be an improvement. 7 115 Having the technology "stacks" in a classroom has made a big difference to my teaching and what I can access during instruction. All classrooms should have such a resource. 16

116 HI 131 now has it so that you can't access the computer's dvd reader, which means you can't put materials on a data dvd and bring them to class. I didn't realize this and one day 5 brought two data dvds which were then useless. The little USB drives are up to about 16gb now but it's hard for us to keep up with that kind of thing. I have a 4gig which I got a year ago, and didn't realize I'd need the more expensive ones just to be able to teach. 117 hook up computer and projecters 1, 11 118 How to get immediate help when the technology does not work. If you can't get the computer working then you can't email for help. Clearly posted phone contact would help. 10

119 Hughes Hall needs a complete overhaul 5 120 I am very satisfied with the technology. Its maintenance is generally good. 17 121 I answered the previous questions on the basis of the classrooms I am using this quarter, both of which are equipped with video/data projection. I use this daily in one class and never 1, 5 in the other (because of the nature of the content and method of instruction). I have taught in classrooms (in the basements of U-Hall and Dulles) that are not equipped for video/data projection. In some of these cases I have been disappointed that I could not use Powerpoint. I am pleased that so many classrooms are now equipped (compared to 10 years ago) and hope that we will soon have even more classrooms equipped for projection. I don't need it for all classes; but in some that don't depend on it I would like to use it occasionally and it is a nuisance to have to schedule a portable unit. 122 I didn't use technology 123 I do not use a projector etc, but since the projector is on a table, i have to clear out the lecture area of all trolleys carrying such devices before i can start lecturing. 1 124 I find that the smart teaching stations are user friendly and very reliable - please keep upgrading those classrooms that don't have smart stations. 18 125 I generally have a good experience, but some of the old multimedia towers could be updated...or at least labeled a little better. 17 126 I have generally had positive experiences with the technology in my classrooms, and the IT staff has always been helpful if there have been any problems. 17 April 2009 G-49 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

127 I have had multiple problems with projectors turning themselves off every 10-20 minutes throughout an entire lab/lecture, and it is still not fixed in the 2 rooms I have worked in, despite 9 multiple complaints 128 I have noticed recently that more computer and projector systems have been installed in Arps Hall classrooms. To my thinking, any room without a computer, projector, stereo 2, 25 speakers, or a Smartboard is out of date. Progress is being made, but frankly we're probably still behind other top institutions by about a decade. 129 I have only taught in the Younkin Success Center and the technology is great. 17 130 I like the convenience of DE245--access to a computer and media technologies without the need to provide a laptop or borrow a media cart from OIT 5 131 i like the technology. having two screens with overhead projector/computer as well as transparency projection works very well in teaching computer classes. 17 132 I prefer white boards over chalk boards. Also, every classroom needs a clock, preferably placed where both the instructor and the students can see it easily. 14, 34 133 I taught in the glass area and so the facilities are the best that we can make of them. It is disappointing though the quality of the computers in the sherman studio arts center. They 5 should be updated more frequently. 134 I teach in classrooms that have an overhead projector connected to a box and dvd/vcr unit-- but I have to bring my own laptop computer. Every classroom should have a computer 11 system in it, ready to go, connected to the internet, etc. etc. 135 I teach Latin. I don't need a "smart classroom." I don't care if I can connect to the internet, play DVDs or watch YouTube. I could use some more comfortable desks/chairs for my 31 students, a room that has a temperature somewhere between "freezing" and "stifling" and a ceiling without holes or water-damaged tiles. 136 I think it would be great to have teacher's stations with computer equipment in Central Classrooms. I know that might not be possible with all of the security issues, but I have to borrow 5 equipment often and this would be so convenient. The existing technology is wonderful, too, though. 137 I think we are in good shape w/ technology as long as all faculty know how/remember how to use them and that's not always the case 4, 12, 17 138 I think what is in there now is just great. 17 139 I think, in general, the class rooms that have been upgraded with PC's, projectors, etc. are very effective and well designed given constraints. 17 140 I use image projection in my classroom and there is no screen to project on so I have to use the wall. All classrooms should be equipped with at least a screen. Also, I have to check 1 out a projector for the quarter it would be much easier if the classroom was already equipped with a projector. 141 I wish my room had a data projector and dvd player built in. If this is not possible, then there should be more carts available in my building (Hayes Hall). I have to rent these on a 16 regular basis from classroom services and there are not enough carts in my building for the number of classes going on in there. I sometimes have to go in cold weather and push expensive equipment from classroom services to my building on the oval. Even if I rent just a data projector, there is nothing stable (like an AV cart) in my room to put it on so I end up stacking chairs and fumbling with cords which is not a productive use of time. 142 I wish that I could block the students' access to the internet. 7 143 I would like to be able to use a remote control to advance Powerpoint slides. Several years ago, a remote was available in the classroom where I now teach, but it disappeared within a 23 quarter. I would be happy to buy my own remote if all classrooms where equipped with the same receiver, so that a remote that I would purchase would be available in all classrooms. A second issue is the vintage of the computers. Some of them are old and need to be upgraded. 144 I'm satisfied with the technology. 17 145 In Derby 29, the student computers have only intermittent access to the internet (despite assurances from OIT that the problem has been resolved). 5, 7 146 In our departmental meeting room, where we hold classes, the projector needs to be ceiling mounted 1 147 In Pomerane Hall and Derby, where I have taught 2 classes this quarter, there is no technology. This is a challenge as I use technology everyday. I request a project on a daily basis 1, 5 and it has arrived late on a few occasions and on a few other occasions the cable was broken. I would suggest buying more projectors for classrooms. A good model would be the classrooms in Hagerty Hall. 148 In some classrooms, it is difficult to run DVD players 8 149 In some classrooms; e.g., HH050, the speaker volume is very poor. Attempts to have it repaired by the appropriate OSU personnel have been unsuccessful. 5, 8 150 In the laboratory, an overhead projector or slide projector would be helpful--the dry-erase board gets full and sometimes the department projectors are all checked-out. 1 151 In the vast majority of my rooms the only technology I had was an overhead projector requiring translucent sheets. Teaching has been multi-dimensional, and the technology in the 7, 16 rooms doesn't allow this progress to happen. Video projectors or even sound systems would be so helpful. Accessible wireless internet could also be useful.

152 Installing Computers or at the very least computer hook ups. 11 153 Instructions for use of equipment in each room since computer connections and hook-up vary. 3, 4 154 Instructions on how to operate everything. Technology changes so fast it's hard to keep up with every thing. 4 155 Interactive white board would be nice. 24 156 Intra/Internet infrastructure to include electrical needs improvement in older buildings. 9 April 2009 G-50 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

157 It is a concern to me that more and more classrooms are not fully equipped--i.e., no computer in the classroom. I coordinate a large course and it would be a significant strain to 11, 16 require all instructors to provide their own computers. Are departments to bear the cost of providing GTAs the technology they need to teach? Or, are instructors expected to provide their own? Borrowing laptops from OIT for individual class meetings doesn't seem to be a really functional solution to this problem--there seems to be inconsistency in the equipment provided and it can be extremely inconvenient to have to travel to OIT before and after class (can add a half hour or more on top of class time depending upon where the class is located). 158 It is mostly good, but it would be nice to have a DVI connector for laptops. 17 159 It might be nice to have a computer and overhead projector to be able to show examples and graphics. There is an overhead and chalk board, but a computer would give more display 1, 11 options. 160 It needs to provide visual and audio capability 8 161 It should be more prevalent and readily available. It's too hit or miss now, and in those classrooms where it's a "miss" -- the facilities are very outdated. 3 162 It varies a lot from classroom to classroom. Clickers are great if they are available. 3, 32 163 It would be great if it were easier to interface with mac computers. 28 164 It would be helpful to check equipment periodically and also ensure that both PC and Macs are supported uniformly. 28, 29 165 It would be helpful to have projector and computer set up in every classroom, although I understand that would be difficult. 1, 11 166 It would be nice to have a computer/projector available in each classroom. 1, 11 167 It would be nice to have written directions to use some of the technology posted next to the equipment. 4 168 It would have been nice to have a projector (computer projector, not overhead) so I could put up figures without having to make transparencies. I don't know if the new Jennings lab 1, 5 rooms have these. 169 It'd be ideal if each classroom at a media station. 2 170 It's been great. 17 171 It's generally pretty good, at least the rooms I've taught in. The addition of a projector etc. in the Enarson classrooms is wonderful. 5, 17 172 I've always been able to do anything I've wanted technology-wise in the classrooms 17 173 I've had no problems with the technology, but my needs are limited to PowerPoint shows. 17 174 Keep software on all computers up to date. For example, not all computers have Quicktime. 23, 29 175 Lab courses should be considered “teaching" as well. Simple stuff like good computer, ceiling projector, and internet connection are the minimum requirements. 1, 7, 11 176 Large lecture hall technology and equipment tends to be very good and Classroom services is EXCELLENT about taking care of last minute problems, attempting to fix or troubleshoot 1, 2, 9 problems, setting up and picking up temporary video viewing apparatus and unlocking doors to media consoles & setup rooms. The small classrooms have almost no technology (although I prefer chalk boards to white boards, and most classrooms are kept well supplied with extra chalk). The sole machinery is generally an overhead projector which is hard to move, sits in front of the students in their way, often provide blurry or indistinct images (which is a problem when analyzing art for detail-specific significance or showing maps with small names or rivers, etc.), and frequently do not have working bulbs. I understand that equipping many small (50 person or fewer) classrooms with media technology is too great an expense, I believe that many more teachers would find ways to incorporate videos, online artwork, blogs, newspaper information, primary source material, and classroom handouts using a video or at least a document viewer (do they still make them?) if they had it available. Certainly, I would find it cheaper and more environmentally friendly than copying 50-60 or m 177 largely technology is good, however there should be some way to know when projector bulbs on computer projectors are close to dying (even something as simple as a note to faculty 29 that they should notify Classroom Services when they notice bulb life messages). 178 LCD screens, faster processors 1 179 Lots of the physics computing resources are very old. The department is working on this I know, though. 23 180 Low tech issue: rooms and boards are cleaned every day; but not erasers. Classrooms also need trash cans and a supply of chalk. 29, 43 181 M100 Starling Loving needs a separate projection screen and blackboard/white board. 5 182 Maintain internet connection better...which is needed for classroom teaching. 7 183 Maintenance of remotes, air filters, etc. woul densure top performance. 29 184 make all classrooms wireless and allow for easy connection of personal laptops to projection systems 1, 7 185 Make controls easier to read and standardized --- I have trouble reading small print in dark classrooms 4 186 Make sure each classroom has powerpoint capabilities. 1, 11 187 Make sure it all works. 29 April 2009 G-51 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

