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
Outline! Project Overview! Accommodating Growth! Faculty Productivity! Space Utilization! Conclusion/Next Steps
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?
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
Data Sources Needed! Space Inventory! Course Data! Faculty Information! Student Information
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
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
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
Changes in Course Supply and Demand Percent Change from Fall 1999 to Fall 2004 25% 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
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 2,163 28.8 69,627 2,172 32.1 3.27 Lower Division 40,046 1,182 33.9 42,851 1,127 38.0 4.16 Upper Division 17,889 657 27.2 21,991 703 31.3 4.05 Graduate 4,342 323 13.4 4,785 342 14.0 0.58 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%
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?
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 656 187,565 286 2,163 3.3 677 211,289 312 2,172 3.2 3% 9% -3% Lower 656 115,793 176 1,182 1.8 677 124,009 183 1,127 1.7 3% 4% -8% Upper 656 57,182 87 657 1.0 677 70,994 105 703 1.0 3% 20% 4% Grad 656 14,591 22 323 0.5 677 16,287 24 342 0.5 3% 8% 2% Professors Total 161 34,960 217 282 1.8 165 36,326 220 287 1.7 3% 1% -1% Lower 161 20,831 129 96 0.6 165 19,714 119 65 0.4 3% -8% -34% Upper 161 10,489 65 94 0.6 165 12,912 78 127 0.8 3% 20% 32% Grad 161 3,640 23 92 0.6 165 3,700 22 94 0.6 3% -1% 0% Associates Total 149 31,492 211 293 2.0 147 40,670 277 314 2.1-1% 31% 8% Lower 149 16,244 109 75 0.5 147 22,031 150 86 0.6-1% 37% 15% Upper 149 10,337 69 118 0.8 147 14,143 96 136 0.9-1% 39% 17% Grad 149 4,911 33 100 0.7 147 4,496 31 92 0.6-1% -7% -7% Assistants Total 101 19,238 191 175 1.7 119 26,913 225 225 1.9 18% 18% 8% Lower 101 7,653 76 48 0.5 119 10,010 84 48 0.4 18% 10% -17% Upper 101 8,731 87 68 0.7 119 12,365 104 95 0.8 18% 20% 17% Grad 101 2,854 28 58 0.6 119 4,538 38 83 0.7 18% 34% 19% Non-T enure d T ra ck (Othe r Regular) Total 74 21,988 296 213 2.9 72 29,671 413 241 3.4-3% 39% 17% Lower 74 11,865 160 80 1.1 72 15,244 212 113 1.6-3% 33% 45% Upper 74 8,939 120 110 1.5 72 13,424 187 109 1.5-3% 55% 2% Grad 74 1,184 16 23 0.3 72 1,003 14 19 0.3-3% -13% -12% Supplemental Total 81 49,981 616 669 8.2 79 43,887 555 501 6.3-3% -10% -23% Lower 81 36,547 450 488 6.0 79 30,040 380 330 4.2-3% -16% -31% Upper 81 11,586 143 137 1.7 79 11,468 145 124 1.6-3% 2% -7% Grad 81 1,848 23 45 0.5 79 2,380 30 47 0.6-3% 32% 8% Teaching Assistants Total 90 29,906 332 531 5.9 95 33,822 358 605 6.4 5% 8% 9% Lower 90 22,653 252 395 4.4 95 26,970 285 486 5.1 5% 13% 17% Upper 90 7,100 79 130 1.4 95 6,681 71 113 1.2 5% -10% -17% Grad 90 153 2 6 0.1 95 170 2 6 0.1 5% 6% 7%
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?
