PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS SOCIETY 36th ANNUAL MEETING-1992

HUMAN FACTORS AND EDUCATIONAL QUALITY

Barrett S. Caldwell, Ph.D.
Department of Industrial Engineering
University of Wisconsin
Mdson, Wisconsin
This paper discussesthe demands on and by universities to update and improve educational delivery in
an increasinglydifficult economic context. The actions of a number of universities consider the criteria of
Total Quality Management(TQM) as a strategy for improving educational quality. However, from a
human factors approach, the most immdately obvious types of quality interventions may prove
inadequateto address the complexity of the instructional space setting. b w i n g on a combinationof
previous and current work in the field of educational quality improvement, the author addresses the need
for an integrated human factors approach that includes ergonomic, aesthetic, and facilities management
issues. Such an approach is largely absent from the research and applications literature. Much of the
existing knowledge applicablefrom a human factors standpint is isolated and fragmented,and does not
address the classroom as a complex system. The author also presents the concept of a Classroom and
LaboratoryInstructional Quality (CLIQ) evaluation facility which can contribute a realistic and effective
educationalexperience for future generations of human factors professionals. The CLIQ facility, while
providing important research and training experience, can also serve large numbers of undergraduate
students by identifyingquality improvement stmtegies to enhance current and future classroomsand other
instructional spaces.

INIRODUCTION simply presenting faculty expertise to ensuring the

As universities approach the 21st century, they are
faced with a changing conception of their role and focus
within the society. Many historically pre-eminent public
universities, for instance, are codronted with the
concmnt demands to maintain its stature as a primary
research institution, serve as a vital teaching institution for
state residents, and provide increasingopportunitiesfor a
diverse and expanding range of citizens (Lyall, 1991;
Marchese, 1991;Meade, 1991). Within this framework,
numerous calls for increased productivity,reduced costs,
and an enhanced instructional environmentseem to be
contradictory or unfeasibleto enact simultaneously.
Public funds for new constructionare limited in a period
of university size reductions. However, there is a clear
and recopzed need to significantly renovate and
modernize a physical plant that, in many locations, has
already entered its second century. In the realm of
underpduate education, the issue in years of declining
enrollments and financial resources and increased
institutional and international competition is one of
producing a recognizableand respected product.
The changing perspective of the academiccommunity
recognizes that education is not a unidirectional process.
As in any classical engineering system, feedback,
appropriatetechnologiesto control and adjust processes,
and adaptability to provide an optimal system-environment
interaction are required. primary in this modernization
emphasis is the urgency to provide updated research and
instruction space to improve undergraduate education.
One change in university perspectives is the relationship to
be fostered between instructional faculty and students.
Modern views of instructionfrom elementary through
ptgraduate education have begun to shift the focus from
highest possible quality of skills and concept
apprehensionby as many students as possible.
EDUCATIONALQUALdTy IMPROVEMENT
l3R3FX3
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has
already begun on a capital campign specifically devoted
to improving classroom design to support effective
undergraduate education. The Pennsylvania State
University is one institution attempng to coordinate
development of design guidelinesfor classrooms. One
aspect of h s type of approach is seen in university
stridestowards Total Quality Management VQM)
(Coate, 1990, Marchese, 1991;Meade, 1991).
This emphasison TQM has also served as the focus
of a new coprate-academic cooperation effort called the
TQM University Challenge. Five “totalquality (TQ)”
oriented compames teamed with eight premier
universities during May and June, 1992, to try to explore
methods of implementing TQM in higher education.
Both administmtive functions and customer-oriented
curriculum and instruction processes are addressed for
TQ-based improvements. The University of Wisconsin
(UW) pak@ded in the TQM University Challenge (in
parlnershp with Tuskegee University and Procter 8z
Gamble) to begin this quality improvementeffort. The
goal of h s effort has been defined as:
[to] Build awarenessand enthusiasm to
incapate TQ into the curricula in an
integmted fashion while exploringnew

