An External Perspective on Institutional Catholicity in Higher Education: a Case Study

Home , Benedictine University, Carthage College, Hastings College, Judson University, Leslie Jacobson, Warren Wilson College

Classroom Scheduling in Higher Education: A Best Practices Approach

A dissertation submitted by

Leslie A. Jacobson

Benedictine University

in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

Higher Education and Organizational Change

Lisle, Illinois

May 2013

Approved:

______Terry Ludwig, PhD ______Dissertation Committee Director Date

______Stephen Nunes, EdD ______Dissertation Committee Chair Date

______Anne George, PhD ______Dissertation Committee Reader Date

______Alan Gorr, PhD ______Dean, College of Education and Health Services Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This is by far the largest academic undertaking that I have ever attempted.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge those who have supported me in accomplishing my goals.

I would first like to thank my dissertation director, Dr. Terry Ludwig.

Your experience and heartfelt humor provided wisdom, patience, and excellent advice. I will keep that experience with me always.

To Dr. Nunes and to Dr. George, thank you for the countless hours of editing and feedback. I appreciate your expertise, time, and energy spent to make my research meaningful and to help me make change in the future of higher education.

To the faculty, staff, and students at Benedictine University, it was an honor to move through the program together. I have learned much from each of you and have broadened my horizons in the process.

To Tim and Dawn, thank you both for your friendship, for your encouragement, and for being a part of my life. When faced with any obstacle

(real or perceived), you were always there cheering me on. I would not have made it without you.

To my family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues, thank you for your support, for proofreading my work, and for your understanding.

iii

DEDICATION

To Kyle, you are the love of my life and my best friend. Thank you for all that you do to support me. Without your encouragement, sacrifice, and unwavering support, I could not have accomplished this goal.

To Josh and Britney, although we have missed much time together, you have without question, supported me knowing that this was a lifelong goal. Thank you for your patience and understanding. I love you both!

To my parents, throughout my entire life, you have stressed the importance of education. Thank you for encouraging me to pursue my dreams!

EPIGRAPH

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”—Albert Einstein

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix

LIST OF TABLES ...... x

ABSTRACT ...... xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 12

Need for the Study ...... 13

Purpose of the Research ...... 14

Research Questions ...... 16

Definition of Terms...... 16

Researcher Perspective ...... 18

Summary ...... 19

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 20

Background ...... 20

Accountability ...... 24

Classroom Scheduling ...... 31

Summary ...... 48

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...... 49

Restatement of the Purpose of the Research ...... 50

Research Questions ...... 50

Research Design...... 51

Sample and Population ...... 52 vi

Instrumentation ...... 53

Delimitations of the Research ...... 56

IRB Approval and Respondent Confidentiality ...... 57

Data Collection and Procedures ...... 58

Data Analysis ...... 59

Reliability ...... 61

Validity ...... 61

Summary ...... 62

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...... 63

Procedures ...... 63

Results ...... 65

Demographic Data and Characteristics ...... 66

Institutional Data and Characteristics ...... 66

Technology ...... 68

Answering the Research Questions ...... 71

Most Influential Internal Force Elements ...... 73

Most Influential External Force Elements ...... 73

Best Practices in Classroom Scheduling Process Elements ...... 76

Best Practices in Classroom Scheduling Policy Elements ...... 78

Biggest Challenges in Creating a Schedule Accommodating Multiple Formats ...... 81

Creation of the Self-Score Sheet ...... 82

Summary ...... 83

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUMMARY ...... 84

vii

Conclusions ...... 86

Most Influential Internal Force Elements ...... 86

Most Influential External Force Elements ...... 87

Best Practices in Classroom Scheduling Policy Elements ...... 87

Best Practices in Classroom Scheduling Process Elements ...... 88

Biggest Challenges in Creating a Schedule Accommodating Multiple Formats ...... 89

Summary of Best Practices in Classroom Scheduling ...... 89

Recommendations for Future Research ...... 91

Limitations and Assumptions of the Research...... 91

Limitations ...... 91

Assumptions ...... 92

Application ...... 93

REFERENCES ...... 94

APPENDIX A: INITIAL IPEDS INSTITUTION LIST ...... 107

APPENDIX B: PANEL COVER LETTER ...... 126

APPENDIX C: SURVEY COVER LETTER...... 127

APPENDIX D: CLASSROOM SCHEDULING ELECTRONIC SURVEY

INSTRUMENT ...... 128

APPENDIX E: RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS ...... 135

APPENDIX F: CLASSROOM SCHEDULING SELF-SCORE SHEET ...... 150

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Classroom Scheduling in Higher Education…...... 32

Figure 2. Survey, Best Practices, and Benchmarking Self-Score Sheet Development…..52

ix 10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Survey Instrument Data Analysis Plan ...... 60

Table 2. Institutional Data and Characteristics…………………………………………..67

Table 3. Enterprise Resource Planning System Utilized ...... 70

Table 4. Internal and External Forces ………………………………………………..….72

Table 5. Process Elements ……………………………………………………….……...75

Table 6. Policy Elements ………………………………………………………………..77

Table 7. Course Formats ...... 79

ABSTRACT

Classroom scheduling in higher education is a complicated process involving many different stakeholders across the campus. These stakeholders may include, but are not limited to faculty, students, administrators, and boards of trustees.