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 8,739 187,975 21.5 269 8,918 211,648 23.7 10.3% Ge ne ra l Purpose Le cture H a lls 20 2,512 72,515 28.9 20 2,512 88,835 35.4 22.5% Ge ne ra l Purpose Cla ssrooms 78 2,654 76,705 28.9 86 2,889 79,963 27.7-4.2% Class Labs 86 1,706 19,937 11.7 85 1,706 22,884 13.4 14.8% Departmental Classrooms 10 236 3,435 14.6 8 229 3,137 13.7-5.9% Computer Pods 6 132 2,620 19.8 6 148 2,318 15.7-21.1% Othe r De pa rtme nta l Spa ce 43 697 3,053 4.4 43 724 4,071 5.6 28.4% Other 24 802 5,925 7.4 21 710 6,877 9.7 31.1%
Do we have the right mix of classrooms? Classroom # Rms Prime Time (20.5 hrs) Capacity in rms Clrm Demand % Needed Size 1 to 25 25 513 604 118% 26 to 35 38 779 275 35% 36 to 49 12 246 231 94% 50 to 65 13 267 57 22% 66 to 84 7 144 64 44% 85 to 116 4 82 44 54% 117 to 176 3 62 48 79% 177 to 241 3 62 47 77% 242+ 1 21 20 96%
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 25 25 513 216 42% 216 0% 26 to 35 38 779 502 64% 336 157 8 1 Over-Capacity 67% 36 to 49 12 246 213 87% 37 57 116 3 44% 50 to 65 13 267 194 73% 15 54 97 25 3 86% 66 to 84 7 144 76 53% 6 7 20 41 3 43% 85 to 116 4 82 66 81% 3 9 17 35 2 44% 117 to 176 3 62 45 73% 3 3 39 13% Under-Capacity 177 to 241 3 62 57 92% 3 5 47 2 13% 242+ 1 21 21 100% 3 18 14% Total 106 2,173 1,390 64% 604 275 231 57 64 44 48 47 20 49% *Course enrollments include all scheduled and unscheduled activity included in CASA with designated rooms and times
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
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 0311 17 BT 10 19 18 6 4 11 11 4 LEC-HL 0312 15 BT 16 13 8 15 15 13 12 4 UUNION 0201 29 BT 11 4 18 17 22 14 14 10 UUNION 0221 76 BT 6 15 15 20 17 15 15 11 LEC-HL 0314 13 BT 15 20 17 13 14 16 14 6 SC-II G038 17 LR 18 18 21 10 20 17 15 8 Size - too small SC-II G039 17 LR 23 18 17 15 15 17 17 7 Size - too small LIBARY 1408 29 BT 19 18 17 8 27 18 16 9 LIBARY 1406 29 BT 17 18 8 16 31 18 17 7 LEC-HL 0306 15 BT 17 23 20 18 16 19 17 5 NARCTR 0205 22 BT 29 19 23 20 3 19 16 6 ACAD-A G008 131 MM 15 15 23 18 25 19 19 8 Used by Admissions for large chunks of time - new student presentations IRQTUS 0309 26 BT 13 17 21 25 19 19 17 8 LIBARY 1404 29 BT 15 21 23 15 22 19 17 8 FINART 0212 81 BT 10 26 13 17 31 19 18 11 SC-II 0145 71 LR 17 19 22 23 17 19 18 9 LEC-HL 0308 15 BT 25 12 26 18 18 19 15 7 LEC-HL 0310 15 BT 28 11 30 12 19 20 13 4 SC-II 0144 70 LR 30 16 16 19 21 21 20 10 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 G007 65 MM 23 15 21 28 17 21 19 9 LEC-HL LH09 97 LR 13 19 22 23 27 21 20 13 Prefer LH-07 if given a choice. This only laptop LH, not full MM SC-II 0143 69 LR 25 18 13 22 26 21 18 10 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..