548
 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS SOCIETY 36th ANNUAL MEETING-1992
systems / processes to improve the
creation, transmission, and application of
knowledge. (Challenge, 1992)
The UW College of Engineering is including
classroom and laboratory instructional quality in its TQM
efforts. The emphasisfor current and future generations
of enpeering students is for improved research and
instruction facilities. However, the research base, crucial
in other aspectsof engineering application, is weak in the
caseof collegeclassroom design to support undergraduate
engineering and human factorseducation.
With respect to undergraduate instruction, there are
three relevant facets to addres in an integrated fashion:
*Improvementof Environmental Quality of
Instsuctional Spaces to Enhance Performance
*Improvementof Quality and Efficiency of Use of
Presentation Media
*Improvementand Quality Ebhancement of
Presentation Strategies
Of these facets, the second seems the most
straightforward, and indeed has been often suggested as
the primary areaof focus for improving educational
delivery. However, most engineersand human factors
professionals know that the quality of the tools does not
ensure the quallty of the product effectiveuse of the
tools, and appropriateapplicationsof the tods are
required. For instance, high quality televised or computer
demonstrations quickly lose their effectiveness if the room
design does not support studentsbeing able to understand
the demonstration due to excessive glare, poor viewing
angle, or inadequate noise control. Further, concentration
of both students and faculty will be impaired by
insufficient oxygen to permit thought, or poor temperature
control inducing fatigue. We cannot expect student
learning to be of consistently high quality in these
deteriorated conditions.
Of course,many persons have also experienced
technologically superiorpresentations by boring or
incomprehensible presenters. A crucial aspect of the
changing mission of the university is to provide effective
citizens and problem solvers; h s mission cannot be
fulfilled simply by having experts and technology
available. The view of faculty as facilitators of leaming,
rather than keepers of expert knowledge, demands that the
presentations of classroom material be of consistently high
quality and facilitate the learning and problem solving
process.
Previous UW research has demonstrated that
quality-based improvement strategies can be used to
improve the teaching process (Hau, 1991). Hau used a
SIAM (study current situation;Identify vital problems;
Act on problems; Monitor progress) quality improvement
549
process to evaluate aspects of information delivery.
Media use, quality of readings, and student learning from
lectures and assignments, are all facets of the educational
delivery process addressed by Hau. This work has
served as the basis for other examinations of TQM in the
classroom (Bateman & Roberts, 1992).
EDUCATIONALQUALITY-
AHUMANFACTORSVIEW
The interaction of physical instruction resou~ces,
instructional media, and instructional processes requires
that we take an approach which addresses all of these
factors. This persptive is clearly demonstrated in this
quote from b l l Boyd Harmon’s “Controlling the
Thermal Environmentof the Coordinated Classnxrm”:
The classroom environment is an
occupationalenvironment--aworlang
surround in which [students], through
partlcipating in organized experiences,
can grow and develop in an o@mum
manner, and channel their unfolding
capacities into constructive and satisfying
living. Like all occupat~onal
environments, which restrict the free and
undirected activity of the individual, the
classroom environment requires a
systematic organization of principles of
occupational hygiene for its control in
order to protect those who work in it, and
ensure the efficientand successful
performance of the tasks they do. These
principles and techtuques of occupational
hygene and environmental control must
be derived from the psychological and
physiological nature of the workers in
that environment (the growing and
developing [students]),the kind and
purpose of the tasks they are to perform
(the curriculum), and, the manner in
which those workers master and perform
those tasks with greatest efficiency(the
physiology, psychology, and
psychephysicsof learning). (Harmon,
1953),p. 3)
Although h s work is nearly 40 years old, and was
