Linking Course Demand to Classroom Utilization, Faculty Productivity and Resource Allocation

Transcription

1 Linking Course Demand to Classroom Utilization, Faculty Productivity and Resource Allocation Binghamton University Michael Dillon Assistant Director Institutional Research and Planning Michelle Ponczek Director Space Analysis and Assignment

2 Outline! Project Overview! Accommodating Growth! Faculty Productivity! Space Utilization! Conclusion/Next Steps

3 Why analyze faculty productivity and classroom utilization? Determine the capacity to provide a quality education to students Help inform decisions! Do we ask faculty to teach more?! Do we ask faculty to teach differently?! Should the classroom stock be changed?! Should scheduling policies be changed?

4 Model Students What courses do students want/need? Space Where are we teaching? Faculty Who is teaching what? Course Demand What are we teaching? Course Supply How are we Teaching? Revenue Expenditures Classroom Utilization Faculty Productivity Cost/Benefit Analysis

5 Data Sources Needed! Space Inventory! Course Data! Faculty Information! Student Information

6 Accommodating Growth! BU, being a relatively small, highly selective, public, research extensive university, made a decision to increase enrollment! At the same time, state support decreased, reducing the number of new faculty hired to support the planned increase in students

7 Accommodating Changes in Course Demand Change Enrollment Fill Courses Better Change Course Size Change # of Courses Space: Increase Utilization (% stations filled) Faculty: Increase Student/ Faculty Ratio Space: Provide More Stations Space: Increase Utilization (% hours filled) Faculty: Increase Sections/ Faculty Add Faculty

8 Other factors influencing faculty and space needs! Changes in pedagogy " Smaller vs. larger courses " Distance learning " # sub-sections associated with a course " Experiential learning! Changes in academic offerings " New programs " Undergraduate/graduate mix " Mandated courses (general education)! Changes in student preferences " Hot majors

9 Changes in Course Supply and Demand Percent Change from Fall 1999 to Fall % 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Heads * Sections Max Limits Enrolled Clrm Seats -5% -10% *For Headcount LD=Freshman/Sophomore UD=Junior/Senior Total Lower Division * Upper Division * Graduate

10 Changes in Course Characteristics Average Number of Enrolled Per Section Average Percent Filled Per Section Fall 1999 Fall 2004 Crs Level Enrolled Sections Avg Cls Size Enrolled Sections Avg Cls Size Change University Total 62,277 2, ,627 2, Lower Division 40,046 1, ,851 1, Upper Division 17, , Graduate 4, , Fall 1999 Fall 2004 Enrolled Max Limits % Filled Enrolled Max Limits % Filled University Total 62,277 77,398 80% 69,627 81,505 85% 5% Lower Division 40,046 45,847 87% 42,851 46,755 92% 4% Upper Division 17,889 23,492 76% 21,991 26,742 82% 6% Graduate 4,342 8,058 54% 4,785 8,008 60% 6%

11 Faculty Productivity! How much are faculty teaching?! Who s teaching what to whom and has it changed over time?! Is the mix of who s teaching what to whom in line with our policy decisions?

12 Faculty Workload by Rank Course Le ve l FT E Weekly Student Contact Hours Fall 1999 Fall 2004 % Change Per FTE Number of Sections Per FTE FTE Weekly Student Contact Hours Per FTE Number of Sections Per FTE FTE Weekly Student Contact Hours Sections per FTE U nive rsity T ota l Total , , , , % 9% -3% Lower , , , , % 4% -8% Upper , , % 20% 4% Grad , , % 8% 2% Professors Total , , % 1% -1% Lower , , % -8% -34% Upper , , % 20% 32% Grad 161 3, , % -1% 0% Associates Total , , % 31% 8% Lower , , % 37% 15% Upper , , % 39% 17% Grad 149 4, , % -7% -7% Assistants Total , , % 18% 8% Lower 101 7, , % 10% -17% Upper 101 8, , % 20% 17% Grad 101 2, , % 34% 19% Non-T enure d T ra ck (Othe r Regular) Total 74 21, , % 39% 17% Lower 74 11, , % 33% 45% Upper 74 8, , % 55% 2% Grad 74 1, , % -13% -12% Supplemental Total 81 49, , % -10% -23% Lower 81 36, , % -16% -31% Upper 81 11, , % 2% -7% Grad 81 1, , % 32% 8% Teaching Assistants Total 90 29, , % 8% 9% Lower 90 22, , % 13% 17% Upper 90 7, , % -10% -17% Grad % 6% 7%

13 Classroom Utilization! What types of space are we using for instruction & how has that changed over time?! Do we have the right mix of classroom sizes?! How well are we using rooms?! How well are we filling stations?! What are causes of scheduling inefficiencies?

