Clarify

Although my department was vigilant about clearly and consistently communicating our ideas about teaching and learning to all stakeholders on campus, we found that the designing and planning process was not at all transparent. In fact, we were often in the dark about how any given decision was made or even who made it. For example, when the administration initially offered us a small classroom for conversion (Merion 352), we suggested a much larger space (Merion 174). Below are different viewpoints about why the university was willing to let us convert the larger classroom to suit our department’s needs and insight into that decision-making process.

View from Faculty: Tim Lockridge, Assistant Professor, Communications Studies

“Regarding the conversion of a large classroom, I think it is connected to a push for increasing cap sizes. Our classes have a very small number of seats, and I assume this is read (institutionally) as inefficient—especially for a private university. I can't help but read the large classroom size as an attempt to increase the number of available seats in each section. In response to this, I think our department has to develop a strong system of internal assessment and argue (with data) that the small class sizes yield better instruction. It is also worth noting that we were initially offered a very small classroom, which we declined. I sometimes worry that, in accepting the larger space, we've conceded too much” (Lockridge 2013).

View from Faculty: Mike Lyons, Assistant Professor, Communication Studies

“The university understands that students value and even are beginning to expect alternative learning spaces. That said, I don't think this would have happened without the persistent effort of the department. The IT people are excited, the architects are excited, it'll just a little longer for the administration to get onboard. I'm not sure who made the decision, but it probably was a pretty easy one once they saw the admissions numbers” (Lyons 2013).

View from Administrative: Paul Aspan, Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

“The decision was made by the Provost and the Dean of Arts and Sciences, with input from the COM Studies Department, SJU IT and Facilities Management. This constituted a very positive exercise in shared decision-making, as all of those constituencies practiced openness and critical thinking as collaborative planners and stakeholders in this project. Merion 174 was chosen with input from all four decision groups due to its size, location and pre-existing conditions, e.g., the ease with which it could be converted, its insulation from the elements and overall security. This will suit the COM department’s needs in that the unprecedented growth of the department requires more lab space for the pedagogy that drives the program, and with the addition of one professor this year and two more next year, plus a lab coordinator, both labs should be running to near capacity in terms of available schedule slots as well as seating for students by August 2014. Thus, the Communication Studies Department will require significantly more office space and other facilities, including break out rooms and a third lab by the time August 2014 dawns” (Aspan 2013).