Due to the culture and practices, as well as the conflicting interests of each of these groups, the scheduling process of academic classrooms and instructional laboratories may not always be efficient. This inefficiency often results in the underutilization of an institution’s space. This study supplements the limited research available by examining and benchmarking best practices in efficient classroom scheduling in higher education at private, non-profit institutions of higher education in the United States. An electronic survey instrument was developed to serve a variety of purposes: to assess factors affecting the classroom scheduling process; to explore internal and external forces that influence classroom scheduling from the viewpoint of the institution’s registrars tasked with classroom scheduling; and to develop a list of best practices in efficient classroom scheduling from feedback and input that can be adapted by any institution. The survey was pilot tested on a panel consisting of five registrars recruited through an announcement placed on the LinkedIn group entitled College and University

Registrars. The data resulting from survey and registrar feedback were then used to develop a list of best practices in classroom scheduling. These practices formed the framework for developing a benchmarking self-score sheet to evaluate institutional practices and identify opportunities for improvement.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Classroom Scheduling in Higher Education: A Best Practices Approach

While it may be an unpopular reality to some, all colleges and universities, for-profit and non-profit, have businesslike features. Like businesses, colleges and universities have a product or service (education) to sell to consumers

(students). Revenues earned from providing educational services are used to pay salaries, expand facilities, and cover other operational costs. Like other businesses, educational institutions often face stiff competition from other colleges and universities that seek the same students. In doing so, they will attempt to distinguish themselves in new ways. This may result in new programs, new formats, and expanded locations (Flynn, 2006). One of the functions of a college or university is to schedule classroom use. This business-like transaction occurs between the institution and the student. When the student is enrolled, the tuition paid provides the necessary resources to meet institutional needs.

However, it carries a level of complexity that requires further explanation.

Classroom scheduling in higher education is an important, complex process that involves many different stakeholders, such as campus leaders, students, faculty, and staff. If students have the courses they need, at the right time and location, their likelihood of degree completion is increased (Blakesley,

Murray, Wolf, & Murray, 1998). Faculty must be successfully matched to classrooms which are the most conducive to the learning environment for

the course they are teaching. In addition, time constraints determine what, when and where faculty are able to teach.

The goal of classroom scheduling is to successfully match stakeholder needs and compile them into a comprehensive institution-wide plan. However, stakeholders often compete for the same resources, such as classroom space, at the same time. This competition for resources can cause problems for both faculty and staff (Kezar, 2009) and may ultimately result in inefficiency in classroom scheduling.

Due to their limited involvement in the classroom scheduling process, senior leaders may not understand the issues surrounding space management, nor do they understand the need to establish best practices in classroom scheduling.

In order to develop and apply best practices in classroom scheduling at their own institutions “senior leaders need to understand the issues around space management and be supportive of space management policies” (Newman, 2011, para. 5). One way that senior leaders can begin to understand such issues, and begin to consider institutional solutions, is through the study of best practices in classroom scheduling used by other institutions.

Need for the Study

There is little research explaining how classroom scheduling processes and policies impact classroom utilization. Further, there is little research available to illustrate what processes and policies best support institutions of higher education in making efficient use of their classroom space. This study contributes to the literature so that faculty, staff, administrators, and board

members may more fully understand the classroom scheduling process from an impartial perspective.

Administrators will benefit from a list of best practices in classroom scheduling so that they can promote and implement effective change in their institution. Further, the list of best practices will also be of use to space utilization consultants, software developers, and governmental policymakers interested in efficient classroom utilization.

Purpose of the Research

The purpose of the study was threefold: (a) to assess factors in the classroom scheduling process; (b) to explore internal and external forces that influence classroom scheduling, explained from the viewpoint of the institution’s registrars tasked with classroom scheduling; and (c) to develop a list of best practices in efficient classroom scheduling from survey and panel feedback. The resulting list of best practices in classroom scheduling provided the framework to develop a benchmarking score sheet. The score sheet provides institutions the opportunity to self-evaluate their practices and to identify opportunities for improvement.

All too often, colleges and universities base classroom scheduling on history, institutional culture, and faculty preference (Fink, 2002). The schedule is passed on from one semester to another, year after year, without considering the efficiency of the model. The list of best practices created from registrar feedback and benchmarking score sheet is a significant resource in the implementation of

change. The score sheet provides institutions the opportunity to self-evaluate their practices and identify opportunities for improvement.

Registrars from non-profit, private, non-professional institutions of higher education that offer a baccalaureate degree or higher, and having enrollments of at least 1,000 students in the United States were surveyed. Using an electronic survey instrument, registrars tasked with classroom scheduling at their respective institutions evaluated factors which influence classroom scheduling. Practices rated highest by the participants were used to create a list of best practices. These best practices, and resulting score sheet, may be used by any institution interested in improving their classroom scheduling.

University registrars were best suited to participate in this research as they serve as the primary stewards of the classroom schedule (Stewart, & Wright,

2005). As such, they may either coordinate the schedules provided by academic units, or they may develop the classroom schedule for the entire institution.

Because of this role, they were deemed the best source of information in the development of a list of best practices in classroom scheduling.

This research was unique in that it combined many elements that have been independently researched, such as resource scheduling and organizational change, into a series of best practices. Factors impacting course scheduling that are considered in the creation of best practices include: internal and external forces, the current process utilized, the presence of formal policy, and course format offerings. The purpose was to investigate these factors; to develop one cohesive set of best practices in efficient classroom scheduling; and to develop a

benchmarking self-score sheet that can be utilized by private, non-profit institutions of higher education in the United States to determine the level effectiveness of practices at their institution.