188 Make sure it works! On a less advanced note, get rid of those horrible white marker boards and return to blackboards. There are never any dry-erase markers in the classroom, so the 29 instructor must try to remember to bring his or her own; this means buying them oneself (and I go through about $20 worth in a quarter per class) or trying to get one's department to keep them in stock, which seldom works. 189 make sure it WORKS! you should NOT assign what you call a 'Hightech" classroom to professors who need that kind of classroom and for which the equipment doesn't work, changes 10, 29 each week, or doesn't have the appropriate connections available. you should also have phones that actually work and connect to a tech person, and if a tech person is found in the building in person, they should COME to help professors instead of saying that "i can't come; i'm the only one here for the phone." each school/college/department should have enough powerpoint projectors so that if needed they could be used for the semester for classrooms that don't have technology. 190 Make sure that the light switch controls are clearly marked and correctly wired. 13 191 Make technology throughout classrooms and buildings the same. It often seems like each room has a different set up to learn. Make sure the IT person who is suppose to "fix" 3, 10, 21 technology problems is actually reachable before/during class for tech. problems. Update things like flash and media players instructors need to show video clips and internet multimedia 192 Many of the ones I teach in are out dated and I teach new technology to my studnets. This is very hard to do when you don't have it. 23 193 Many rooms require updating. While it's useful for faculty to be able to consult the website to learn what features are available in a classroom, one never knows how good the 23 equipment is. 194 Maybe I could be given control of the thermostat, so that when a room measures at 61 degrees in the summer, I could boost it, to make it more comfortable and save electricity. 31 Conversely, when a room is frigid (as mine was today) and air conditioning is apparently on subcooling (it is 31 degrees out), I could boost the thermostat and make things a little warmer. 195 Media support to be more 10 196 Microphones in large classrooms, for example, KL 207. Computer projectors in every classroom, for example, DL 369. 1, 11, 30 197 Microphones need to be working properly. 30 198 monitor in my classroom died the other day - was fixed quickly - keep up the good work 10 199 Monitors or TVs for viewing around the classroom would be suggested. Large roll down screens are fine for some presentations but with technical/detailed videos these are hard to see 1 by the entire class 200 More buildings needs wireless internet. 7 201 more chalk, other supplies more access to rooms with lcd projectors 1, 29, 43 202 more classrooms need integrated computer-projector systems 1 203 More classrooms need to be technology equipped. 2 204 More computers (Preferably the dual widescreen, quad core CPU types found in room 268), but really a few normal computers would do. 11 205 more consistency across classrooms. ease of connection for instructor laptop and/or flash drives 3 206 More consistency in what was offered would be nice. Some classrooms had everything I needed, while other times I barely had a chalkboard. 3 207 More curent technology, although this seems to be getting better. 23 208 more digital projectors, and av equipment 2, 8 209 More easily reconfigured. 33 210 More facilites should be available to allow videolinked of classes between the main campus in Columbus and outlying campuses, especially the OARDC in Wooster, where graduate 25 students take classes. OSU needs to wake up to the possibility of using technology to widen its reach to students in outlying campuses. Classrooms can be in many places, not just on the main campus in Columbus. 211 More installed instructor workstations, as opposed to laptop-ready wiring 2 212 More Macs when computers and computer projection are available. 28 213 More narrow tables, to make better use of the depth of the classroom- Prevent use of the full width of the room. 33 214 More of what is being done. We have an excellent IT staff. However, there probably needs to be more coordination of the central IT to our staff in order to facilitate their work and 10 efforts. April 2009 G-52 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

215 More overhead projectors, primarily. A classroom computer is less important because a laptop can always be brought into the classroom with relative ease. Also, new classroom 1, 5, 6, 13, 33 layout (see Scott Laboratory classrooms) or Watts Hall 395 have located computer projector screens toward a corner of the classroom front wall, rather than the center. Please project to the front center of the classroom. Also, please install firewire-based cameras that are focused on the projection screen of the classroom (e.g., front and center), with firewire cable connections to the front (podium) of the classroom. This inexpensive addition (cameras are about $200) would enable filming of classroom lectures, for archiving and possible distance learning. Offer classroom light control that enables the instructor to illuminate the student seating area without washing out the projection screen. This is a frequent problem in classroom layout--even in newly designed classrooms. 216 More permanent technology in classrooms. I currently rely on a standing order for a media cart to be delivered from Central Classrooms. 16 217 More room for writing when necessary. 33 218 More scanning machines. 27 219 More secure cabinets to lock up equipment, more equipment could be available 22 220 More Smart Boards and Clickers for every classroom. 24, 32 221 More smart classrooms in the Drake. 18 222 More software available free to students, especially for Mac users. 21, 28 223 More support staff located more accessibly 10 224 More technology in some of the rooms that have no technology (i.e. capabilities to provide PowerPoint without having to reserve the cart). 2 225 More video streams of visual holdings in libraries. Computers in classrooms are often slow and not up to date with newest software. 23 226 Most rooms now have digital computer projectors for powerpoint, but the overhead projectors are pretty hit and miss if you need to resort to them and you need to remember to bring 1, 29, 43 chalk as a backup because there is often no chalk in the rooms. 227 Most rooms that I use now have adequate technology for my teaching (which isn't very high tech), but the inconsistency in how the rooms are set up can be frustrating (screen controls, 3 how to start projector, in some cases a need to walk back and forth to operate the equipment because there is no remote control, etc.) 228 Multiple projectors, better audio support, better computer support 1, 8, 10 229 Music classrooms should all be equiped with sound and video equipment. As things currently stand, instructors must use cumbersome carts in order to get technology into their 5, 8, 16 classrooms. Sometimes the carts are booked for other classes, and the equipement is also unreliable at best. The carts themselves are difficult to manuver into classrooms and could easily injure those pushing them. 230 My teaching was in the Kuhn Honors & Scholars House. Technology has to be wheeled in, so we need to find funds to have it permanently built in to our 2 classrooms. 5, 16 231 My technology needs are pretty basic: I need to be able to connect my laptop to the Internet (wireless access is ideal but not always available), and I need a video projector. The 7, 26 classrooms that I use (DL280 and BSE 120) are both fine in this regard. Easy access to a power outlet and a "long enough" video cable would be nice. 232 N/A 233 N/A 234 n/a 235 N/A 236 N/A 237 n/a 238 n/a 239 n/a 240 N/A. 241 NA 242 NA 243 Need more up-to-date computer and projection facilities. 23 244 Needs to be updated a lot. The volume doesn't work some of the time and the system is very old in general. 23, 29 245 Needs to make sure everything works as it should. 29 246 Newer A/C unit, that was quieter, central climate control 31 247 Newer computers and updated software. 23 248 newer computers in the labs, provide computers in the CC classrooms, or at least provide the cords for hooking up a laptop, a digital overhead projector for the non-tech classrooms 1, 11, 23 would be nice since it's not cheap to procure overhead transparencies. 249 No major problems. Some machines seem to require you to log in twice to get to carmen while others only once. It would be more efficient if the later was universal. 17 April 2009 G-53 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