14 What types of space are we using for instruction & how has that changed over time? Fall 1999 Fall 2004 Number of Rooms Student Stations Weekly Student Contact Hrs Contact Hrs per Station Number of Rooms Student Stations Weekly Student Contact Hrs Contact Hrs per Station % Change University Total 267 8, , , , % Ge ne ra l Purpose Le cture H a lls 20 2,512 72, ,512 88, % Ge ne ra l Purpose Cla ssrooms 78 2,654 76, ,889 79, % Class Labs 86 1,706 19, ,706 22, % Departmental Classrooms , , % Computer Pods , , % Othe r De pa rtme nta l Spa ce , , % Other , , %

15 Do we have the right mix of classrooms? Classroom # Rms Prime Time (20.5 hrs) Capacity in rms Clrm Demand % Needed Size 1 to % 26 to % 36 to % 50 to % 66 to % 85 to % 117 to % 177 to % %

16 How well are we using rooms? How well are we filling seats? Hours Use d in Course Enrollme nt Size Ca te gories* Classroom Stations Prime Time-Enrollment (20.5 hours) 1 to % 216 0% 26 to % Over-Capacity 67% 36 to % % 50 to % % 66 to % % 85 to % % 117 to % % Under-Capacity 177 to % % % % Total 106 2,173 1,390 64% % *Course enrollments include all scheduled and unscheduled activity included in CASA with designated rooms and times

17 What are causes of scheduling inefficiencies?! Underutilization of particular rooms! Lack of classrooms of a particular size! Overbooking small courses into large classrooms! Technology available in classrooms

18 Underutilization of Particular Rooms Utilization of GP Classrooms Weekly Hours Used Before6 Prime Reas on Building Room Stations tier F02 S03 F03 S04 F04 Avg Avg Avg SCILIB BT LEC-HL BT UUNION BT UUNION BT LEC-HL BT SC-II G LR Size - too small SC-II G LR Size - too small LIBARY BT LIBARY BT LEC-HL BT NARCTR BT ACAD-A G MM Used by Admissions for large chunks of time - new student presentations IRQTUS BT LIBARY BT FINART BT SC-II LR LEC-HL BT LEC-HL BT SC-II LR The same reason listed for S2-145 It's a great size, but many times, faculty w ant 75 seats. That allow s for 25 (equal # of seats)for discussion sections. No GREAL faculty w ill teach in this building. There are also a few other departments that say it's not good for their teaching becau There are some disabled faculty w ho must use this room. Other problem, no boards. ACAD-A G MM LEC-HL LH09 97 LR Prefer LH-07 if given a choice. This only laptop LH, not full MM SC-II LR This stumps me. The only thing I know is the room is the room is cramped. It's w ide, and the chairs are really pushed close together in order to have the row s back far enough to see the entire board..

19 Overbooking Small Courses into Large Classrooms BLDG ROOM Tier # Stations Enroll. Max Limit Course Day Hrs LEC-HL LH09 LR ANTH280G M W SC-II 0140 LR EE462 M W F ACAD-A G021 MM COLI331F T R ACAD-A G023 MM FIN520 M W 2.8 ACAD-A G023 MM HDEV480X T SCILIB 0210 MM JUST284T M W SCILIB 0302 MM ANTH375 M W F 3.0 SCILIB 0302 MM CS532 M W F 3.0 SCILIB 0302 MM MIS523 T R Blue indicates Enrollment is less than 75% of seats Red indicates Max Limit is less than 75% of seats

20 Lack of Classrooms of a Particular Size BLDG ROOM # Stations Enroll. Max Limit Course DAY Begin Time End Time LEC-HL LH CHEM111 M W LEC-HL LH MATH130 M W F LEC-HL LH MATH221 M W F LEC-HL LH MATH221 M W F LEC-HL LH NURS321 T R LEC-HL LH PHYS121 M W F LEC-HL LH PLSC111 T R LEC-HL LH WTSN111 M W LEC-HL LH ENG330A M W LEC-HL LH PSYC228 M W F LEC-HL LH BIOL105 T R LEC-HL LH BIOL314 F LEC-HL LH CHEM335 M LEC-HL LH ENG228 M W Blue indicates Enrollment is less than 75% of seats Red indicates Max Limit is less than 75% of seats Hrs

21 Technology Available in Classrooms Average Hours in Classrooms by Tier Fall Basic (12) Laptop (13) Multi (0) Basic (23) Laptop (14) Multi (1) Basic (1) Laptop (4) Multi (7) Basic (3) Laptop (1) Multi (9) Basic (3) Laptop (4) Multi (0) Basic (0) Laptop (1) Multi (3) Basic (0) Laptop (0) Multi (3) Basic (0) Laptop (0) Multi (3) Basic (0) Laptop (0) Multi (1) A 1-25 (25) B (38) C (12) D (13) E (7) F (4) G (3) H (3) I 242+ (1) Stations Filled *Number in parentheses indicates number of rooms 75% or above Below 75%

22 Predicting Max Limit/Enrollment Mismatches Percent Filled Course Max Limit Last Time Two Times Ago Likelihood Below 75% of Limit Enrolled % Filled Predicted Correctly MATH % 7% 98% 1 3% Yes MATH % 10% 98% 3 10% Yes PSYC % 27% 97% 12 40% Yes NURS % 30% 94% 6 20% Yes NURS % 30% 94% 6 20% Yes NURS % 23% 94% 6 20% Yes PSYC490J 30 20% 23% 91% 6 20% Yes GEOL % 20% 84% 2 7% Yes GEOL % 20% 84% 2 7% Yes NURS % 47% 80% 16 53% Yes MATH % 47% 76% 23 77% No ECON % 100% 73% 26 87% No EE % 103% 72% 24 80% No BIOL % 65% 71% 16 53% Yes HARP % 35% 70% % No ECON % 97% 66% 22 73% No NURS % 53% 65% 20 67% Yes EE % 60% 63% 12 40% Yes EE % 40% 63% 21 70% No MGMT % 100% 61% 29 97% No

23 Conclusion/Next Steps High classroom utilization and faculty productivity are not ends in themselves. The underlying goal is to ensure our resources are used in the most effective way to provide a quality, educational experience to our students.

24 Contact Information Michael Dillon Michelle Ponczek