Division of the Humanities Charrette, January 30, 2001

The following report was prepared by the Architect and will be assumed to be correct unless written exceptions are received within two weeks of publication date.

 

     Meeting                                                                                            

          Date:                  30 January 2001                                                            Report Date: 7 February 2001  

   Location:        Henry Wells Room, Long Library          

      Project:       Wells College Master Planning        

Project No:       98048E

     Subject:        Academic Functional Space Programming with the Humanities Department 

 

 

Attendees:        Wells College                            Diane Koester, Associate Dean of the College

Nancy Gil, Lecturer in French

Lydie Haenlin, Professor of French

Miguel Gil, Professor of Spanish

Waltraut Deinert, Professor of German

Cynthia Garrett, Associate Professor of English  Catherine Burroughs, Associate Professor of English

 

                        HOLT Architect, P.C.               Grace Chiang

                                                                        Tina Lacey

 

Discussion:

1.       G. Chiang explained that the goal of this meeting was to continue dialogue to discuss appropriate adjacencies and efficiencies that should be considered during planning of the Faculty Media Center and seminar/classroom spaces. 

 

2.       The functional space program will be informed by the specific future space needs detailed in the completed space data sheets.  This information is being used to assess the academic functional space programming needs and to create a list of spaces. 

 

3.       The primary function of the Media Center is to assist faculty in the preparation of teaching materials.  Similar student needs would be provided in the library which is centrally located and where equipment and materials can be supervised.

 

4.       As a general comment the Humanities faculty mentioned that there could be logic to having Philosophy in the Humanities Division rather than in the Social Sciences Division.

 

5.       Media center in the Library should accommodate:

a.       Soundproof booths to be available for recording or listening to textbooks for the visually impaired students.

b.       Video viewing.

c.       A learning center that is staffed to address the needs of students with learning and physical disabilities.  General study skills counseling could be available at this location as well.  Both the writing center and the math center could be incorporated here.

d.       A space for 10-12 participants to meet for workshops.  Workshop would last no more than 3 sessions and the furniture in the space must be flexible.  This space could also be used as a classroom since workshops are most likely to be held during hours of the day when classroom use is low.

 

6.       Faculty Media Center:  4 – 6 Stations

a.       Activities in the Media Center would include but not be limited to –

i.         Preparation equipment and materials for Powerpoint presentations

ii.       Slide making

iii.      Video editing

iv.     Web page development

b.       A technical support staff person overseeing the space and providing assistance would be essential.

c.       Student digital labs could be located adjacent to this space.

d.       Discussed future technology that supports “dial-up” service.  A professor would call the media center manager and request a particular video or presentation and it would be made available in the teaching space for class viewing.

 

7.       Classroom/ Seminar Space:

a.       Humanities faculty agreed that within their Division the teaching spaces needs are similar. 

b.       FLLC determined that currently the most desirable teaching spaces feature oval tables that accommodate 8 – 15 students See existing Cleveland 104.  It was pointed out that an oval table may not allow for as much flexibility as a series modular tables that can be rearranged in a variety of setups. 

c.       Macmillan 300 and 319 work well as a seminar rooms.

d.       Many of the existing spaces have bookshelves for reference materials and have some form of A/V equipment.  At this time this most of equipment is not in an optimal arrangement, on carts which sometimes make maneuvering in the space difficult

e.       Seating that could be moved around is most flexible and accommodates the intro level classes that often include role-playing.   M. Gil commented it does take several extra minutes prior to class to reset the chairs or tables in these rooms. 

f.        Maps are necessary in all lecture spaces.  Projected maps were discussed as a option for the future.

g.       A rectangular space is most desirable with the teaching wall on one end (short wall).

h.       Space to accommodate moving around each teaching space once students are in the chairs at an oval or rectangular table is important.

i.         It was determined that a horse-shoe shaped seating arrangement was employed for several of the language lectures.  Classrooms like B4* and B5* were identified as desirable.

j.         Ideally all classrooms would have  “Smart” classroom capabilities with permanently mounted equipment and space to accommodate 15-25 students.

k.       D1* on a smaller scale (say seating for 30) was identified to be a desirable layout for lecture scenario classes. And C2* without the lecturer’s desk was determined to be desirable particularly for English, History and Religion.

*Note:  All classroom types refer to materials distributed for review on 12 December 2000.

 

Prepared by,

 

HOLT ARCHITECTS, P.C.

 

 

 

Tina Lacey

 

Cc: Attendees, L. Ryerson, E. Hall, J. Woolford