Digital Media Project

Canaccord Learning Commons

Sauder Learning and Technology Services

Student Experience Research Advisory

Abstract

A study by the Student Experience Research Advisory was conducted during the summer of 2010 to gather data regarding the construction of the Digital Media Studio at the Sauder School of Business. Canaccord Capital Corporation has made a donation enabling a room to be built in the Canaccord Learning Commons for digital media computer work stations and a possible soundproof room. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with a sample of 20 BCom summer students. Results were inconclusive on whether students support the construction of the soundproof room. The arrangement of the digital studio was generally approved of, with some suggestions on how to maximize space. Finally, sufficient information was obtained in the idea generation portion of the study. Students gave a list of programs they would like to see installed on the media computers. Results must be carefully considered due to a limited sample size, and inconsistent sampling

Background

The Sauder School of Business has received a donation of $1.5 million from Canaccord Capital Corporation to be used towards the development of the Digital Media Studio inside the Canaccord Learning Commons (CLC). The CLC is under construction in the Henry Angus building, and will serve as a new learning space for Sauder students, co-existing with the David Lam library.  Robert Peregoodoff, Manager of Sauder’s Learning Technology Services Department, proposes that a portion of the Digital Media Studio be proportioned off to construct a quiet [soundproof] room. This room would serve as a private area where students can record, review and prepare for class presentations. Also underway in the Digital Media Studio is the installation of high-end media computers for photo and video editing, as well as miscellaneous software and programs. The room will serve as a place where students can collaborate, create, and present digital works.

The Student Experience Research Advisory (SERA) was asked to conduct this study regarding the Digital Media Studio. There are several questions that are addressed through the report, such as: (a) whether there is student support for construction of the soundproof room, (b) what is the ideal arrangement of the Digital Media Studio, and (c) what kind software and services do students demand for the computers. The research project is divided into two phases. Phase one is focused on obtaining student opinions regarding the digital media centre and its arrangement, while Phase two consists of obtaining student opinion and suggestions for the software to be installed for the computers in the digital media centre. For readability reasons, results of the two phases are combined in this report.

Procedure

For means of collecting data regarding the Digital Media Studio, face-to-face interviews were conducted.  The interview method was chosen because of its ability to gather rich information about a topic in the participants’ own words.  Researchers decided that, because of the complexity of questions regarding the Digital Media Studio, a survey would not be able to effectively clarify concerns or elicit rich qualitative responses.  Phase 2 in particular required that students participate in idea generation for computer software, which would be difficult to conduct under any alternative research method.

The interviews were carried out by three student experience researchers in the Bruce Birmingham rooms of the Henry Angus Building. Originally, the researchers planned on using the standardized, open-ended approach to asking questions. This involves asking a standardized set of questions to participants, while allowing them to offer open responses.  It became apparent that extra flexibility would be needed to clarify each question in a way that each respondent could understand. Therefore, the researchers decided to use the general guide approach instead. This allowed for some freedom and flexibility in gathering data, while still adhering to the basic structure of the interview.  Each interview followed this arrangement:

1.      Introduction to SERA and the Canaccord Learning Commons.

2.      Presentation of the floor plan of the Canaccord Learning Commons, then an explanation of the details of the Digital Media Studio—such as listing possible uses for the sound-dampened room, giving the estimated costs, and establishing that Canaccord is the donor.

3.      Interview is conducted.

4.      Ask for any questions or concerns related to the project.

Each of the topics for discussion are organized under three questions; one for the soundproof room, one for media studio organization, and one regarding software for installation. Responses were recorded in point form during the interview, and then written in longer form once the interview concluded. Qualitative data was later transcribed onto the computer and compiled into one document.  Certain responses were turned into quantitative data during data analysis: subjects were categorized as either approving the soundproof room or disapproving it. The same technique was done for the question regarding glazing the west wall. Researchers initially intended on using an audio recording device as backup, but it was subsequently abandoned due to technical issues and lack of perceived necessity.