Research Questions

Three research questions were considered to aid in the development of a list of best practices in efficient classroom scheduling in non-profit, private, non- professional institutions of higher education that offer a baccalaureate degree or higher, and having enrollments of at least 1,000 students in the United States.

The first question related to the internal and external forces that impact classroom scheduling. The second question related to the processes utilized and the formal policies developed to guide the classroom scheduling process. The third question related to the course formats that institutions of higher education utilize for scheduling their courses.

1. What are the internal and external forces encountered that influence the

classroom scheduling process?

2. What are the processes utilized and the formal policies that guide the

classroom scheduling process?

3. What course formats are utilized in scheduling courses?

Definition of Terms

Classroom—Space or room used for instruction not tied to a specific class or the need for special equipment. The room may be configured with a variety of equipment and technology so long as it does not render the room unsuitable for teaching other classes (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006).

Classroom capacity on campus—The number of rooms multiplied by the number of stations in the rooms, further multiplied by the number of hours available for use (Fink, 2002).

Classroom station size—The area of individual student space in relation to classroom size. The furniture type in the classroom influences the results (Fink,

2002).

Classroom use—In simple terms, that the room is occupied (Fink, 2002).

Classroom utilization—If and how a space is being used (Space Management

Group, 2006).

Classroom utilization rate—The amount of time spent using a classroom and the number of seats used in comparison with how many seats are available (Space

Management Group, 2006).

Efficiency--The “how of operations” (Hubbell, 2007, p. 6). Efficiency is the strategic use of limited resources at the appropriate levels of service and quality.

Factors which may influence the level of efficiency in classrooms scheduling are: institutional policy, process, technology, and people.

Frequency rate—A measurement of the amount of time spent using a classroom in comparison with the amount of time the room is available for use (Space

Management Group, 2006).

Occupancy rate—A measurement of the number of seats filled in comparison with the number of seats in a classroom (Space Management Group, 2006).

Process—The method in which work gets done (Brache, n.d.).

Sustainable—The method of, or the relationship to the use of a resource in such a manner as to not deplete or damage the resource (Merriam-Webster, 2011).

Researcher Perspective

My interest in the topic of classroom scheduling began in 2011. As a component of my degree program, I was required to complete an internship. My internship project was to assess models, policies, and procedures with respect to classroom scheduling at institutions of higher education. I developed an electronic survey instrument and distributed it to peer, aspirant, and regional institutions. Further, the survey was distributed to institutions that had a highly visible and successfully implemented classroom scheduling policy in place. With this information, a proposed policy on classroom scheduling was developed.

The experience was eye-opening. Through the process, I discovered two competing forces. The first was the need for institutions to better manage existing resources, including their classrooms. As the holder of an MBA degree, I could appreciate the business sense of this need. The second force was the politics of classroom scheduling. Because of my undergraduate degree in psychology, I sought to understand the inner workings of the classroom scheduling process and how it relates to the various people involved. Building on these two forces, I discovered that the conflict of interest between institutional needs and political considerations causes political decisions to guide the classroom scheduling process. Regardless of the recognized need for change, institutions were by and large continuing their same practices, semester after semester, year after year. It is from there that I sought to develop a list of best practices in classroom

scheduling and a self-evaluation tool to measure how efficiently an institution was utilizing its classroom spaces.

Summary

Registrars who are a part of the classroom scheduling process at their respective institutions evaluated factors influencing classroom scheduling. The information gained from this research, in combination with feedback from a panel of registrars, was utilized to develop a list of best practices in efficient classroom scheduling that served as the framework for a benchmarking self-score sheet. The benchmarking self-score sheet serves as a tool for those interested in making positive change within their institution.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Classroom scheduling in higher education is a complex, multi-faceted process. On the one hand, institutions are being pressured by the public and the government to utilize resources more efficiently and act with accountability. On the other hand, there are institutional needs that can be met through effective classroom scheduling. The literature addressing these issues is sparse.

The first section of the literature review provides a background on the growth experienced by colleges and universities since the 1940s and the costs involved in physical infrastructure. It also describes the impact of mismanagement of an institution’s facilities on tuition costs and the call for greater accountability.

In the second section of this review of the literature, the complexity of classroom scheduling is described. Effective classroom scheduling considers many different factors including student and faculty needs, the physical classroom environment, and institutional policy and procedure, with the appropriate scheduling parameters.

Background

Much of the growth of American higher education in the mid-twentieth century can be attributed to the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, more commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights. One of several purposes of the GI Bill was to train and educate soldiers returning from World War II to enter the

workforce and to re-build America. Prior to the four years that comprised World

War II, the United States had experienced eleven years of the Great Depression.

Americans were largely uneducated, lacked work experience, and lived in inadequate housing (Greenberg, 2004). The GI Bill provided an opportunity for change.

Education was perceived as a public good; one that would secure the nation’s global standing. As a result, the GI Bill provided public funding to veterans to cover tuition, living, and other funds to begin or resume their education. Funding for veterans’ education seemed endless and provided access to those who, prior to the war, would not have considered pursuing higher education (Altbach, 2005b).

Due to the newfound opportunity the GI Bill provided to veterans, colleges and universities experienced unprecedented growth in both student population and facilities (Mayhew, 1972). Veterans flooded the classrooms, and their impact on enrollment was staggering. To illustrate, there was a total of 1.5 million students enrolled in higher education prior to the war; by 1947, soldiers alone comprised 1.1 million students, while thirty percent of all eighteen-to twenty-two-year- olds were enrolled as students (Altbach, 2005b; Geiger, 2005).