250 no real complaints 17 251 No secret--bringing the many older, poorer quality rooms up to the standards that newer classrooms fulfill. Minimally this means a computer, internet accesss (I sometimes like to teach 1, 7, 11 from the web) and a projector. 252 no suggestions 17 253 no suggestions. I think this is great. 17 254 none 255 None 256 None 257 None 258 none 259 none (if you mean COMPUTER technology then you should say so.) 260 None needed. All of our classrooms are now smarted. I am excited. 17 261 None. 262 Nothing - ours is great. 17 263 Occasionally checking to see whether computer projector bulbs are burning out might be helpful. 29 264 Often it doesn't work. 9 265 Often wireless microphones are needed in the small classroom setting (not only the large lecture halls). A standard of having a wireless microphone in every single classroom on 30 campus would be wonderful. 266 ok 17 267 one of our lecture halls does not have a computer I have to bring my own 11 268 Our computer technology overall is good--better than in other buildings. But it is still difficult to get the computer and the LCD talking. 9 269 Our department has a great handle on the quality of technology we use. 5 270 Our rooms are old; smartBoards have just been added, but I fear for their security. Again, sound bleeding from room to room and floor to floor is very intrusive. The lighting is poor, Ac 8, 13, 23 units are noisey if working, and sound systems are broken or stolen in many instances. I also teach in a few renovated facility in Mershon (for which i got the grant money0 and that is much improved: quiet, technically up to date, and pleasant surroundings. 271 Overall, I think it's fine. 17 272 Overall, the technology is good 17 273 Overhead projector are extremely useful, but requiere maintenace. Lamps need to be replaced often to keep quality of presentation 29 274 Overhead projectors are not well maintained. All classrooms should have LCD projectors and computers. 1, 11, 29 275 Overhead projectors are often very poor. Would be nice to start phasing in LCD projectors into more classrooms, particularly the mid-size lecture rooms. It also seems like audio-video 1, 3, 11, 23 handling is ad hoc; a more uniform system would make it easier for instructors to utilize technologies without having to re-learn for each room. 276 Page Hall 060 needs to have a projector installed. The current situation, in which instructors bring in the the projector and laptop, is dangerous, as students often trip over the cords 5 and cables. 277 Parks 103 could have some kind of computer station so one doesn't have to haul a labtop there for every class. 5 278 PCs and projectors in every room 1, 11 279 Perhaps a training session for instructors could be held periodically when new equipment or changes in existing equipment happen. I was surprised on a few occasions that the 4, 7 equipment that I had been using was changed, and I was not as familiar with the new equipment. On one or two occasions, I had trouble accessing the Internet in the classrooms and ended up calling the TECH folks. When this took place DURING my class, that was frustrating and of course interfered with good use of the instruction time. So, periodic training for instructors might be helpful, at least for those of us who take advance of the training that might be offered. 280 Permanent LCD projects in all classrooms. 1 281 Personally I use only chalk on board, or overhead projector. 282 Please get rid of the old "banks" of controls like in Townshend or Lazenby 0031. Replace them with the touch controls found in many other classrooms. Please. 5 283 Please install computers and projectors in most rooms! 1, 11 284 post projector troubleshooting tips in classrooms 4 285 Posted directions for first time users would be good. 4 286 production software 21 April 2009 G-54 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

287 projection on a different wall relative to the writing space; less theatre like and more interactive; i want to be closer to the students and this would work in a U shaped arrangement 1

288 projection screens and DVD projection equipment 1 289 projector turns off without any reason 9 290 projectors could be provided in classrooms 1 291 projectors in all rooms would be great 1 292 Provide all large lecture halls with a Macintosh capability. 28 293 Provide it! I have tuaght 500 Level classes with just a barely fuctioning overhead projector - this is a real great sign of one of the leading University of our country. 2 294 Provide more wireless access. 7 295 Provide options to microsoft - like adding Corel office (wordperfect / Corel presentations) to the classroom computers 21 296 Provide power point projectors in the room and lap top hook ups. 1 297 Provide simple instructions for basic functions, especially if the technology is new. In addition, make sure everything is properly connected (I attempted to play a video in a classroom 4, 29 that had just had a/v technology installed and found that the audio wasn't connected). 298 Provide systems which work properly more frequently and are easier to understand and control. Install built-in sound systems that do not feed back yet amplify presenter's voice as 8, 29 necessary. 299 Put a computer and projector in the classrooms that don't have them. 1, 11 300 Put computers in all classrooms 11 301 Really we are very blessed to have the available technology that we do have. I especially appreciate having the lab rooms now computerized and available for video srceening. 17

302 Remote controls would be good, so that one doesn't have to stand by the computer keyboard to show PowerPoint. LMO projectors would also be a good addition (there seems to be 1, 32 one in CC 254, where I'm teaching, but it doesn't work). 303 remove chalkboard...put in marker boards 34 304 Remove the assumption that the teacher in the classroom is a mere instructor, primarily there to operate multi-media equipment in information download mode. There is no ability to 32 operate the DVD or VCR player from anywhere except directly in front of the computer screen. No one apparently has considered that a teacher might want to move about the room or just stand somewhere other than right beside the screen. A remote device could not even penetrate the housing for the players if one were available.

305 Remove the wall. 306 Room 200A in Ramseyer is lacking technology so it must be reserved ahead of time. 5 307 satisfied 17 308 scheduling should be improved, such as to let the appropriate classes be taught in the tech rooms 309 Schonbaum is wonderful, Evans has no technology, really. 5 310 Screen covers all white board space, making simultaneous use impossible. 15 311 see above 312 see above 313 see above 314 See above. 315 see number 4 316 Smart Boards were added last week to some classrooms which will be a help. We need more outlets. It is possible to use equipment but it must be brought up from the basement on a 18, 35 cart. 317 Smart boards; more outlets for students; improved projectors; 35 318 smart classes 18 319 smart rooms with document cameras. 6, 18 320 Some classrooms need an easier way to switch between overhead and powerpoint technology. For instance, when using both, often the analog overhead projector has to be set up and 15 taken down so as not to block the screen when switching to powerpoint. While electronic overhead projectors are expensive, they are much easier to use when switching media.

321 some consistancy in various room would help 3 April 2009 G-55 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

322 Some of the classrooms in the law school have no technology. Add computers adn projectors to these rooms. 1, 5 ,11 323 Some of the classrooms require that you bring your own laptop to use with the LCD projector. Our department has a policy against using departmental computer funds to purchase 11 laptop computers unless they are used as the primary office computer, so we end up having to use personal funds to purchase laptops to use in teaching. Using our own computer for teaching also requires that we carry them around to meetings that are scheduled prior to the class. This is ridiculous, as was the solution suggested by classroom services-that I check out a laptop before class then return it to them after class. I appreciate that they were trying to accomodate, but this would burn up about 40 extra minutes of my time per day. Not very efficient. 324 Some of the tech carts worked fine. Others, had wires (audio) that were too short to reach the projector so the class couldn't hear well when projecting from my laptop. All rooms should 3 be equal in technology. I am in a different room each quarter. Some have very ellaborate and friendly set-ups. Others, with carts, take up class time to set up and then aren't predictable. My expectation from such a prestigious university is higher than that of the rooms in Koffolt and Aviation. 325 Something as simple as the introduction of more electronic projectors into older buildings in more classrooms, whether it be for computer documents or overhead type writings. 1

326 Sometimes the most recent versions of software is not available - mostly this sems to be a problem with videos embedded in PP presentations. It's frustrating when you can't get a 21, 23 video or animation to work. I started using a laptop to get around the problem. I know it's hard to keep up. 327 Sorry, don't have any ... not a techno guru. 328 Sound systems for music, and temperature regulated better. 8, 31 329 Standardized controls would be very helpful. 3 330 state-of-art equipment 23 331 stationary projection equipment, smart boards, also automatical turn off of lights and equipment 24 332 tech improvements are exceeding faculty adoption of "newer" technologies. Just getting into Powerpoint and/or doing it badly is more prevalent than classrooms lacking technology 4, 12

333 Tech is good 17 334 Tech is great when it works. When it doesn't you better have a plan B. Our department owns their Mac carts so this usually works out great. Our building has dedicated tech support for 10 our computer labs and Mac carts, so getting assistance is fairly easy. 335 Technology available in all classrooms -- especially overhead projectors for powerpoint or other resources. Also, make wikis part of Carmen options. 2 336 Technology has been good and reliable 17 337 Technology is a broad term. I taught in several classrooms that still had chalk boards; all classrooms should atleast have Dry Erase, especially those where writing on the board is 34 needed. 338 technology is decent for the professor but essentially non-existent for the student 339 Technology is generally good in media classrooms, but it needs to be implemented in more classrooms. 2 340 Technology is good - pretty reliable. 17 341 technology is good. 17 342 Technology is great where I teach but where my classes are, it's not good. I had a class in Pomerene that had nothing, not even a working overhead... 3 343 Technology is OK and is never the friend of the instructor. If it works it is OK if it doesn't, and it sometimes doesn't, then you, the instructor, is a fool. 4 344 Technology is pretty good - it would be nice if we didn't have to provide our own attachment cables for laptops, but I understand that they probably disappear. I really appreciate that all 26 of the rooms do have accessible inputs for laptops for powerpoint. 345 Technology should be available in all classrooms without a special request. 2 346 Technology to view DVD's 8 347 Tell students not just to copy the slides but to do the reading as well. 348 The audio system doesn't work very well for a soft spoken lecturer 8 349 The computer in the booth in Sullivant Theatre should be replaced--it freezes frequently 5, 9 350 The computers are outdates and it takes a long time to complete in class exercises with the computers. Additionally, students are frequently complaining about computers 9, 23 malfunctioning. 351 The current technology suffices. For most of the time I use chalk and board. 17 352 The internet connections in the law school are not dependable. I fear that the consistent problematic nature of it will interfere with my taking exams, more specifically submitting them. 7, 17

353 The large lecture halls are well equipped, but there are frequently no instructions, and sometimes not even proper controls for operating the computers/projectors/etc. 4 April 2009 G-56 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