Research was carried out within the Sauder faculty, testing second, third, and fourth year BCom students taking summer classes. First year students were excluded because (1) they would not be easy to reach given time constraints and (2) with no experience in Sauder they would not be able to make an informed decision about the Canaccord project. The first fourteen subjects were volunteers to a faculty-wide mass email sent by the Undergraduate Office [who fit the sample population’s criteria]. In order to participate, each subject had to respond to the invitation, complete a survey that gave available interviewing times, and then schedule an interview with a researcher. Given time constraints and lack of student turnout, researchers resorted to convenience sampling to gather the remaining six participants, giving a total sample size of 20 students.

Potential Reliability Problems

In any research study, there is always the possibility that the results are not given study procedures and/or sampling errors. The most common type of error in study procedure is when an unlabelled variable, called the confounding variable, could have elicited certain responses either directed or indirectly (i.e. a dog barking during several of the experiments). To prevent sampling errors, one has to ensure that the sample is representative of the population it is supposed to represent; that findings truly reflect the general opinion and behaviours for a much larger group of people. Generally, larger samples provide higher quality data. For example, a study of 10,000 participants is much more representative than a study of 10 when the population is one million people.

Given the sample size and inconsistent sampling techniques, there is the possibility of skewed results. Some potential factors affecting reliability are:

• Sampling only summer students, not the entire Sauder population.
• Sampling only the students that responded to SERA emails.
• Conducting convenience sampling in the latter part of the study.
• Using more than one interviewer.

Sampling such a narrow portion of the student population raises the question of whether the results are representative of the average student’s opinion. Researchers gathered the maximum data possible given time constraints and situational factors, but a possible inquiry may be needed to validate findings. Reliability could also be questioned by the fact that more than one researcher conducted the interviews. For example, their unique personalities, biases, race, and gender could have skewed the results in some way. Researchers went through preliminary meetings and acknowledged their biases to minimize this possibility. Further analysis is provided in the discussion section.

Findings

1. Soundproof Room

The question regarding approval of the soundproof room was asked and reported qualitatively, and subsequently converted into quantitative data.  Subjects were asked whether they support the building of the soundproof room, or if they prefer more space for computer work stations. The responses were mixed, and overall results are inconclusive – 55% of the sample size approved of the sound room, and responses for each side are polarized. A noteworthy observation is that participants who were opposed to the sound room elaborated much on their answers than those who supported it.

For the quantitative information collected, the Appendix provides a breakdown of the different demographics. Some numbers worth mentioning are : 75% of respondents were female, 40% were third year students (only 20% were second year), and the majors were evenly distributed (Figures A to D).  The asymmetry of sex is likely amplified from the small sample size.  However, there is the possibility of a selection or response bias among females.  The qualitative information is subdivided into three categories, explained below.

Support: Participants in favour of the soundproof room gave these reasons for their approval:

• Privacy – Allows personal freedom for things such as private conferences, interview practicing, and group meetings.  UBC is often a very crowded place, and the Henry Angus building will likely be extremely busy during the year; having a private space makes sense.
• Need – There is sufficient demand for have a sound-proof room, and it will be well utilized by students. Substitutes for sound proofing are difficult to find on campus; at least one soundproof room is important for the Henry Angus building.
• Ideal Decision – There are many computer labs in existence, and most students bring laptops, so we do not need another computer lab to be built.

Concerns: Below are concerns or questions from respondents who approved of the soundproof room:

• Capacity – A common concern among most participants was the sound room’s capacity. As the room would be often used by groups for such activities as case-competition practice, or meetings, the three seat arrangement would not be enough. Solutions that were offered included adding more chairs and using a larger table.
• Security – Is there a need for security guards to open the sound room? Should a librarian be in charge of the digital media studio and sound room? Would a sign-up sheet system work for the room?