In 1944, there were 3,000 students enrolled at Indiana University. By 1946, there were over 10,000 students enrolled (Greenberg, 2004). Colleges and universities were not prepared to support such a dramatic increase in student enrollments and struggled to accommodate the burgeoning student population.

Known as the academic revolution, spanning the years of 1945 through

1975, this was generally an era of profound growth and change for institutions of higher education and for those attending them (Geiger, 2005). This growth and change in American colleges and universities often resulted in “an excess demand for college places” (p. 61). During this timeframe, three generations would contribute to the college-going population. The first of these is known as the

Greatest Generation. These students were born between 1901 and 1924. This was also the generation that served in World War II (Greatest Generation, 2012).

The second generation, known as the Silent Generation, was born between 1925 and 1945. This generation typically included the children of the Great

Depression. Because their studies were not interrupted due to the Great

Depression or war, they had an advantage over prior generations (Silent

Generation, 2012). The Baby Boom generation includes those born after World

War II and between 1946 and 1964. As the name implies, there was a significant growth in the birthrate during this time period. They are known for their affluence and their participation in education (Baby Boomer, 2012). The cumulative impact of students from these three generations placed a great strain on colleges and universities trying to accommodate them.

Student aid helped increase access to higher education among the aforementioned generations, leading to the growth in the college-attending population. Interestingly, the global environment was an impetus for many of the major initiatives in student aid. When the Greatest Generation’s soldiers returned from World War II, the GI Bill offered them assistance to attend college

(Gladieux, King, & Corrigan, 2005). After the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik in the 1950s, and in combination with the Cold War, Congress was uniquely poised to increase federal funding in research and in education. At this point, the states followed suit by providing more funding as well (Altbach,

2005a). From the inauguration of the GI Bill, extending into the Higher

Education Act of 1965, increased access resulted in unprecedented growth in higher education.

Now overcrowded, colleges and universities accommodated students by lengthening academic calendars, shortening courses, and rapidly expanding their facilities (Geiger, 2005). Temporary structures began to emerge; and over the subsequent twenty years, temporary structures gave way to permanent structures.

By the early 1970s, many institutions were either completely new or had become unrecognizable in comparison to their pre-World War II campus appearance

(Mayhew, 1972). As a consequence, the considerable investment in campus facilities depleted institutions’ budgets (Geiger, 2005).

Decades later, the relative autonomy and freedom from financial oversight that colleges and universities enjoyed in the 1940s and 1950s has shifted to significant demands for accountability during the challenging economic times of the early twenty-first century. This, in part, is due to tuition costs that have outpaced inflation since the early 1980s. One contributing factor of higher tuition is a decrease in state and local government funding (American Federation of

Teachers, 2011); another is the inefficient practices of public and private institutions which are reflected in the increase in tuition costs (McKeon, 2003).

Further still, some would argue that while subsidies increased, so did tuition.

Better utilization of campus facilities through efficient practices is one way that institutions can help to control costs (Fain, 2005). This may include the optimization of matching course enrollments to a classroom that has similar occupancy rates. It may also include spreading courses throughout the day so that rooms do not sit empty for extended periods of time.

Accountability

In 2006, a commission led by former Secretary of Education, Margaret

Spellings, released the report “A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S.

Higher Education.” The report, commonly referred to as “The Spellings Report,” was a call for greater accountability in higher education (U.S. Department of

Education, 2006). It noted that, while there is much to applaud with respect to our education system, there is also much work that needs to be done. Further, it noted that the “world is becoming tougher, more competitive, less forgiving of wasted resources and squandered opportunities” (p. xii). As a result of the Spellings

Report and others like it, colleges and universities are now faced with unprecedented levels of scrutiny by a variety of stakeholders. More than ever before, internal and external stakeholders insist on increased accountability, productivity, and efficiency. Institutions must do a better job at examining themselves and are increasingly subject to examination by others (Alexander,

2000).

Questions with respect to the quality and value of higher education have leapt to the forefront due to the exponential increase in tuition costs, which have

been driven by challenging economic times. During the timespan between the years of 1983 and 1998, the cost of attending a four year public institution increased by 234%, while the rate of household incomes increased by 82%

(Biddison & Hier, 1998). Federal and State governments, national associations, accrediting bodies, and professional associations question the ability of colleges and universities to contain costs, be transparent, and act with accountability

(Kezar, 2009). Institutions of higher education need to consider how well they are utilizing their existing space before building new and potentially unnecessary spaces.

It should be noted that several states have implemented a series of performance measures that assist in determining if they are receiving an adequate value for their resources. These performance measures typically apply to state schools and community colleges and “assess resource usage, such as faculty, space, and equipment” (Alexander, 2000, p. 422). Through regulations, the states monitor the space efficiencies and needs of their public institutions of higher education.