354 The medical school AV folks provide a portable projector. They are excellent. 17 355 The new media rooms (e.g., Scott Lab) are very nice. In general, however, overhead projects need far more cleaning/servicing than they are currently receiving. 29 356 The only "technology" in this room is a blackboard. I wanted to display an image that related to a piece we were rehearsing with the University Band and I had to get a projector cart 1 from Hughes Hall across the street, wheel it across the road and wedge it into the band setup to project onto a portable screen. A ceiling projector and permanent screen would be very helpful. 357 The only technology in the room is an overhead projector, which appears to be at least 20 years old. The technology support team has to bring me a modern projector and DVD player 23, 25 each week at 9:30. This significantly delays the start of class. I have to say, I am absolutely shocked that a large university like OSU has so little technology in the classroom. I have taught at 2 other Research I institutions, so expected the room to come equipped with modern technology. It is hard to keep students interested for 3 1/2 hours without up-to-date and functional technology. 358 The only way is to get some new stuff. 23 359 The overheads and screens should not break randomly every other day. 9 360 The physics laboratories are equipped with old equipment. Some investment in bringing laboratory equipment to modern standards is needed. 23 361 The problem with technology, in general, is that faculty don't know how to use technology built into the classroom. FAQs need to be on hand in the classroom to answer basic questions 4, 12 - like how to turn on monitors if multiple monitors are in place, etc. 362 The projector/screen should be moved to the center of the room. 1 363 The projectors don't work for more than 15 minutes at a time. It is difficult to teach from a powerpoint presentation when you cannot show the presentation. 9 364 The projectors need to function properly all of the time instead of 50/50. Possibly if we were able to acquire more updated laptops, the process would go much more smoothly. 29

365 The screen for the LCD in my room completely blocks one of the chalkboards, which is a challenge if I want to use it. 33 366 The screensaver on the computers comes on after too short a delay. 9 367 The TA's should make sure the students are using the technology correctly and considerately. Misuse and carelessness are how things get broken and wear out faster. 29 368 The technology carts in Hughes Hall do not have Microsoft 2007. This seems like the minimum they should have. 23 369 the technology has improved a lot over the 4 years I have been here, so that it is pretty good now 17 370 The technology in each classroom only consists of a cd player, many of which do not work anymore. Vandalism and theft mainly caused this because of faulty locks on the cases. 22

371 The technology in each leaves much to be desired. I frequently use powerpoint as well as the Internet. To do so, I need to bring my own computer, hook it up (with varying success and 16 inevitable delays given that the room is used in close sequence). Both rooms are long overdue for consoles with computers so the instructor need only bring a flash drive.

372 The technology is adequate but occasionally have technical glitches, particularly with optimal sound. I have taught in a few different classrooms and so this survey is a general overall 9 impression and my responses would vary from room to room. 373 The technology is basically good. The technicians are usually helpful. It would be helpful if more were Mac compatible. For some reason there are some image formats that when 9, 28, 30 inserted into a powerpoint on a Mac will not show up on the PC systems in classrooms. I have to check the presentations on a PC to make sure that this does not happen. No one has yet been able to tell me why this occurs. The error says something about quicktime version. Remote microphones would be great for the larger classrooms. I purchased my own remote slide changer. As an anecdote, my current classroom the projector automatically shuts down after about an hour and I have to wait a few minutes and restart. I have reported it, but it still occurs. The building is under renovation and perhaps this will be rectified. 374 The technology is good. The physical presence of it, however, overwhelms and limits use of the space in some areas. Provide LOW TECH ALTERNATIVES e.g. flip charts and wall 33, 36 space for posting things. Chalk boards that erase cleanly would be a really nice option. 375 The technology is great. 17 376 The technology is much improved. Resources are available if you request assistance. 17 377 The technology is ok. 17 378 The technology itself, at least in the rooms I've taught in, is generally quite up-to-date. However, instructions aren't as clear as they could be, and we younger instructors are often 4, 12 called upon to help the older faculty whether we know the technology or not. Some kind of manual or "cheat sheet" in the classroom would make a world of difference.

379 The variation in the classroom technology is a bit of a nuisance. It also is getting more glitchy as it ages. I particularly dislike the technology in the Classroom Building. 3 380 There absolutely need to be a computer, a projector, a DVD player, and a VHS player in every classroom. After that is accomplished, having image projectors and sound available 2 would also be very helpful. April 2009 G-57 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

381 There are several classrooms without clocks, or the clocks don't tell the correct time (such as ones in Jennings that are sometimes over an hour off), or clocks and computer clocks that 3, 14 are out of sync. If we're going to keep our classes running on time, this is a challenge. Also, having a wide variety of technologies to learn how to use if you teach in several rooms per quarter is challenging. 382 There have been a handful of glitches regarding the A/V equipment: sound missing, reboots necessary and only sometimes successful. 8, 9 383 There is a wide discrepancy between the equipment available in each room. Similary, the infrastructure to support multimedia (VCR, DVD, audio, streaming media) differs across 3, 21 campus. Furthermore, you don't know if you will have Office 2003 or 2007? 384 There needs to be more rooms with projectors. 1 385 There should be computers with projectors in every classroom to allow powerpoint lectures and interactive demonstrations with internet. It is very limiting to have to work with an 1 overhead and chalkboard alone. 386 There's too much technology in our classrooms already. Less would be better. 36 387 This is generally ok 17 388 This is mostly just a matter of updating the systems across the campus or at least investing in enough equipment that it can be checked out for use within a reasonable timeframe. If 23, 29 good technology is there, I use it, usually to positive effect with the students. If it's not, then I'm less able to be spontaneous with my lesson plans, and a good idea that might come to me too late to order equipment will go unrealized. Greater availability of technology within the classrooms or that can reliably be ordered at a moment's notice can lead to more versatile teaching methods. 389 This is usually a problem with the smaller classrooms/pre-lab locations, where the projectors are not fixed. Hence the location of the projectors is an issue in order to have a clear view 33 on the screen. they are placed on a cart, which gets moved around during non-use periods. 390 touch equipment, blue tooth nextworks open tasked just for the class 391 Try to standardize more from one classroom to another 3 392 TV/projectors in all rooms without having to call/reserve them. 1 393 universal projections and media, comfortable rolling chairs, more incubator classrooms that test new arrangements and technologies 1 394 Up to date, functional tech available in each classroom 23 395 Update and make sure there are clear instructions and adequate lighting to see plug ins and power switches 4, 13, 23 396 Update computers!!!!! Get decent lighting!!! 13, 23 397 update the document readers and have them located in such a manner to use the projector at the same time, switching back and forth, also more compatibility with the hardware and 1, 28 software or add more Apple computers (my preference) 398 updated equipment with easily accessible USB outlets 23 399 updated software and a log in system in which a basic set up is established. Every time somebody log in and add software or personalize the workstation environment, the basic set up 23 is re-established after they log out. 400 updated technology in all classrooms 23 401 updated wiring and wireless so students may utilize technology during lecture 7, 23 402 Updating the technology would be good. 23 403 up-to-date electronic equipment with directions on how to use it readily available 4, 23 404 USB port on the classroom computer did not work, I couldn't use a jump drive. 9 405 Use modern audio equipment. For a school of music, this is just sad. 8 406 User friendly, faster. 4 407 Usual added as after thought - redesign room for how the instructor might want to use the room. 33 408 very good in the classrooms I use 17 409 Very good. 17 410 We could use wireless in our building. 7 411 We currently supply our own technology for the lab...the department has to purchase computer, projector, etc. If OSU wants to buy and install that instead that would be great. 2

412 We definitely need to have a digital project installed in all classrooms. Being able to easily hook up a laptop to a side computer panel in the classroom makes PowerPoint presentations 1 easy to integrate into classroom lectures and discussion sections. We are living in the 21st century and we need to be able to make use of the technology we already have! I have a laptop and would like to make use of it daily in the classroom. 413 We have been able to upgrade technology through tech fees, so our rooms have effective technology. 17 April 2009 G-58 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-5 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, Technology

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

414 We need more classrooms equipped with LCD projectors. It would be good to have Mac set-ups in the classrooms, too. 1, 28 415 We need more multi-media equipped classrooms 2 416 We need more smart classrooms and more computer classrooms for hybrid sections. I need to be able to show clips from the internet, powerpoints, and have students use computers 18 for groups and individual projects. 417 We need sound technology in all classrooms that works. We need document projectors that stay in classroom, and do not have to be moved into the room for each class. 1, 8 418 While it would be nice if there was better equipment, I know it's used by a lot of students, and things get stolen frequently. I'm not sure of a way that the technology could be improved. 22 Maybe if the safety videos were updated. 419 While the technology that is installed is helpful, I wish more classrooms had projectors & computers for powerpoint and video. I know we can request it, and I have, but it would be 1, 11 much more efficient for use on daily basis if it was installed. I have been in Bolz and Smith and even requesting the video equipment is difficult, because there is not enough room in some of them to have the cart set up and the students still be able to see. 420 White board, and electronic response technonlogy. 24 421 white boards accessible at fronts of rooms; access to usable markers; appropriate lighting; 13 422 wireless access in all rooms, as well as data projectors and smart boards in more rooms. 1, 7, 24 423 wireless internet access would be helpful 7 424 wireless mouse so that instructor could move more freely about the rooms - maybe laminated "manuals" as to how to use the video playback equipment, etc. 4 425 wireless service, if not already installed 7 426 Working technology needs to be installed in every classroom on campus, and should be maintained as well. Phone numbers for emergency, on-call technology service should be 2, 4, 29 clearly posted, so instructors can call for assistance before or during class if the technology is not working. 427 Would help immensely if there were instructions on how to use the stuff in the room. 4 April 2009 G-59 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-6 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

