Montclair State University

A few years back I became involved in the development of a new classroom building for Montclair State University’s College of Education and Human Services.  The new state-of-the-art academic building would house 125 faculty offices, eight specialized learning labs, a 200-seat lecture hall, eight 100-seat lecture halls, 29 classrooms seating 30 to 40 seats, and a network operations and data center.  Also included was the ADP Center for Teacher Preparation and Learning Technology; the Center of Pedagogy; and a Literacy Enrichment Center.  Planning for the new building was carefully coordinated to meet the overall priorities of the administration, the School of Education, the architecture  (designed by The S/L/A/M Collaborative), and the need to accommodate extensive AV/multimedia capabilities.  MSU was a campus in transition, moving from a disjointed series of old, architecturally unimpressive buildings and disparate parking lots to a newly master planned campus.  The overwhelming majority of the existing classrooms around campus had rudimentary if any technology at all, consisting of wooden table arm chairs, dusty chalk boards and wall mounted pull down projection screens.  With few exceptions, no dedicated projection equipment was provided.  The College of Education’s facilities were probably the oldest on campus.  During the initial phases of the space planning, the design team was given severely constrained parameters in which to work.  It seemed there would be very limited funds available for initial equipment purchase.  Given the limitations, we set about to optimize the potential of the new building to accommodate advanced presentation systems and technology in the future.  Fortunately, we were able to obtain the administration’s support to provide the maximum levels of infrastructure provisioning.

Our first task was to establish AV design parameters for each of the classrooms.  Most of the 100 and 30/40 seat classrooms were fairly straight forward, as typical smart classrooms go.  We were able to convince the University of the importance of providing dual front projection screens.  This would enable a good juxtaposition of images potentially from more than one computer, as well as other sources, and writing surfaces.  Through a series of meetings and draft reports were able to successfully navigate through a number of other key issues and obtain consensus on a number of design drivers:

The use of small, movable podiums with little or no dedicated equipment. An separate equipment niche to house the necessary AV equipment. Provision for dual ceiling mounted projectors (including conduit and power provisions) Data outlets both to serve the instructor, the students, and the needs of the AV systems equipment. Sufficient ceiling height to allow for proper sightlines and good viewing areas. Control locations either wall mounted or podium mounted as required. Provisions for video origination in virtually all classrooms, most with one camera in the back, and two in the front. Furniture integrated power and LAN connections in the larger rooms. A Central Media Head End that would serve as the master control room and switching location for all audio and video signals in the building.

Our goal was to make the infrastructure identical within each room type, and then either only fully equip some rooms, or partially equip all rooms, based on a sensible equipment utilization scheme. The unique spaces, the 200-seat lecture hall, the textile studies and hospitality management classrooms were variations on the standards established for the more typical rooms.  In order to document the program, a concept design proposal was prepared.  This report described the proposed capabilities of each space type, and summarized other planning issues, as well as furnished a preliminary equipment budget.  Once the document was submitted and approved, the design team could proceed with their interior architectural design work.  At this juncture, the design intent and infrastructure design was approved.  The final equipment budget was not yet finalized.  Working closely with Mary Jo Olenick at S/L/A/M, my team at SM&W, principally Guy LaFontant, set about to optimize the room geometries of each of the room types in the project.  This was begun in the schematic phase and substantially finalized during design development.  Subsequently, we developed infrastructure plans to accommodate the necessary power, conduit, floor and wall boxes to support the maximum amount of capability and flexibility.  Telecom related pathways and spaces were integrated into the base Basebuilding architecture.

One of the more interesting challenges was to develop a vision for the “Classroom of the Future”, three spaces that would be included in the ADP Center for Teacher Preparation and Learning Technology.  These spaces would receive generous corporate funding, and as a result would be fully equipped as part of the initial building fitup. Had it been call “The Classroom of Today”, it would have been a simple matter to design, with a low probability of failure or risk.  Given the current difficulties with time travel, most planning for futuristic capabilities involves a fair amount of guesswork and more than a little speculation.  In truth, the University administration and staff were guarded in the comments about how to proceed.  I have long come to accept this as one of the hazards of being a “consultant”; the expectation that my crystal ball is somehow better than yours.  Frankly, some times it is, sometimes not.  My main advantage in situations like these is that, as a consultant, one has a unique exposure to a wide range of thinking about how things should work.  Every accomplished consultant owes a debt of gratitude to their clients, who serve as challengers, teachers, and facilitators of outside the box thinking. Given that the College had not had much experience with advanced AV technology, it was a safe bet that they would need to feel their way forward slowly.  This would inevitably involve more than a little trial and error.  My base assumption, then, was that whatever technology was initially installed would likely evolve over time, and its use would evolve as well.

In this case, I felt my role was to prepare for consideration a kind of laundry list of capabilities.  This was accomplished by weaving a tapestry of equipment and functionality broad enough so that all bases were fully covered.  My philosophy in making recommendations is to attempt to identify a level of capabilities that (gently) exceeds both a client’s current vision and the size of their pocket book.  In this way, the client can respond by telling you either in the context of function or cost, what they need or can tolerate.  If a client approves the first draft recommendations without limitation, then chances are, they haven’t been stretched enough. Ultimately, we opted to furnish an extensive perimeter of writing and tack surfaces, dual video projected images, supplemented by two, wall mounted, adjustable large flat screens, video origination (to accommodate communication with field based project teams), and localized printing and scanning.  The flat floor rooms utilize easily movable furniture, and is reconfigurable at will.  Remote control was accomplished wirelessly using a wall-dockable touch panel.  Laptop computers are used extensively and all data connectivity is done via WiFi.

Another interesting area is the Clinical Observation Suite.  This area was to be comprised of several small observation rooms, sized about 120-160sf.  Each was equipped with a camera and microphone.  Signals from each room would be fed to a central recording location.  In addition, an adjacent classroom was to be provided for classroom and teaching activities, and be equipped with four viewing workstations.  Using this configuration, a group of instructor led students could monitor activities in the observation rooms, and integrate it into group based learning activities. Given the limited funding opportunities, conceiving a video viewing/recording system to meet the Colleges goals was somewhat problematic.  A tape-based analog system using multiple video tape recorders would be far less expensive, but would create a significant content management problem, one that would necessitate post recording organizing and cataloging.  A digital system would allow for fairly automatic cataloging and application of metadata, but would not likely be affordable. During the architectural design phase, provisions were made to accommodate either system configuration by providing the appropriate pathways and equipment space provisions.

With the architecture planning complete, and construction underway, there was a hiatus in the planning and design process for AV systems.  Standard practice suggests that it is not prudent to design and specify equipment prior to about 12 months before to move-in. At the appropriate time, but before formal systems design, a final equipment and installation budget was prepared.  This was reviewed with the University. At this point, Jon Reeves from my team led the design and implementation process.   Surprisingly, almost the full complement of equipment was approved.  The 200 and some of the 100 seat classrooms were fully equipped.  Two versions of the 40/30 seat classrooms were configured, one enhanced (fully equipped) the other non-enhanced (partially equipped).  Most other spaces were equipped with audio, projection and control capabilities.  The Observation Suite was fully equipped with a digital recording system. S/L/A/M did a spectacular job with the building, handsome from the outside and well appointed on the inside.  The AV implementation sets a high standard of state-of-the-art equipment implementation and is, I believe, an excellent case study for any institution considering building a new classroom building, especially for colleges of education.  MSU is quite proud of University Hall, as the new building is called.  I’m sure they would be very accommodating with a tour upon request. In particular, the Classroom of the Future, I’m told, has been very successful, and is used not only for classes, but is rented out and used for a variety of workshop activities.