Efficient utilization of existing space costs less than constructing additional space. In 1998, U.S. colleges and universities owned over four billion square feet of space. At the time, the replacement value of this space was over

$500 billion (Biddison & Hier, 1998). Higher education typically uses its space

25 hours per week over the course of approximately 32 weeks per year. In contrast, private industry uses its spaces for 50 hours per week or more for 52 weeks per year. For private industry, this amounts to over 2,000 hours per year of

use, versus only 800 hours for higher education institutions (Center for College

Affordability and Productivity, 2010). While higher education may never reach the same space utilization rates of private industry, there is a significant amount of time in which institutions can better utilize their existing space through increased efficiency in classroom scheduling. In other words, classrooms sit empty far more hours than this kind of space would in private industry. Instead of building new classrooms to accommodate the popular times of the day, schedules can spread into the less popular times of the day when classrooms would otherwise sit empty.

The total cost of a college degree can be lowered by increasing the efficiency of resource utilization. By reducing operating costs, traditional institutions will be more likely to compete with the lower cost, online alternatives

(Christensen & Eyring, 2011). To become more efficient, institutions of higher education must learn to do more with less, including maximizing assets. This is particularly true for non-profit institutions who typically own their space

(Fugazzotto, 2009).

While classrooms are a small percentage of total campus real estate, they are expensive to build, equip, and maintain. Excluding housing, classrooms typically account for slightly over five percent of total space (Fink, 2002).

Construction costs, technology, equipment, utilities, and building upkeep are costly. Facility costs run second to personnel costs in total expenditures (Carlson,

2009; Temple & Barnett, 2007). To further illustrate this, the cost of new office and classroom facilities can cost more than $4 million. Additionally, institutions

will pay approximately $300 to $500 per square foot to maintain the space over the course of the next ten years (Newman, 2011). Just one percent of underutilized lab or office space can account for $3.7 million in wasted construction on a five million square foot campus (Carlson, 2009). Often, colleges and universities seek to build more space before identifying and correcting inefficiencies in the utilization of existing space. In the current economic climate, the money spent on expanding facilities is something that institutions typically do not have and cannot afford.

Increased spending or expenses is one of two factors behind tuition increases (Delta Cost Project, 2009). The substitution for a decline somewhere else in an institution’s budget is second. Thus, inefficient classroom utilization is costly for both the institution and the student. Most, if not all, colleges and universities inefficiently utilize their space (Association for the Advancement of

Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009). Efficient classroom scheduling enhances the usage of existing assets by improving occupancy and utilization rates, while lowering cancellation rates. Through improving inefficiencies, institutions could pass along the savings to their students through lower tuition

(Eyring, 2011). Finally, building new space, as opposed to better utilizing existing space also runs against the principles of sustainability and lessening the institution’s footprint.

Depending on the institution, there are many possible issues that work against the efficient utilization of classroom space. Several authors and organizations have identified potential issues that lead to inefficient space usage.

There is a lack of institutional data to describe how well an institution utilizes its classrooms. Additional factors may include:

1. There is a fundamental disconnect between perception and reality with

respect to space utilization. Often faculty will request a preferred timeslot

during the most popular times of the day. Schedulers try to fit an

abundance courses during the same timeslots; therefore, the perception is

that the buildings are filled to their capacity (Christensen & Eyring, 2011).

2. Processes may not be in place to control and manage how well institutions

are using space.

3. Utilization of classroom space may not be a priority (Academic Quality

Improvement Program, 2009).

4. Classroom ownership and faculty preference often dictate the use of

classroom space.

5. Faculty and staff acting as gatekeepers maintain the status quo. The

inefficient course scheduling process is often carried forward into the next

session.

6. There is no incentive for collaboration between colleges or departments to

share classrooms with others who can better utilize the spaces (Center for

College Affordability and Productivity, 2010).

7. Lack of institutional policy supports this culture and results in

underutilization.

In Winning by Degrees: The Strategies of Highly Productive Higher-

Education Institutions (2010), August, Cota, Jayaram, and Laboissiere note that

institutions need to do the following to improve productivity: streamline operational processes, develop policies that support efficiency, build positive attitudes and behaviors among stakeholders, and establish managerial structures and systems that deliver and support change. In order to be effective, “senior leaders need to understand the issues around space management and be supportive of space management policies” (Newman, 2011, para.5).

Utilization of space. Space utilization in higher education is a measure of the efficiency of both classroom and non-classroom resources (Milgrom & Sisam,

1989). In essence, space utilization allows colleges and universities to quantitatively measure how well they are using their resources. Through the application of a series of formulas, institutions can develop a greater understanding of how well they are performing against a set of goals or targets.

Beyrouthy, Burke, Landa-Silva, McCollum, McMullan, and Parkes (2009) note that space utilization rates in higher education are low. Frequently, utilization rates are 20% to 40%. This has led to pressure on those managing space to better utilize available space.

Early work by Russell and Doi (1957) acknowledged the impact of enrollment growth on campus facilities and the need to perform utilization studies. Understanding that campus facilities are a significant expense to build and to maintain, the Manual for Studies of Space Utilization in Colleges and

Universities (Russell & Doi, 1957) provided a tool for university registrars to perform such utilization studies at their institutions. They note, “There are two principal ways by which a college can accommodate more students. One is to

enlarge the physical plant. The other is to make more effective use of existing facilities” (pp. 2-3). The manual guided the registrar through the process of conducting a space utilization study at his or her institution to determine if additional space was needed, or if existing facilities could be more efficiently used.

Space inventorying. Space inventorying can be defined as the identification, description, and classification of higher education facilities. It is a building block in the process of determining an institution’s efficient utilization of space. The U.S. Office of Education (1968) developed the Higher Education

Facilities Classification and Inventory Procedures Manual to assist colleges and universities with inventorying their space by delineating a formal set of guidelines for reporting purposes. The manual detailed the classification and inventory process and defined and described its various components. Over the years, the manual was continually revised and updated into the most recent version, entitled

Postsecondary Education Facilities Inventory and Classification Manual (FICM):

2006 Edition (National Center for Education and Statistics, 2006). This serves as the standard for data collection and reporting for facilities in higher education.