1 1. Make most bigger with better acoustics ("most sections" are 30; most rooms seem to hold 31. 2. Proper disabled access 3. Clearer indications of location of restrooms 4. Place 39, 42 numbers on ALL classrooms 2 1-air circulation and temperature controls 2-reasonably comfortable, moveable chairs 3-technology available in all classrooms 4-for not-so-common technology needs, classroom 2, 10, 31, 37 support should be eager to provide and deliver needed tools. 3 a warmer vibe...perhaps artwork or lighting effects 49 4 A.C. should be there for all 31 5 Add recycling bins to all classrooms - students usually bring drinks to class and all those containers are thrown in the trash. 50 6 Additional classrooms: small= <50 students and larger - 250-300 students are needed, particularly if we move to semesters; more teaching labs will also be needed. 42 7 Additional equipment and the ability for the building to regulate room temperatures would be an improvement. 31 8 Address comments above. 9 Again - porivde each room with computer technology. It is quite pathetic to have less then technology in a classroom than many school distircts in Ohio! Let the students see the 2 delpaiated and undefunded classrooms instead of the RPAC on visits. You think they would come here? 10 Again, temperature regulations are key; it's hard to learn when you're shivering or sweltering. Also, would it be possible for an automated message to be sent to an instructor indicating 19, 31 what kind of technology is found in the assigned classroom? I discovered to my surprise that there was no VCR in CC 254. (Stone Age technology, admittedly, and it was possible to order one, but it took me by surprise.) 11 ALL classrooms could be made technology ready. I was recently touring a building at Columbus State and was very impressed at the state of technology throughout the building--both 2, 25 classrooms and common space. 12 All classrooms should be smart classrooms. 18 13 All classrooms should have modern desks/workstations that are comfortable. 41 14 All classrooms should have multimedia equipment available, with posted instructions on how to use them, and contact number in case of problems 2, 4 15 All of the above. I teach in Hughes Hall. This building hasn't been renovated since it was built in 1948. A major update is in order. 5 16 All of them should have all of the technology. 2 17 Always provide chalk for the blackboards!! I often end up bringing my own or scrounging other classrooms to steal a nub. 43 18 An eclectic mix of mismatched chairs and tables makes the classroom environment less inviting and less professional 49 19 As above 20 Attention should be paid to the proximity of instructor and screen. 33 21 Better air quality. 31 22 better chalk, dustless, or switch to dry erase boards 34 23 Better chalkboard erasers 43 24 better classrooms 25 Better control of lighting in some classrooms so that it is possible to turn down lights in front to see screen but still have low lighting for students to see to write. We need more larger 13, 42 classrooms so that scheduling of classes is not so difficult 26 better control of temperature 31 27 better HVAC and cleanliness 31, 38 28 Better lighting. Quieter environs. 13, 48 29 Better overall maintenance - and more consistency across buildings. 43 30 better regulation of heating and cooling 31 31 Better seating that can be configured to the style of the class. Better lighting. 13, 37 32 better temperature control 31 33 Better temperature control 31 34 better temperature regulation, more reliable technology and internet connections. 7, 16, 31 35 Broken desks should be replaced or fixed. 43 36 Built-in technology in all classrooms 2 37 Buying independant desks (not bolted to the floor), white boards, and teaching desks that aren't giant and block half of the board would certainly help. 37, 40 38 Cannot find chalks almost every time. 43 39 chalk in classrooms on a more reliable basis 43 April 2009 G-60 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-6 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

40 Chalk or dry erase pens should be present in the classroom. They often are not. 43 41 Classroom asignment should be made after considering the type of class and the instructor's teaching style so that the room helps the teaching process. 51 42 Classroom availability is a challenge--not enough classrooms available at the times we need/want to offer classes. I'm not sure how this will be addressed, but it seems to be a growing 51 problem. Lately we have also had problems with classes scheduled in rooms where construction noise interferes with the instructor's ability to teach the class--either from adjacent locations or directly above/below. I would hope that there is some mechanism in place to communicate with classroom services which classrooms are likely to be impacted by construction, in what ways construction might be an issue, and for what timeframe the construction is planned. It adversely impacts students and instructors who are surprised by these disruptions--please consider taking classrooms out of the pool when significant construction is planned, or communicating better with the instructors to find workable solutions (i.e., making alternative temporary accomodations for classes during construction, collaborating with the contractor to construct a reasonable schedule, etc.)

43 Classrooms are fine. 17 44 Classrooms in Arps are rather stark and not particularly inviting. 5 45 Classrooms in general, I don't know. The dance department needs a major facilities investment. 5 46 Classrooms in Hughes need new chairs and desks - the only there now are very small and extremely old and uncomfortable. There are very few projectors or screens in any of these 38, 41 rooms. In Weigel the rooms (and main auditorium where we give our public concerts!) need to be cleaned at least a couple times a week. The ensemble directors ourselves are currently going through the auditorium before concerts pick up trash and sometimes vacuum the carpeted areas. 47 Classrooms in older buildings need to be reviewed. If the building is not being replaced very soon, improvements should be made. 43 48 Classrooms need to be cleaned regularly, we need both working computer technology and two overheads in every room. Most rooms are simply not good learning environments. As 2, 38 an instructor, I need to be able to look at every student while I am lecturing and every student needs to see the screen or blackboard as appropriate. I prefer fixed chairs and a tiered lecture room (even in moderate sized rooms) but clearly OSU has gone away from that in my part of campus. 49 classrooms require physical and technological refurbishment on a regular basis, just like houses and everything else. 43 50 Clean clutter in the hallls 38 51 clean them 38 52 Clean them. 38 53 Clean, technology, and not excessively hot or cold would be wonderful! Updated seating would be nice for many classrooms, specifically those where seats are obviously thirty to forty 2, 31, 38, 41 years old. 54 cleaner & less crowding use tables & chairs more for students 42 55 Cleaner! Better colors of paint etc. 38, 43 56 Cleaner, freshly painted, more friendly, with updated equipment and furniture. 38, 43 57 Cleaner. Cleaner!! Otherwise technology is good. 38 58 cleaniless, general maintenance 38, 43 59 Cleanliness 38 60 cleanliness 38 61 Cleanliness, heating, cooling need improvement. 31, 38 62 coat of paint, new ceiling tiles...seems little upkeep 43 63 Comfortable seating 41 64 COMPUTERS 11 65 Consider the learning environment. 66 Could be cleaner 38 67 Could Chemical Engineering get new ones? Also, lighting in many of them is really dim (especially Independence 100). The desks are often much too small as well--they should be at 13, 41 minimum as big as the test paper. 68 Dated classrooms; need to brought up to date with seating and technology for current students. 23 69 Denney hall needs a make-over. Our building compared to others is just laughable. 5 70 don't teach in m nay other buildings 71 Door adjustment to be less noisy, 43 72 dump the security. we get into the system via passwords, then a key... then it freezes up.. not a good thing 9 73 Each classroom needs its own waste bin, effective heat and cooling, appropriate lighting and continual chalkboard/blackboard maintainance. 13, 31, 43 April 2009 G-61 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-6 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

74 electrical outlets, ventilation, temperature control, lighting all need improved 13, 31, 35 75 Eliminate noise (heating systems, seating systems; add noise-deadening materials). Improve cleanliness; add more trash cans. 38, 48 76 Equip each classroom with a computer projection system -- very helpful! 1 77 ergonomic furniture 41 78 Every winter quarter, I teach a Teacher Inquiry course that requires that I use 4 different classrooms simultaneously. Since the students shoot videos of their teaching (in the local 16 schools) and then play them as part of an analysis, I need to order 4 sets of video players. Well, last year this almost turned into a disaster because I could not get all 4 units delivered at the same time on the same day. If not for my GAs who delivered the equipment, a vital part of our teacher education program would have been ruined. This is unacceptable to me at such a well resourced university as OSU. And I hope the problem is fixed for Winter 2009. We need to have better access technology regardless of when and where we teach. Thanks for requesting my suggestions. 79 Except for morning hours, the rooms and boards are never clean, the air quality is often too poor. Fresh air should not mean cold air. Again, chalk dust is a big problem. If there is no 38 damp cloth available in all chalk board rooms, it is impossible to keep the rooms free of chalk dust. 80 fix up some old classrooms -big classrooms in the old Physics building, for example. 43 81 For classes that rely heavily on actual physical objects (such as the natural sciences) as opposed to those that deal mainly with concepts (such as math or literature) for heaven's sake 5, 51 schedule such classes in the buildings that hold those physical objects. For example, I teach Historical Geology, and I would hate to have to haul rocks, minerals and fossils to another building across campus when all the specimens are here in Orton Hall. 82 Get rid of the very tightly packed fixed seats in small classrooms e.g. Smith Lab. 42 83 Good, washable paint on the walls. Clean furniture and floors. At least once a year wash the walls. I do experintial activities and it's never fun to get on dirty floors, sit on dirty tables or 38 desks. 84 Have a clock in every classroom; have internet access (not necessary to be wireless...) 7, 14 85 Have built in computer and projector technology in all classrooms. 1, 11 86 Have clocks that are updated automatically. I haven't had one clock that is correctly set. Also, chalk is never around in AV in the room I use in AV, ever. Many classrooms in EL have 14, 41, 43 way too small of desks that cannot follow firecode regulation. They are too small to get in and out of, especially for larger students. 87 Have had compliants from the students about the low contrast of the chalk board vs. the chalk. 43 88 Having a working clock in each classroom could be helpful along with chalk. 14, 43 89 Hire staff that will wipe the boards during the day. Provide chalk. 38, 43 90 Hughes Hall needs to have updates. New windows, new desks, new carpeting, new bathrooms. 5, 43 91 Hughes Hall should be blown up. Can I sue the university for failing to provide adequate classroom space? 5 92 I actually have no complaints 17 93 I also teach in the chemistry building. The building is antiquated as far as the students' seats, but the technology is there. 41 94 I am dissappointed that my course PAES 806 in the Winter Quarter is scheduled in a different building when we have such excellent class rooms in PAES Building. I think that it would 51 be most appropriate that Porfessors are assigned classrooms in those building where they have offices. 95 I am happy with the law classroom in which I teach and am unfamiliar with the other rooms on campus. 17 96 I am not sure that I understand how CLASSROOM POOL classes are assigned versus locally controlled (e.g., college or department rooms). So, maybe instructors could be informed 28, 51 (e.g., via an e-mail) and/or get access to certain classrooms that might be closer to their offices. Also, I am a Mac user and often the equipment in the classroom pool rooms seems to be PC. If that is the case, I need to prepare my PowerPoint class presentations on a PC, which is not ideal for me. 97 I am only speaking of the Drake Union, not the entire campus. 98 I am part time and teach only one quarter on campus. I have net been teaching in other rooms. 99 I don't have much experience with other classrooms (I used DL266 briefly, I think). All the classrooms I've used have had a projector, though not all have had wireless access (though that seems to be getting better). 100 I have no experience with classrooms at Ohio State other than in the law school. Please see above. 101 I have taught at OSU for 40 years and have seen constant improvement. Some classrooms were disasters in the 1970's and even early 80's. But I am very satisfied with the classrooms in recent years (except for the absence of video/data projection in some of the smaller rooms). 102 I ranked all the questions as neutral because when I teach in a new, refurbished classroom, the faciltiies are excellent. When I don't they are terrible. 103 I teach in a variety of room in various buildings and make adjustments as I need to. The hardest thing to deal with is the lack of technology. It is impossible to get rooms a temperature 2 that is comfortable for everyone. Just do whatever saves energy costs. April 2009 G-62 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-6 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