Opposition: Those who disagreed with the construction of the soundproof room gave the following reasons:

• Demand Issues – For students that disagreed with the sound room, some thought that there would be too many people wanting to use it, while others thought it would be used too little. At certain times of the year there will extremely high demand (i.e. term projects) and most people would not have access. One argument is that, because only one group/person can use the room at a time, likely using it for hours, a long line up would accumulate. One student went as far as calling it “a slap in the face” for students because the majority will assume it’s never available. Other subjects believed the sound room is targeting too few people; demand would not be high (see Need).
• Cost – Although students recognize that Canaccord is donating the money for the project, some question the opportunity cost; could something else better be built for the money? Many believed that the benefits do not exceed the costs.
• Extra Work Stations – With no sound room, there would be more space for computer work stations, increasing accessibility. Doing one thing well is better than two things that are unsatisfactory.
• Need – A common theme among those who disagreed with the sound room was need. Its distinguishing feature from the Bruce Birmingham Breakout Rooms is being completely soundproof. The uses for it can be mostly fulfilled using other facilities, and there would be few unique benefits.

Regarding support for window glazing, approximately 75% of the people who approved the sound room wanted the western wall to be glazed (Figure E).  The associated benefit was being aesthetically pleasing. The main concern from those who disapproved was privacy. The fact that the room is sound-proofed implies it being a space created for full privacy. One student suggested the use of blinds as a compromise.

2. Studio Arrangement

Concerning the physical arrangement of the Digital Media studio room, this research study strove to understand whether students agreed with the proposed layouts of the computer workstations and wall projector. The questions about the workstations and projectors were asked separately, and any additional comments or opinions were also welcomed in the interview.  From the data, the responses showed strong consensus – with 90% of the participants approving the location of the projectors and 80% approving the organization of the workstations (Figure F). It is important to note that for many participants – whether agreeing or disagreeing with the arrangement – acknowledged a need to maximize space in the digital media studio. Secondly, students showed an interest to ensure the arrangement facilitated group collaboration.

Similar to the Sound Room questions, it was observed that among those who agreed with the suggested design, the comments on the actual layout of the projectors and workstations were much less descriptive than of those who had disagreed. For the participants that disagreed in some way with the proposed layout, there were two trends which emerged during the process of analyzing the data: the emphasis of individual student access, and the directionality of the projectors and workstations.

Individual Student Access

Within the portion of students which disagreed with the computer workstations, 75% stressed that the arrangement be changed to individual tables to maximize the digital media studios’ access to individual users. One participant had mentioned that the proposed arrangement would make it look like there’s only one group working in the studio at a time and as a result, would give students the impression that the room would likely be unavailable for individual use. Another student justified the notion to produce individual work stations by referring to the previously mentioned concern to maximize space within the studio.

Another interesting observation is that all of the participants which disagreed with the layout of the workstations also disapproved of the sound room and were already current users of multi-media programs. We stress in this observation that these people all disapproved of the sound room (which is arguably, more for “group” based activities) for the same reason: that student access would not be maximized. If this specific group is to be taken as a representation of Sauder students, then it indicates that there may be a need for privacy or individual space for multimedia work from Sauder Students, particularly those who already possess of digital media programs and use it on a regular basis.

Directionality of Projectors and Workstations

The topic of where the projectors and workstations faced had also emerged in several interviews (15% of sample size). Some students were concerned the projector screen is placed on the opposite wall of the whiteboard. They felt such a set-up would limit the functionality of groups working in the digital media studio, since students needing to use both would have to constantly look from one side to another. Moreover, one participant had suggested all computer workstations should face toward the projectors screen so group work would be more efficient.  From this, it is noteworthy to mention that the students who suggested amendments to the arrangement based on directionality were all in favour for having a sound room. This may demonstrate that some Sauder students value group work in multimedia settings very highly, and put emphasis beyond the sound room to the digital media studio as a whole.

The students who focused group work and directionality of the physical arrangement (15%) are equivalent to the percentage of people who emphasized individual student access. Thus, there seems to be two existing small niches of opinions that are opposed to one another.