initially intended for construction of appropriate
instructional space for elementary education, many of the
principles Harmon discusses are still valid in the present
era. In fact, the demands on undergraduate education to
provide effective and productive members of the work
force have increased since the “Cbordinated Classroom”
work Harmon’s criteria to design classrooms to
“ensure the efficient and successful performance of the
task” is even more vital for modem cdlege instructional
facilities.
 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS SOCIETY 36th ANNUAL MEETING-1992
Substantial literatureexists in diveme locations
regarding elements of technicalpresentations, including
visual angle and stroke-heightratios of characters on
video or projection displays, ideal viewing angles for
o@mal concenmion and reduced musculoskeletal
fatigue, or sound level and signal-noiseratios of
presentation medra However, these factorshave rarely
been integrated in a unified application to the real-world
environment of the collegeclassroom (seeFawson and
VanUitert, 1990, Pnce, 1991;Sales, 1985for
exceptions). The collection and inteyation of this
databaseis vital to the creation and modification of
instructional spaces to permit high quality education.
SOMECUECRENRESEARCHAF‘F‘ROACHES
An attempt to examineaesthetic, ergonomic, and
environmental factors began with research into aesthetic
preferences of students and faculty of selected classrooms
at the University of California, Davis (Caldwell and
Hoyt, 1990). The survey of 890 studentsand 43 faculty
addressed both emotional characteristics and a number of
performance-related factors of classrooms of three size
types. The three highest rated characteristics for an ideal
classroom were for a comfortable, airy, and functional
instructional space, regardlessof room size. The highest
rated priorities for improvingexisting classrooms were
for improved wall color, new (brighter) lights, improved
chair design, and reduced crowding. Sigtllficant
differences for specific room improvements were seen
between small (4 students),medium (50.150
students), and large (>150 students) lecture halls. An
additional, and unexpected, finding was a strong
preference for the introduction of live plants in classroom
settings. This preferencefor live plants is in accord with
research indicating that live plants can significantly reduce
indoor air pollution (Wolverton,Johnson, and Bounds,
1989), as well as improve mood and performance (Klaus,
1991).
This line of research has been continued at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, with more in-depth
research into ergonomicand performance issues in
classrooms. A combination of survey and environmental
sampling data collection techmques have led to
conclusions thatpoor classroom design and maintenance
can lead to average estimates of decrements of 10-25% in
student performance. Improved chair design, air quality,
and noise control were seen as pnmary factors needing
improvement (Caldwell,Bcelter, Brooks, Scholz, and
Hare, 1992; Newman, 1991).
This research provides a good example of seved
tools and processes of TQM. The classroom surveys
indicate direct assessment of customer data. Combining
the “subjective” survey with “objective” environmental
data enables identification of problems along with specific
solution strategies. One section of the survey is based on
a pint allocation stmtegy where users allocate points to
room features based on perceived priorities for
improvement This stmtegy specifically indicates relative
550
importance of featuresin a Parebstyle focus, with the
majority of points atlocatedto relatively few features
(see Figure 1).
FUTUFEDIRECTIONS
The research described above has spawned the
concept of a Classroom and LaboratoIy Instructional
Quality (CUQ) effort. A quality improvement team
has been formed in the UW College of hgneering to
address thls issue (the author is the coordinatorof the
team). One p s i b l e solution is an organized CLIQ
research and evaluation facility. The CLIQ faclity
could operate at a University or collegelevel to
systematically gather information about the existing
state of classrooms. The evaluations would combine
user-centered surveys, facilities evaluations of air
delivery, presentation, and maintenance systems, and
ergonomic and environmental data collection during
periods of room use. The combinationof factors is