Space management. While space planning refers to the long-term use of institutional space, space management refers to its short-term use. The management of an institution’s space includes the process of scheduling resources, such as the assignment of classrooms (Beyrouthy et al., 2009; Derx,

1987). Kripakaran (2007) examined the importance of space planning. The research involved a space study, using university data to analyze how effectively

Dalhousie University in Canada, utilized its space. They found that some programs at the institution had more space than they needed, while others needed much more. The research demonstrated the importance of space planning in institutions and provided the university with data to make informed decisions.

Resource scheduling versus classroom scheduling. Resource scheduling in higher education refers to the use of all schedulable institutional resources. This may include areas such as classrooms, academic and research laboratories, gymnasiums, and auditoriums. Classroom scheduling, or timetabling, is the process of assigning the combination of four dimensions: time slots, students, rooms, and faculty (Wesson, 1995). The goal is to maximize student needs and faculty preferences, while minimizing conflicts with respect to timeslots and rooms (Stauffer, 1991; Mooney, Rardin, & Parmenter, 1995).

Historically, the classroom scheduling process was a manual process.

Schedules from previous semesters were largely rolled over into the next, with only minor changes. With the addition of courses to accommodate enrollment growth, differing meeting patterns, and the integration of technology in the classroom, which influences faculty preferences, classroom scheduling has become more complicated (Johnson, 1993).

Classroom Scheduling

Classroom scheduling in higher education is a complicated process involving an institution’s utilization of space; the qualities of the physical classroom environment, including technology, capacity, type and characteristics; student needs; faculty needs and preferences; scheduling parameters, and process.

The classroom scheduling process involves many different stakeholders with competing interests, all of which must be considered. However, due to the culture and practices of these differently aligned groups, the process may not always be the most effective. Figure 1 illustrates the complexity of classroom scheduling in higher education.

Figure 1. Classroom Scheduling in Higher Education

• Type • Capacity Classroom • Characteristics • Technology

• Recruitment Students • Persistence • Course Availability

• Availability Faculty • Preferences

Classroom Scheduling • Course Curriculum • Course Delivery Type Scheduling Parameters • Time Requested • Room Requested • Faculty Assigned

Enrollment Management

• Practice Process • Policy

Scheduling design. In order to maximize student academic needs and an institution’s classroom resources, Stauffer (1991) suggested that there are several key components of an efficient scheduling design. Typically, it:

 Meets student needs

 Minimizes cancellations

 Spreads course sections across the time periods

 Increases faculty/student interaction by reducing the number of large

classes

 Includes early morning, afternoon, evening, weekend, and flexible

curriculum options

There are several hours a week in which classroom and teaching laboratories are less utilized, such as prior to 9:00 a.m. for traditional students and after 4:00 p.m. for non-traditional students Monday through Friday. In addition, evening and weekend courses are often limited at many campuses. Finally, classroom and teaching laboratories are underused during most of June, July,

August, and December each year (Vedder, 2011).

There are three measures used to determine the utilization of teaching laboratories and classrooms. The first is the number of hours a teaching laboratory or classroom is used per week. The second is the occupancy percentage while a class is in session. That is, how many of the total seats are being occupied by class registrants. The third is the number of square feet per occupant (Derx, 1987). This is where underutilization of space is reported to be commonplace.

Classroom. The classroom space environment is important on a variety of levels, including student, faculty, and institutional. For students, the environment (both virtual and physical) has the ability to attract (recruit) and to retain them (persistence) through successful completion (such as graduation). For

faculty, the environment is the workplace and a forum that influences teaching and learning. Students and faculty alike may develop a strong, psychological connection to the physical classroom environment (Graetz & Goliber, 2002). For the college or university, classroom space is an asset which must be utilized wisely, carefully maintained, and adequately furnished. In developing the ideal classroom schedule, the role and intersection of these dimensions are considered.

Characteristics of classroom design. The U.S. educational system developed and matured around an industrial economy. As was the workforce, the learning environment was hierarchical and centrally controlled. These factors are exhibited in the design of older classrooms. Designed for a one-way transmission of information from faculty to student, the environment was both hierarchical and centrally controlled. Although the ultimate purpose of the learning environment is the same, teaching and learning pedagogy have transformed. The environment has shifted to one of interactive and collaborative group learning. In order to facilitate this transformation, a change in classroom design is necessary (Cornell,

2002; Espey, 2008). According to Niemeyer (2003), there are seven principles used in classroom design. Classrooms should be flexible, encourage interaction, provide empowerment to faculty, contain costs, include a posting of the details or elements of the room, and provide simple, readily accessible technology.

Flexible. Historically, classrooms were designed for a one-way teaching and learning environment. In order to accommodate pedagogical changes, which encourage two-way teaching and learning, furniture should be flexible and movable.

Technology. Technology impacts nearly every aspect of life in higher education. Technology has had a significant influence on equipping the classroom to enhance the teaching and learning experience and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future (Graetz & Goliber, 2002). Technology has provided an opportunity for colleges and universities to offer new and potentially more convenient course formats to students, such as blended (or hybrid) or online courses. It has also provided a tool for those tasked with classroom scheduling to streamline the process and to enhance data-driven decision-making (Flynn, 2006).