Overbooking Small Courses into Large Classrooms BLDG ROOM Tier # Stations Enroll. Max Limit Course Day Hrs LEC-HL LH09 LR 97 7 35 ANTH280G M W 2.8 2.8 SC-II 0140 LR 70 13 45 EE462 M W F 3.0 3.0 ACAD-A G021 MM 54 14 50 COLI331F T R 2.8 2.8 ACAD-A G023 MM 54 11 35 FIN520 M W 2.8 ACAD-A G023 MM 54 15 48 HDEV480X T 3.0 5.8 SCILIB 0210 MM 53 15 40 JUST284T M W 3.0 2.8 SCILIB 0302 MM 46 14 46 ANTH375 M W F 3.0 SCILIB 0302 MM 46 12 35 CS532 M W F 3.0 SCILIB 0302 MM 46 14 35 MIS523 T R 2.8 8.5 Blue indicates Enrollment is less than 75% of seats Red indicates Max Limit is less than 75% of seats
Lack of Classrooms of a Particular Size BLDG ROOM # Stations Enroll. Max Limit Course DAY Begin Time End Time LEC-HL LH01 457 330 351 CHEM111 M W 1640 1810 3.0 LEC-HL LH01 457 341 348 MATH130 M W F 1200 1300 3.0 LEC-HL LH01 457 243 413 MATH221 M W F 830 0930 3.0 LEC-HL LH01 457 320 443 MATH221 M W F 1420 1520 3.0 LEC-HL LH01 457 173 180 NURS321 T R 1315 1440 2.8 LEC-HL LH01 457 312 316 PHYS121 M W F 1310 1410 3.0 LEC-HL LH01 457 254 300 PLSC111 T R 1005 1130 2.8 LEC-HL LH01 457 261 278 WTSN111 M W 1530 1630 2.0 22.7 LEC-HL LH14 241 149 150 ENG330A M W 1420 1520 2.0 LEC-HL LH14 241 109 240 PSYC228 M W F 1530 1630 3.0 5.0 LEC-HL LH02 239 109 151 BIOL105 T R 1315 1440 2.8 LEC-HL LH02 239 135 130 BIOL314 F 1420 1520 1.0 LEC-HL LH02 239 114 144 CHEM335 M 0830 0930 1.0 LEC-HL LH02 239 119 125 ENG228 M W 1310 1410 2.0 Blue indicates Enrollment is less than 75% of seats Red indicates Max Limit is less than 75% of seats Hrs
Technology Available in Classrooms Average Hours in Classrooms by Tier Fall 2004 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 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 26-35 (38) C 36-49 (12) D 50-65 (13) E 66-84 (7) F 85-116 (4) G 117-176 (3) H 177-241 (3) I 242+ (1) Stations Filled *Number in parentheses indicates number of rooms 75% or above Below 75%
Predicting Max Limit/Enrollment Mismatches Percent Filled Course Max Limit Last Time Two Times Ago Likelihood Below 75% of Limit Enrolled % Filled Predicted Correctly MATH561 30 10% 7% 98% 1 3% Yes MATH565 30 13% 10% 98% 3 10% Yes PSYC594 30 40% 27% 97% 12 40% Yes NURS516 30 10% 30% 94% 6 20% Yes NURS516 30 10% 30% 94% 6 20% Yes NURS554 30 37% 23% 94% 6 20% Yes PSYC490J 30 20% 23% 91% 6 20% Yes GEOL441 30 13% 20% 84% 2 7% Yes GEOL441 30 13% 20% 84% 2 7% Yes NURS324 30 20% 47% 80% 16 53% Yes MATH461 30 47% 47% 76% 23 77% No ECON501 30 63% 100% 73% 26 87% No EE516 30 73% 103% 72% 24 80% No BIOL570 30 69% 65% 71% 16 53% Yes HARP104 30 45% 35% 70% 31 103% No ECON500 30 70% 97% 66% 22 73% No NURS332 30 37% 53% 65% 20 67% Yes EE505 30 100% 60% 63% 12 40% Yes EE551 30 92% 40% 63% 21 70% No MGMT500 30 50% 100% 61% 29 97% No
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.
Contact Information Michael Dillon dillon@binghamton.edu Michelle Ponczek mponczek@binghamton.edu 607-777-2365