104 I teach in large lecture halls. Some control over the temperatures would be nice. Every quarter it seems that I battle with physical facilities for the first seven weeks to establish a decent 31 temperature. We get about three weeks out of ten of comfort. 105 I teach in Parks Hall, Room 103. It is a nice large class room, but it does not have a computer. I have to bring my own lab top every time and set it up during that very short span 11 between classes (usually less than 10 min). This is unreasonable. 106 I think it would be marvelous if the classrooms were clean... 38 107 I think many of the classrooms are outdated and need both interior as well as technology upgrades. 23, 43 108 I think security is important. Since more classrooms are technology ready, classrooms should be locked with a keypad. Only faculty teaching in the room should know the code which 10, 22 would be changed every quarter. When equipment is stolen, we all pay. I would like more (and ready) staff support in classrooms across campus. 109 I think that technology is the most pressing issue. Not only does technology facilitate modern, engaging teaching, it also allows us to reduce our environmental footprint. The 2 installation of projectors and computer hubs in classrooms would be very exciting for the teaching community at Ohio State! 110 I think the general pool approach is often taken too far; I think it is still valuable to have classes in a particular subject clustered in one building. 51 111 I think the overall quality of the recently-built classrooms is excellent. Older rooms should be renovated as well. 112 I think we need many of the older buildings need to have overhauls so that the furniture is newer and the environment looks well kept. 43 113 I was at Kenyon and their classrooms are amazing: large tables for round table discussions, carpet, books on the shelves. In comparison, our classrooms look like institutions. We 41 could have bigger desks, more comfortable chairs, and bigger rooms with technology. 114 I would like to have a corridor running through the middle of lecture room. 33 115 I would like to see all classrooms, big or small, with computer and overhead projection tools/technologies. 1, 11 116 I would suggest to model all classrooms in OSU after those of Hagerty Hall. It is a great advantage and incentive for a Prof to use technology if it is already in the classroom. 2

117 I'd like to see classroom blinds fixed and desks upgraded whenever possible. I'd also like to see more technology available in more classrooms. 2, 43 118 If the room is too small to comfortably accommodate a large number of students, don't try to accommodate so many: remove student furniture from the room until it comfortably 42 accommodates the same number of students as student desks. Don't cram too many students into one room. 119 If there are writing pallets, or dual screen projectors, make sure they work. 29 120 If you follow up on 5, you're doing great. Enormous improvement over the past ten years. 121 If you want to provide state-of-the art instruction, then the classrooms require climate control, media, appropriate seating and lighting, electrical outlets. Hey, just go out and take a tour. 2, 13, 31, 35, 41 Why the students don't withdraw, I don't know. 122 improve cleanliness; improve availability of cordless microphones for large lecture spaces (being tethered is a problem!); chalk boards must be cleaned between classes, not just 30, 31, 37, 38 erased (white boards would be better); design the classroom for interaction; design the classroom to be able to adjust the temperature; design the classroom for engagement.

123 improve lighting options, put those felt things on the bottom of chair legs in classrooms where the chairs are moveable because during tests it is very loud when they move their chairs 13, 37 out 124 improve physical environment 125 Improve the heating/cooling situation. 31 126 Improving technology access & reliability; a (reliable) service to deliver technology needs in rooms without tech 16 127 In general they appear quite shoddy. Old desks and dull paint, old boards, dirty oftentimes, some cluttered even at the beginning of the day. Hallways and stairways in some buildings 38, 43 are shockingly dirty. 128 in general, better temperature control. 31 129 In general, good classrooms, but problems raised should be addressed 130 In general, if you look at this as a business, you'd never let a business that can't make powerpoints happen instantly and flawlessly have your money.....i think we need to think outside 16 the box and make a variety of solutions for old and new buildings....you have enough IT people on this campus, find them and get solutions...... this is the biggest university in the country, we got to be able to do this well. 131 In general, more sunlight and ventilation would be nice, use of green building techniques to allow greater fuel efficiency and a more healthy spaces. Also, more informal gathering 31, 33 places through out campus to allow students to work and socialize. 132 In many of the auditoriums, the chairs are broken. Sullivant Hall is a good example. Classroom(physical) size In Central Classrooms, Dulles basement, and similar places classroom 9, 31, 42, 43 (physical) size is too small to accommodate the number of students assigned. HVAC is notoriously poor in these spaces as well. April 2009 G-63 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-6 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

133 In some cases, board space needs to be improved. There are a few classrooms that are very difficult to use because they are small and the projector screen covers the board when 40 down, so it's impossible to both use the screen and write on the boards. (There are rooms like this in Hagerty and Derby, for example). 134 Increase availablity of lab space 5 135 Individual desks could be replaced with adult sized alternatives, rather than the elementary school sized desks with the tiny little fold-up arm rests. 41 136 It may just be my experience, but many classrooms do not function well for discussion or case-oriented classes. The assumption is that everything is coming from the instructor who is 37 immobile at the front of the room. I would like more rooms designed for interaction. I know that not every room on campus can be as well set up as those in the Fisher College, but I confess to some significant envy. 137 it seems silly to say that the room is not very welcoming and having a coat of paint would warm things up, but the students will learn whether or not the room is "pretty" ;o) 43, 49 138 It should be easier to teach in these rooms. They should be better equipped, and the facilities should be more modern. 2, 43 139 It would be nice to easily record a lecture (particularly if the presenter is using the PC and projector already). 2 140 It's kind of riduculous that colleges get charged to use other classrooms. I thought we were all one university? 51 141 I've taught at three other universities and a community college and ALL had superior classrooms in comparison to Ohio State. Except for the new buildings, practically every classroom 25 here needs a complete overhaul. 142 Just keep remodelling them as $$ become available. I hope you are also asking the students for their feedback as they spend a lot more time in classrooms then we do. 143 Just overall improvements/upgrades to space. 43 144 keep it clean! 38 145 keep them stocked. keep them clean and inviting and useable. make sure that when professors request high-tech they actually are accomodated in their needs. I requested a high-tech 16, 38, 43 room in time for assignment (so i was told) but i was LOW on the list because i'm new (so i was told) so i was assigned a non-tech classroom for my advanced data analysis class! so i spent HOURS cobbling together sufficient alternatives so that my students could actually DO data analysis during the class! I am an associate professor and I moved to OSU last year. Classrooms and appropriate teaching facilities are among the most frustrating part of move here. 146 Keep trash emptied and floors clean. 38 147 Keeping them clean. 38 148 keeping up with physical maintenance is important - once a classroom gets a little run down, students take that as a "green light" to further damage walls and furniture. It's also 42, 43 important not to book classes into rooms that aren't large enough/don't have enough furniture, because then furniture gets moved around and nothing is where it is supposed to be.

149 Kill the idea that information is the same as knowledge or understanding. It is not. 150 Larger rooms with nearby outbreak space are needed. We have 60 chairs in space designed to hold 30 students. Our furniture is breaking down. 42, 43 151 Law school classroom have poor acoustics and are structured poorly for dynamic discussion and hearing. In short-run, the current classrooms need microphones hanging from the 30 ceiling throughout the room, allowing everyone to hear everyone else. 152 lighting needs to be changed to not reflect on the screen and be able to dim the lights if necessary, more user friendly switches for the various lighting needs, flexibility in chair 13, 33, 37 arrangement, the ability to use the chalkboard while using the projectors or document readers, flexibility in podium arrangement 153 Limiting class size so that we have the option of rearranging the desks for discussion. 37, 42 154 Maintain the video link system. If the university is going to have the multi-campus system, then the video link needs to be reliable. 8 155 Maintain, and update esthetics 43, 49 156 Maintenance of the physical facilities. I realize there isn't much you can do about old public-institution heating and cooling systems, but please don't install more of the "one or the other" 43 if possible in new buildings. 157 Make sure that there are always enough seats for the students registered for a particular class. 42 158 Make sure that there is always more than enough chalk for the instructors. I often had to take chalk from other rooms or bring my own in order to ensure I had some. 43 159 Make them easier to schedule 51 160 Many are old, poor lighting, bad color coordination and in some cases, bad furniture. Heating and cooling are generally an issue. 31, 43 161 Many buildings have been renovated and classrooms are in pretty good shape. 17 162 Many of the class rooms were great. I would suggest however, especially in those rooms without a lot of light, that fresh paint and clean floors be manditory. 43 163 Modernized to fit the needs of today's students 43 164 MORE and better equipped 165 More attention, not necessarily more expensive 43 April 2009 G-64 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-6 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

166 More care needs to be taken to put classes in rooms that are large enough. I do not have enough room to legitimately give an exam in my classrooms because the desks are crowded 42 up against one another, leaving a lot of opening for cheating. In particular, Smith 2186 should not have a class of 27 people scheduled in it. The physics department has made this complaint many times before, yet I got put there this quarter. 167 More classrooms for SAMP--convenient, available, technology accessible 2 168 More comfortable desks that help improve posture. 41 169 More control over the lighting to allow for both energy conservation and a productive classroom environment. One classroom I have taught in the overhead fluorescent lights washed 13 out the screen unless they were off because all three bulbs in the fixture were always on. One bank of bulbs is enough when showing a presentation on the screen.