When considering which and how many classrooms will be equipped with technology, and the specific level of technology that a room will include, it is important to consider cost. It can cost between $5,000 and $300,000 to equip a classroom with technology (Milne, 2006). Technology rapidly changes and is costly to install and maintain. In order to prevent wasting money by equipping and maintaining too many classrooms, faculty requests for technology should be matched with the level of equipment installed. In other words, if faculty does not use technology for their courses, they should be scheduled in a classroom without technology (Niemeyer, 2003).

There has been considerable growth in online learning (Eyring &

Christensen, 2011). The growth in enrollments for online courses (21%) has outpaced the growth in overall enrollments (<2%). During the fall semester of

2009, there were nearly one million more students enrolled in online courses than the year before. Further, nearly 30% of all higher education students were enrolled in at least one online course (Allen & Seaman, 2010).

In addition to online only or bricks-and-mortar only courses, some institutions have developed courses that combine the two formats. These combinations utilizing a blend of both online and face-to-face delivery methods provide new opportunities for students. An example is that students may attend classes in a bricks-and-mortar classroom during some sessions and meet online during the remainder of the sessions. This combination of face-to-face and online class sessions is referred to as a blended, or hybrid scheduling model. Enhanced by technology, this model provides institutions an innovative opportunity to use less space than the traditional classroom model (Rudden, 2010).

The recent emergence of flipping classrooms changes the teaching and learning paradigm yet again. In the flipped classroom, students watch video lectures in preparation for class and then work in small groups, engage in dialogue, and problem solve during class. Students often do not sit, but move around the room. Flipped classrooms work for any size course, including large lectures. However, as it relates to classroom scheduling, furniture affixed to the floor is typically not conducive. The result of the fixed furniture flipped classroom is students moving to hallways or to the front of the room (Berrett,

2012; Young, 2012).

The advent of technology has provided an opportunity for software vendors and in-house programmers to develop tools for those tasked with classroom scheduling. Technology further facilitates the streamlining of process and enhances institutional decision-making. What was once performed using

pencil and paper can now be performed more quickly and efficiently through the use of technology.

Type. There are two key types of rooms used for teaching and learning.

Rooms are identified by their primary purpose. The first key type is the classroom. This may be a traditional classroom or lecture hall. The primary goal of the classroom is instructional and to facilitate teaching and learning among faculty and students. The second key type of room is laboratory space (Russell &

Doi, 1957). Laboratory space may include science or computer laboratories. Due to the nature of the classroom environment, special equipment or furniture is often necessary to facilitate learning (Niemeyer, 2003).

Capacity. There are several factors that influence classroom capacity.

First and foremost, the classroom must meet the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) guidelines. ADA guidelines indicate that institutions may not discriminate against individuals with physical or mental disabilities. Classrooms should be designed with visual, auditory, mental and mobility limitations in mind

(Niemeyer, 2003).

Next, the type of furniture utilized will impact classroom capacity. In the traditional, tablet type of seating in the classroom there should be an allowance of

17 to 20 square feet per student. In a fixed seating arrangement, such in a lecture hall, there can be as little as 12 square feet per student. In laboratories, the necessary special equipment or furniture may impact the space per student. In the computer classroom, there should be an allotment of 30 to 35 square feet per student (Niemeyer, 2003).

Students. The influence of the classroom environment on students is undeniable. The classroom environment is a factor in school selection. This is particularly true for women. Women have a tendency to reject institutions if classrooms are inadequate or are poorly maintained (Reynolds, 2007). The room’s physical attributes such as having a window and the size of the room impact student retention (Herzog, 2007). It “has symbolic value in conveying the validity of academic programs” (Fugazzotto, 2009, p. 293). Course availability that meets student needs influences their ability to make academic progress towards degree completion.

Recruitment. The influence of campus facilities, including space designated for teaching and learning can be powerful in the decision-making process. Often, prospective students form a first impression with respect to availability, adequacy, and maintenance of both classroom and laboratory space.

This first impression helps the prospective student to make a decision based on what he or she sees, either accepting or rejecting the institution (Reynolds, 2007).

Persistence. Herzog (2007) notes a lack of research related to the physical attributes of a classroom and student persistence. One explanation, the author notes, is that student information and facilities information are collected in separate departments and are typically not shared across the institution. He indicates that while there is information correlating financial aid, demographics, and grade point average to students, there is not an abundance of data tying persistence to the furniture, seat count, or the available classroom technology.

Data from a study of first-year students indicated that students who had a

majority, or more than 50%, of their classes in rooms with windows had a three percent greater chance of being retained into their sophomore year compared to students with less than 50% of their courses in rooms containing windows

(Herzog, 2007). Further, enrolling in courses after 1:00 p.m. and taking courses in larger rooms decreased the retention rate of students into the second year (p.

90).

Course Availability. Course availability has a significant impact on completion rates. While it is important for courses required to complete a degree to be offered in a timely fashion, research by the Institute for Higher Education

Leadership and Policy (IHELP) (2010) has identified several additional factors that facilitate a greater likelihood of program-completion for undergraduate students. The first is the availability of gateway courses. Gateway courses generally consist of a college success course (during the first year) and English and math courses (during the first or second years). Next, the researchers found that credit accumulation during the first year was also an indicator of success.