Further Questions and Concerns: During the interview, several questions and concerns were brought up by students regarding the arrangement:

• What will be the proportion of Macs to PCs for the computer workstations? Some have suggested all Macs while others have favoured a mixed distribution
• Will there be a issues with distracting noises from the adjacent stairway?
• Will there be space or cords available to plug in your laptop?

3. Digital Media Software

Beginning with quantitative results, 70% of participants said that they already use or want to learn to use the media programs in the digital media studio, 65% agreed that students would use these programs often, 80% agreed that they will be useful Sauder students, and 60% indicated that workshops on the new technology will be useful to students (Figure G).

Suggestions for Digital Media Programs

Some students are interested in programs involved in designing business cards, logos, banners, and websites. Others suggested financial programs, presentation-enhancing programs, survey tools, PHP design and writing, conversion programs such as Prism or AVI, and programs to create DVD’s from different formats. One student indicated that it would be useful to have the addition of many different fonts, and other tools for these programs. Another student mentioned the subscription to bundles of stock photography.

More specifically, some suggested programs include Bloomberg, Adobe Suite, Capital IQ, Microsoft Project, Correll Draw, Final Cut Pro Studio, Quickbooks, and EOSC (graphic design for custom Tshirts).

Concerns and Opposition: The following are noteworthy comments made about the programs:

• Low Demand – Some worry that these programs are only good for students from certain specializations such as marketing, or only benefit clubs who will use them for marketing purposes. Programs, especially those that are costly (ie. Need to pay monthy or annual fee) may not be worth the money.
• Less Familiarity – Some students say that they are not familiar with digital media programs, and do not want to learn about them. It would benefit them more if another computer lab was built.
• Relevance – one student pointed out that the additional programs may not be extremely relevant to the students’ learning experiences at the Sauder School of Business.

Conclusion

The Student Experience Research Advisory (SERA) conducted interviews regarding the Digital Media Studio in the Canaccord Learning Commons. The study focused on three specific topics: student approval of partitioning some of the studio to a soundproof room, opinion on the physical arrangement of the computer workstations and projector, and thoughts on potential digital media software.

Results for the sound room are inconclusive. While there is a slight leaning towards approval, this can be countered by a limited sample size, and the fact that the students who disapproved had more elaborate justifications for their stance. However, should a sound room be implemented, there is a strong approval for glazing the west walls. Given the additional comments brought up by participants, security and access issues to the room should be addressed. Furthermore, should the alternative of additional workstations be chosen, further examination on the physical arrangement of these computers would be useful.

For the physical arrangement of the digital media room, there is strong consensus for approving the architect’s proposed designs, with 90% approving the projectors and 80% approving the computer workstations. In this particular section, several students placed an additional emphasis on having individual tables for workstations, while others commented on the directionality of the projector and computers and its role in fostering a group work setting. For the majority of the students, maximizing the space available in the digital media studio was a strong concern.

For digital media software, there is substantial consensus (65%) among students that the software programs implemented will be used often. A large portion of the participants (80%) also shared about multimedia programs they feel would be appropriate to include.

There are several flaws and biases that affect the reliability of this research, the most significant would be the fact that the sample size of students interviewed was lower than anticipated. This was due to, in many ways, the lack of students present during mid-summer time. A smaller sample size means anomalies will have a stronger effect on the overall data, and it becomes more difficult to determine whether percentages are truly representing a pattern or simply a cause of fluctuation in numbers between several interviewees. Secondly, that researchers resorted to convenience sampling towards the end of the study. Reliability remains in question for this study, and SERA recommends to use caution when analyzing the report. It is highly recommended for future studies to occur during the winter session, allowing for much better samples. Should student experience research studies occur in summer time, it is also suggested that convenience sampling is used rather than having students respond individually to a mass email. This is to expedite interviews and prevent response biases that frequently occur with emails.