170 More frequent cleaning/dusting of floors and podium surfaces. 38 171 More investment in multimedia stations. 2 172 More large classrooms should be available on campus 33 173 more larger classrooms 33 174 More microphones at student desks so students can hear each other. 30 175 More of them. 176 More regular deep cleaning of floors. There is nothing like rolling on the floor and acting as a mop at the same time – yuck! 38 177 More rooms made available to reduce competition for space. 33 178 More space for instructors to walk around. 33 179 More technology available 2 180 More windows, warmer and/or brighter colors on the walls, more up-to-date technology, newer desks (most are damaged and rock back and forth) 9, 23, 41, 46, 49 181 Most classrooms need a total upgrade to modern times, lighting, space, organization of chairs, dependable computers with projectors that show slides clearly, decent airflow in the 1, 11, 13, 31 room!! 182 My classess are usually after 4:30; generally the rooms are in pretty good condition. Consider running a promotional/ marketing add to students and faculty related to taking better care 4, 38 of our classrooms for the future, "Our Classrooms are Your Classrooms: Be Considerate of the Next Class". prepare a 1 page notice on what students and faculty can do 1. Clean up after you leave. 2.Leave the classroom ready for the next class. Get Pres. Gee to do a promo sitting in class and how he places his share in place and cleans up. Show how faculty treats equipment. You get the picture! 183 my classroom (UH 448) does not have a clock. 14 184 My comments are specific to Gerlach Hall, in the Fisher College. Mr previous experience around campus was much worse thatn our current conditions. 185 My experiences teaching in classrooms at OSU have been very positive. I've been teaching mainly in the newly renovated Jennings Hall, which is excellent! 17 186 My general impression is that Ohio State waits until facilities are crumbling or condemned before knocking them down and replacing them. As western universities show, a little 43 preventive maintenance goes a long way, and it certainly couldn't be more expensive than starting from scratch every time. 187 N/A 188 n/a 189 N/A 190 N/A 191 Need updated 192 New desks in larger and older buildings. Currently some lecture halls (Postle Hall, Arps Hall) have small desks that are too close together and too small to function as desks. 41

193 No basement classrooms and tear down Aviation 194 none 195 None 196 None 197 none 198 None specific. 199 None. They are always clean, blackboards are washed! 17 200 Notify the instructor or have a database of the facilities available in the classroom available online 19 201 ok 17 April 2009 G-65 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-6 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

202 Older rooms need to be improved . 43 203 open up more classrooms of size 75-150; give departments first priority to classrooms in their own buildings; 42, 51 204 OSU classrooms tend to look cold, unwelcoming, shabby, and run down. Although it may be prohibitively expensive to refurbish and renovate all of our classrooms, at least keeping 9, 13, 43 them well maintained would be helpful. For example, broken chairs can removed or replaced. Lighting can be kept in good condition (replacing bulbs), walls can be painted, and carpeting replaced when it begins to look too bare and worn. 205 Our classrooms in Hughes Hall have peeling paint, poor ventilation, and inadequate temperature control. Faculty must transport their own equipment to class if they want to show a 7, 16, 31, 43 video, and there is no internet available in most classrooms. If equipment breaks, it takes weeks to repair or replace. There are many nice teaching spaces on campus, but the spaces we in Music have access to are truly appalling. 206 Overall modernization in terms of atmosphere and design. proper size for class enrollment. For example a graduate course with 30+ students was squeezed into a small class room 42 with very little room to get to a seat. I felt this created a safety issue as well. 207 Overall they are pretty good 17 208 Overall they're fine. All that is really needed is a more careful matching of enrollment and the size of the room assigned. 42 209 Overall, instructional classrooms I've been in are of good quality 17 210 Parking to allow better access to classrooms 52 211 Provide adjustable elevaton chairs for the instructor 212 Provide more classrooms like Scott 0044 213 Provide proper classroom equipments (such as projectors and a technical support staff) 1, 10 214 Put money into fixing the classrooms (replacing old equipment, repainting, reflooring, etc) you have before you pour millions into constructing entirely new buildings. Seriously, how 43 much could it cost to get us desks that aren't twenty years old, off-balance, chipped, stained and uncomfortable? 215 put priority on them and spend money to fix them. there are too few big class rooms too few genuine seminar rooms, very few places with power point built in, terible lighting in many, 1, 11, 13, 43 shabby and a run down feel in too many, the list goes on. The problem is the low priority the central adminstration puts on delivering quality education to students.

216 regular updates, cleaning 38, 43 217 Regulation of heating and cooling a must. More natural light. Enough bathrooms for women on every floor. 13, 31, 54 218 remodle 219 Remove the class bells. 220 Renovate rooms that are of a strange shape and small size (i.e. 110 and 111 Celeste Labs) to accommodate more people, even if there is a loss in number of rooms. Change the 37 seating in old buildings like Evans and Smith Labs, from the tiny, bolted down desks to desks that are bigger and moveable. 221 Replace as many of the old style single person chair/desk combo units as possible. They are very uncomfortable and do not make good use of the space in the classrooms. 41

222 replace hold desks with new ones. majority of the lecture halls have new desks, however recitation and small rooms have desks that are too old or broken which limits seating and 41 makes the students uncomfortable if the must sit in them. 223 Replace the rest of those little old metal chairs (e.g. in Enarson 201, 212 -- I was very surprised to see them still in there after the improvements, though adding the tech was definitely 41 worth the trade-off). 224 Same as above 225 Same as my #4 comments about Arps Hall in general. Almost everything (walls, floor tiles, ceilings, etc) is worn out, faded, drab. I'm no designer, but the classrooms in Arps need 43, 49 dramatic updating. 226 satisfied 17 227 schedule classes for departments in their own buildings so instructors don't have to cart materials between buildings 51 228 Scheduling of rooms needs to be streamlined and thoughtful. Input from instructor based on design of course and type of space needed should be solicited. The last class I taught my 51 room was changed 3 times to 3 different buildings in 3 the first 3 weeks. This makes teaching and classroom management/organization very difficult. In additions, these sorts of problems in turn reflect on my teacher evaluations. 229 seating is, in general, very uncomfortable for students; I think that may be the biggest issue that I see 41 230 see #4 &5 231 See 4 and 5. 232 see above April 2009 G-66 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-6 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

233 See above 234 See above 235 see above 236 see above 237 See above, #4 238 See above. 239 See above. 240 See above. 241 See answer to 5: computer, computer projector; screen; electronic white boards; wireless connectivity; laptop carts (with class sets of laptops for student use); ARS systems in rooms 2 intended for larger audiences. 242 see comments 4&5 243 see number 4 244 See previous 245 simple updations may include newer desks/chairs for the students in which they can sit comfortably in, as well as desks that are large enough for them to write notes comfortably. 41

246 Since my teaching is limited to 1 classroom, I cannot address the more general issues. 247 Some (~50%) of the large classrooms are not conducive to learning. In our building they are not even ADA compliant. This is not optimal. 39, 53 248 Some buildings are awesome, some are terrible. I think Ramseyer and Arps sadly are reflective of how OSU values the teaching profession. Heck the hand-me-downs of new buildings would be improvements! But to no surprise, the administrative offices are quite nice... 249 Some buildings are better than others - the facilities are of uneven quality. Part of the cleanliness issues also relate to students who are careless about trash and newspaper disposal, 38, 53 and classrooms that are infrequently and/or poorly cleaned by cleaning staff. 250 Some classrooms are very good-excellent, while others need temperature control, better lighting control, new paint, better audio-visual capabilities (sound, screen size), better 53 seating/table/desk arrangement. It depends on the room, it's hard to make a general suggestion. 251 Some classrooms have desks that are very uncomfortable, it would be nice if the seats would be improved. 41 252 Some of the rooms do not have proper controls to turn off selective lights during a lecture. 13 253 Some rooms are very small for the # of desks. 42 254 Stadium seating; better HVAC; better ability to control lighting 13, 31 255 Switch to semester based approach. 256 Systematic replacement of desk/chairs and regular maintenance. 43 257 Tables are much better than the old fashion desks - Real learning is more constructive and those allow. 41 258 Technology and climate control are really the big ones. 2, 31 259 Technology in all. This next one problaby is not for you to handle but I work in a department that for final exams we have to follow our regular class schedule instead of the University 2 posted final exam time table. Have all departments and colleges follow the University schedule. many quarters have to give multiple exams to meet all students needs.