essential to indicate the student and faculty needs and
priorities for room improvements in the contextof how
the instructional facility is used, and with respect to its
normal environmental demands.
An intepted collection of survey and
environmental sampling data helps to translate user
demands and priorities into specificfacility
performance decrements and design criteria The idea
for this project is currently being developed for fundmg
to produce standardized survey instruments, facility
evaluation forms, and environmental sampling
strategies for gened use. Also being planned are
design criterion and user survey reference source
materials for use by a wide variety of higher
educational institutions.
One additional advantage to the CUQ facility
approach is that the evaluation proms can largely be
undertaken by students after appropriatebaining and
with CLIQ facultylstaff supervision. Thus, CLIQ will
also serve as an opportunityfor students to obtain
essential information, tsaining, and experience in
facilityplanning, design, evaluation,and renovation
processes. This baiting and experiencecan take place
in on-campus education settings, and while performing
important services for themselves and future
generations of students. Studentsalso gain experience
in applications of TQM principles in a real setting. In
addition, the CLIQ effort requires teamwork to solvea
systems problem without a specific, pre-ordained
solution.
Intepted, function-oriented approachessuch as
this are an important step to bring together human
factors professionals with designers, architects,and
engineers to provide high quality instructional facilities.
In addition to providing user-centeml criteria for
improved education, the evaluation and design
recoIllmendation prcces can also serve as an important
educational experience for future genedons of human
 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS SOCIETY 36th ANNUAL MEETING4992
factors professionalsin a relevant and clearly understood
exprience framework
REFERENCES
Bateman, G. R., and Roberts, H. V. (1992). TOM for
Professors and Students. University of Chicago:
Graduate School of Business.
Caldwell, B., and Hoyt, K. (1990). Classroom
Aesthetics Swev: Student and Facultv Opinions
Davis, CA: UC Davis Teaching Resources Center.
Caldwell, B. S., Bcelter, S. C., Brooks, C. A., Scholz,
J. A., and Hare, J. R. (1992). An Evaluation and
Redesign Process for Improving College Classroom
Environmental Quality. Presented at EDRA 23:
Equitable and Sustainable Habitats, Boulder, CO.
Coate, L. E. (1990). An Analvsis of Oregon State
Universitv's Total OualItv Management Pilot
F?-og~.am.corvdlis, OR-Oregon State University.
Fawson, E. C., and VanUitert, D. D. (1990). The
Techndogy Classroom:Altemahvesfor Futute
Planning. Tech Trends, 35(4), 28-34.
Harmon, D. B. (1953). Controlling the Thermal
Environment of the Co-ordiiiated Classroom.
Minneapolis, MN: Honeywell Corporation.
Hau, I. (1991). Teaching Quality Immvement by
Ouality Immovementin Teaching (Center for
Quality and Productivity ImprovementNo. 59).
University of Wisconsin - Madmn.
551
Klaus, P. N. (1991). Decreasing Stress Through the
Use of Microenvironments.In A. A. Hanison,
Y. A. Clearwater, and C. P. McKay (Eds.),
From Antarctica to Outer Suam Ldfe in
Isolation and Confinemeni(pp. 359-362). New
York Springer-Verlag.
Lyall, K. C. (1991, December). Amidst National
Crisis, UW System Focuseson Quality
Reinvestment. Wisconsin Ideas, p. 2-3.
Marchese, T. (1991, November). TQM Reaches the
Academy. AAHE Bulletin, p. 3-9.
Meade, J. (1991, December). Keeping the Customer
Satisfied. ASEE Prism, p. 22-25.
Newman, L. C. (1991). Classroom Design
Immovements. Unpublished papex University
of Wisconsin-Madlson.
Pnce, M. A. (1991). Designing Video Classrooms.
Adult Learmnq, 2(4), 15-19.
Sales. G. C. (1983.Desim Considerations for
Planniig a COmputeY Ciassmm. EducationaI
Technology, 25(5),7- 13.
TOM Universitv Challenge Objective (1992).
Cincinnati, OH Pr&ter & Gamble.
Wolverton, B. C., Johnson, A., and Bounds, K.
(1989). Interior Landscam Plants for Indoor
Air Pollution Abatement Stennis Space
Center, MS: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS SOCIETY 36th ANNUAL MEETING-1992

I I I I I I I I I I I

~~

I l l 1 1 1 1 I l l 1 I I I I 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure 1. Sample mean student point allocations from University of Wisconsin engineering classroom (N=316)

552