In his blog post, D’Arcy Norman reflects on his work with the Sextant Group to provide audio-visual technology solutions for the University of Calgary’s Taylor Institute (TI) for Teaching and Learning. Integrating hardware into an environment designed for open, well-lit learning spaces posed challenges, as most walls were glass, featured high ceilings, or had retractable walls, limiting mounting options.
The team developed a modular, adaptable audio and visual (A/V) solution using mounted touch displays on movable stands and floor plug-in stations through vendor collaboration. This setup allowed flexible configurations, simplifying display inputs and outputs through network technology managed in a central server room. Students and teachers can easily reposition displays and control visual outputs, from shared views to unique content per display, directly from their laptops.
While D’Arcy and his team effectively executed the A/V solution, I question whether such a complex system was necessary. As a technology institute, it makes sense to integrate advanced tools to provide hands-on experience. However, since classes already engage with unique projects like volumetric holograms, facilitators naturally foster learning with technology.
If assigned to this project, I would have conducted extensive evaluations and shadowed instructors to understand their needs better, offering a different lens through which to view the design challenge. While A/V systems are essential in today’s information world, was such a complex system indeed required? For example, in each photo presented in the blog, a mounted TV or projector can be seen in the background; in one photo, a projector is directed at a frosted glass wall, evidence that more straightforward, more cost-effective solutions could have sufficed as seen in the current setting. Though these alternatives might lack the “wow” factor, they would reduce the challenges of future issues related to maintaining complex systems.
I commend TI for effectively building such a technological accomplishment. However, the setup’s complexity suggests it was likely not without significant issues, which were not highlighted in the blog. This blog may have been a search engine optimization strategy to attract more customers to The Sextant Group. This raises the question of whether the execution and planning were exceptional or simply a budgetary accomplishment.
While the A/V execution is impressive, concerns remain regarding its validity and the justification for its operational costs. Although issues like obsolescence management were acknowledged, future-proofing the technology was not fully considered, as D’arcy highlights the need for an evergreen plan. D’Arcy also highlighted unique classroom applications, but these insights might have been uncovered earlier during the design stage through comprehensive student and teacher consultations, potentially revealing alternative solutions. Interestingly, a similar process is now conducted before booking rooms already outfitted with the technology. This leads me to believe instruction is tailored to fit the technology rather than the technology designed to support instruction. Additionally, the reactive creation of the “TI Learning Technologies Coaches Program,” which trains undergraduates to maintain, plan and operate the system, indicates a lack of foresight in understanding the complexities of managing such a system.
D’arcy Norman has provided insights into the Taylor Institutes (TI) for Teaching and Learning’s audio/visual system for seven years. In his post, he highlighted foreseeable challenges related to hardware maintenance and ongoing staffing needs to ensure the technology is utilized for everyday and unique classroom needs. Considering the need for continuous monetary investment to maintain and adapt the technology to align with user needs, it is critical to collect data that answers essential questions for its continued justification. The following questions, along with data points (not exhaustive), could be answered through the collection of data from multiple sources:
Costs and Usage
How much does it cost annually to maintain the audiovisual system, including anticipated maintenance, staff resources, and maintenance and troubleshooting of the technology?
Data Points:
– Historical maintenance events potential cost (during warranty).
– Anticipated annual cost per unit (Monitor, cables, stands, outlets).
– Annual cost per software licensing
– Anticipated annual cost for networking architecture
– Resourcing costs to support technology (training, IT Support; although free, baseline an hourly rate per student)
Proportionally, how many training events leverage this technology, segmented by class, subject and instructor?
Data Points:
– Number Classroom events
– Classroom time, instructor, and subject are per respected training events.
– Units used per classroom training event (or average unit use per event).
– How many classroom disruption events occur due to the audio-visual system?
Data Points:
– Number of training events which could not use the technology due to technology issues
– The number of training events disrupted during training was due to technology.
Through these insights, it is possible to understand the balance between technology upkeep and usage. If the results show a significant disparity between costs and expected usage, this may be suitable to facilitate the action plan for future maintenance; however, if an acceptable usage rate is present, insights to validate the technology’s training benefit would be crucial in understanding the correct path forward.
Training Benefit
Is there a correlation between student performance in classes that do or do not leverage the audio?
DataPoints:
– Audio visual system usage (segmented by class, subject and instructor).
– Student training event activity performance for respective training events.
– Student course performance for respective classes.
– If the technology was not available, what other options would instructors use? (Qualitative Survey)
– If given the choice, what method would students want instruction to be presented? (Qualitative Survey)
Iterative, open-ended questions through focus groups or anonymous surveys would be ideal for identifying gaps and opportunities in TI’s audio-visual needs. However, ethical concerns must be addressed before conducting these surveys or analyzing their data.
Students should be informed that metrics related to their technology use are being collected to shape future strategies for the audiovisual system. For example, students might dislike the solution, but mandating its use could skew results and perpetuate an unwarranted reliance on it, resulting in unwanted student usage and driving further usage.
Similarly, instructors and facilitators might feel targeted if they are perceived as underutilizing the technology, mainly if its use is associated with improved student performance. Moreover, if students firmly believe that the audiovisual system enhances performance, they may feel deprived of an essential academic experience if denied the opportunity to use it.
A usage policy should be established to address these issues, along with a clear notice that data analytics on the system’s performance will be collected. This approach would allow instructors to leverage the technology while ensuring transparency and fairness.