260 technology in every classroom, increased clicker availability 2, 32 261 Technology stations in classrooms. 2 262 technology! 2 263 Temperature control is an issue in our building. Many times I have entered a classroom to teach and found the windows wide open, even in Winter. 31 264 Temperature control that is more suited to the season (and more environmentally friendly). They tend to be rather cold in summer when students are dressed for warm weather (Not so 31 much an issue in winter because even if they're a bit cold, students are usually dressed for it. In addition, it's more environmentally friendly to have them cooler at that time of year.)

265 Temperature, rooms are often too hot or too cold 31 266 The above suggestions sum up my only complaints. 267 The classrooms at Ohio State that I have experienced need upgraded. The are in poor shape and need to be revamped starting with basic upkeep such as painting, maintenance etc... 43

268 The heating and cooling are still problematic and we often open windows to improve the temperature. 31 April 2009 G-67 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-6 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

269 The larger classrooms are getting better all the time. I'm assuming it'll just be time before the technology and improvements trickle down to medium-size classrooms. 2 270 The new engineering building in very nice, I can't think of anything that needs dramatic improvement. 271 The President has got to realize that money--a lot of it--needs to be put into improving their physical quality and improving the quality of custodial service. Perhaps it is not so bad for 38, 43 other fields, but for those of us in arts and humanities, it's wretched. And has gotten steadily worse in the 20 years I have taught here. I have been put into rooms where the winter wind whistles through broken windows, where the blackboard has been ruined by incorrect washing and cannot be used, where the stench of poor cleaning techniques makes me gag, etcetera. I feel as if I am teaching in a third-world country. 272 The school of music should not look like we are still in the 1950's. Soundproofing would be ideal, but doors that work properly would be a good start. 43, 48 273 The seats could be more comfortable and there could be more space to get into and out of the desks. 41 274 The should be well maintained (paint, window treatments, heating units, chalkboards, etc.); clean; moveable seating; technologically up to date for the types of classes taught in them. 23, 37, 38, 43

275 The temperature is never right. 31 276 There are a significant number of class room facilities that need to be updated to world class standards as currently exist in fisher. 277 There are little things that are disruptive, like doors that slam every time they close (example 136 Jennings) or clocks that aren't right, and the variety of technology so that you have to 3, 14 know how to use several systems if you teach in different buildings. These things can get in the way of keeping class presentations on track. 278 There are some odd shaped rooms, especially in some of the older buildings. It is probably unavoidable, though 279 There are too many windowless classrooms that are perceived as very unfriendly. 46 280 There is a wide variety of classrooms -- some very old (e.g. Aviation building), and some very modern (e.g., Page Hall). In general, they are all fine. 53 281 There is no reason on this earth why the Dept of Art could not be one of the most important programs in the country. The faculty is in place and highly qualified, the students have tremendous potential, the Wexner is across the street, and yet we are starved. I come to OSU from another college where I was an Associate Professor- I moved here for my spouse who was offered a "cannot refuse" job outside tghe university. If I were being recruited I would not view the university as serious about education as evidenced and contrasted with the sparkling sports facilities, new parking garages, and the new student union that all really scream that OSU is a lifestyle university first and a place of mediocre pedagogical priorities further on down the list. I understand that my comments are raw and forceful but I am resigned that the only way to communicate in such a Kafkaesque bureaucracy is to shout loudly so that someone, anyone might hear... something. I tire of the university attending to donor issues or popular building projects (of course there are new business and architecture facilities -duh) meanwhile entire populations labor in conditions that are below par of community colleges. Outside my dept one might look at the Museum for Biological Diversity- a treasu 282 There must be technology to improve teaching and learning, so that is the most general suggestion. Beyond that, there needs to be an environment that fosters learning and 2 collaboration. 283 There needs to be a goal that classrooms are not `bare minimum'; rather, they should be made comfortable like conference rooms, or classrooms in the business school.

284 There should be technology capabilities in ALL classrooms. 2 285 These rooms are the primary location for learning. They should be designed by experts how know how to set a good learning environment. 286 they are okay but need updates as noted above and heating and cooling are a problem 31 287 They could be cleaned more often and kept up better in general, and the techniology could be improved. 2, 38, 43 288 They could be painted, they could have more consistent lighting, the technology could be easier, and how about this.. everytime I go to class, I wish it were a Sheraton, or at least a 2, 13, 43 Holiday Inn that makes an effort and not a Knights Inn that is just squeaking by 289 They have greatly improved while I've been here, and I don't think much needs to be improved right now. 17 290 They need flexibility for different ways of teaching. The classrooms that have been assigned to me were designed for lecturing. I have my students working in teams. 37 291 They need more emphasis--there is so much focus on new, high profile projects that the basics of steadily improving older classrooms seems to have gone out the window. It need not 43 be a huge full scale renovation of an entire building, but simply adding decent furniture and passable equipment. 292 They should be clean and properly equipped with chalk and erasers. Overhead projectors should be in good working order in all rooms. During breaks, perhaps overheads could be 38, 43 checked to see if they are using the spare bulb and get the burned out bulbs replaced. 293 They should be designed with the activities which they will hold in mind. I don't get the impression that this is taken into consideration. 51 294 They vary greatly across spaces. Some are wonderful some are terrible. Get some minimum consistency. 53 295 They're so variable. Some are excellent, some are depressing places with poor seating. 41, 53 296 Think about reconfigurable spaces with easily moveable walls and desk/chairs. Fit all larger lecture halls with as many interactive and multi-modal technologies as possible. 2, 37

297 Think about utility and provide for that. April 2009 G-68 Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

The Ohio State University, Instructional Space Feasibility Study

Appendix Table G-6 Responses to the Registrar's Office Web-Based Classroom Survey: Department Classrooms, General Improvements

Comment No. Comments Comment Codes

298 Too many old (tiny) desks that are not conducive to note-taking. 41 299 Ugh. I wish all the rooms in CC were like the ones on the 3rd floor. Lots of the desks are too small to accommodate bigger students or they don't have enough desk surface space for 41, 42, 51 all their stuff. Also, some of the rooms are WAY too close-quarters to accommodate a class of 25 kids. Just because you can fit 25 desks doesn't mean it works for lessons with kinesthetic tasks where they have to get up and move. And it is hard for me to circulate and assess students' work and participation when I'm in classrooms like that. In those rooms, when you have a laptop cart, it further complicates matters because then you need more space to set up your stuff and you run the risk of breaking your neck everytime you try and negotiate the gauntlet of table-desks-bags-feet-cords. 300 Uniform desks/ chairs per room (instead of a mish mash of desks with writing surfaces & desks without, etc.). Classrooms should be large enough for more than one configuration of 42 the chairs. 301 Up to date technology is still my major concern. 23 302 update furnishings in older classrooms, update windows and window coverings that don't work or open anymore 9, 43 303 Update some of the seating and desks! Make sure the Classrooms are clean, especially the floors. 38, 41 304 Update the furniture, better desk layout for some rooms in Graves (long thin rooms with 2 screens make it difficult to address the whole class) 41 305 update them. clean them. don't allow food/drink in them. put indoor/outdoor carpeting in the buildings. 38, 43 306 Updated technology, for example, overhead projectors and the lighting to see the screens needs to be fixed. Like I said before, some classrooms are older, like in Ramseyer, and need 23, 53 more attention than others. 307 Updated with appropriate outlets, wireless access, newer desks/tables, adequate window coverings 7, 35, 41 308 Updating in some of the classrooms would be great - not needing to schlep laptop and projectors to some would be appreciated. 1, 11, 43 309 Upgrade the old ones! 43 310 Upgrade the shitty ones. This is not complicated stuff - you're already know the right things to do, and you've done it with the newer and nicer classrooms. 43 311 Upkeep of existing facilities should be as high of a priority as erecting new buildings. Donors should be recruited to refurbish existing buildings, at a much greater savings compared to 43 new construction. 312 Use the same standard of quality and maintenance across campus. Some classrooms reflect cutting edge standards, while others are archaic. 43 313 Very wide range of cleaning-- some are clean and neat, others are filthy and constantly disorganized. Clean would be a good thing. 38 314 Warmer colors, more acoustically friendly, more vvisible computer screens, tables and chairs for smaller tooms, rather than desks. 49 315 We are fortunate in our facility that the classrooms are top notch with great technology and teaching tools. 17 316 we need more big lecture hall space and more medium sized classrooms that are flexible so that they facilitate small group break out sections 37 317 We need more mid-sized classrooms--ones holding 80-150 students. 318 we should be able to choose what technology we need, and what type of seating.. TABLES work way better than chairs with arms when taking tests etc. 2 319 We should be able to shut the blinds in order to darken the classrooms and better utilize technology. 2, 13 320 When you have a new building being built, don't make them "cutting edge" and fancy, but difficult to navigate. There is nothing wrong with a big rectangular building with large, 33 commanding front doors. That is how academic buildings used to be designed, and it was for a reason. It looks impressive. 321 whiteboards instead of chalkboards. 34 322 wider use of IP Video connections. 323 Windowless rooms are not the best environment for student or instructor to learn in. 46 324 With the big classrooms that hold large classes, perhaps some sort of voice amplifying system could be installed. We do a lot of discussion in my class, and I know the people in the 8, 30 back of the room likely can't hear all of what some of the students near the front say. 325 you should change the way cost per square foot is assigned. some departments get plush acommodations effectively free, and the art dept. is fully responsible for up keep and 51 maintenance for the specialty labs