Those who completed between 20 and 30 credits within the first year, enrolled continuously as full-time students, and completed summer courses were all more likely to earn their degree. Effective course scheduling takes into account these factors in order to guide the student through completion.

Faculty. According to the American Association of University Professors

(AAUP), the role of full-time, tenure-track faculty is threefold. The first responsibility of faculty is student-centered. Not only does student-centered work include classroom teaching, but it also includes updating coursework, advising

students, assisting students with subject matter, and reading student research projects. The second responsibility of faculty involves serving on committees, grant-writing, research, and publishing. The third and final responsibility involves service to the community. Examples of service may include giving presentations in the community, providing professional advice to community members or organizations, and serving on boards (American Association of

University Professors, n.d.). Faculty contracts detail the number of credit hours taught per semester and the number of months per year. They often detail expectations with respect to service and research responsibilities. These responsibilities influence the availability of faculty to teach when it comes to classroom scheduling.

Lenington (1996) describes a problem with the tenured or tenure track faculty/student ratio. The author indicates that over time, the faculty/student ratio has resulted in reduced class size. To remedy this, the author recommends monitoring class size. In monitoring class size, classes are cancelled if they do not fall within established ranges of sizes.

The growing majority of faculty is non-tenure track, part-time, adjunct, or contingent (Street, Maisto, Merves, & Rhodes, 2012). The faculty often work for lower wages, can be hired in short notice, and do not receive the same salary, benefits, or campus resources that their full-time, tenure-track counterparts do

(Eyring, 2011). Further, they typically teach previously unassigned courses and are often contracted on short notice. As it relates to classroom scheduling, they

are often assigned to courses listed as ‘staff’ in schedule books and often teach at multiple institutions in any given term (Street et al, 2012).

In the AAUP Contingency Faculty Index (2003), the authors noted that combining the classroom schedules of tenure-track faculty and contingent faculty is difficult. Outside of unionized faculty at some institutions, contingent faculty typically have no influence on the governance process and have no opportunity to participate in research or service projects.

Availability. Competing responsibilities of faculty, in combination with personal obligations, impact availability to teach. College and university faculty typically have minimum and maximum course loads each semester and cannot teach more than one course at the same time. These combined obligations influence their availability (Bloomfield & McSharry, 1979; Dinkel, Mote, &

Venkataramanan, 1989).

Preferences. Faculty preferences may include days of the week, times of day, back-to-back scheduling, and classroom of choice. Faculty may also wish to avoid certain times of the day. When performing classroom scheduling, these preferences are typically taken into consideration, but can also create complications in scheduling (Dinkel, Mote, & Venkataramanan, 1989).

Bloomfield and McSharry (1979) further note that faculty seniority often takes precedence in scheduling conflicts. Faculty teaching multiple sections of the same course typically prefer a consecutive schedule, and finally, there must be built-in breaks.

In University Professors’ Stress and Perceived State of Health in Relation to Teaching Schedules (Cladellas & Castelloˈ, 2011), the researchers found a relationship between teaching schedules, perceived health, and the reported level of stress. Faculty who work early in the day or later in the evening reported a perception of a lower state of health. Additionally, they reported more stress- related symptoms. This was particularly true for female faculty members.

Scheduling parameters. The classroom scheduling process consists of the input of several scheduling parameters or constraints such as the course curriculum, the course delivery type, the time that the course is requested to be taught, the room requested, and the faculty member assigned to teach the course.

To reduce the number of conflicts, each must be considered in the scheduling development process. In order to offer a solution to reduce the conflicts in classroom scheduling, there has been much research to address the more technical areas of these parameters. In the research, each element is addressed as a constraint. There have been several solutions presented as mathematical equations, algorithm models, or database approaches (Carter & Tovey, 1992;

Dinkel, Mote, & Venkataramanan, 1989; Johnson, 1993). Other solutions have been presented as a heuristic, or a controlled problem-solving approach to resolving scheduling conflicts (Barham, & Westwood, 1978; Burke, MacCarthy,

Petrovic, & Qu, 2006; Sampson, Freeland, & Weiss, 1995).

The classroom scheduling process generally begins with academic units within each college examining previous terms’ schedules and making updates with respect to faculty assignment, class size, preferred classroom meeting time

and days (Fink, 2002). The information is then submitted to and collected by their dean’s office. What happens from this point is dependent on the model of classroom scheduling that the institution observes. There are two general models of classroom scheduling: centralized and decentralized. In the centralized model of classroom scheduling, the inputs are submitted to one central department, often the office of the registrar. The registrar will then assign the courses to the classrooms using the given input. In the decentralized model, each individual college, school or unit has specific classrooms permanently assigned to it. The decentralized model typically allows the match between all inputs to take place at the dean’s level. It does not account for the ebb and flow of enrollments between colleges (Fink, 2002). At some institutions, the individual processes between units may become inequitable. For example, one unit may allow senior faculty to determine what course, when, and where they teach. In other units, faculty may be assigned to courses based on the needs of the unit and not seniority. Russell and Doi (1957) indicate that the permanence of assigned rooms is the equivalent of control of the assigned rooms.

Enrollment management. The increased competition between institutions of higher education often necessitates a more comprehensive plan to attract, admit, and retain students. The emergence of enrollment management divisions at many institutions combines the historically independent offices related to student admission and retention into one cohesive division. The divisions typically include offices such as admissions, retention, the registrar, financial aid, and marketing (Dungy, 2003).

With respect to classroom scheduling, many of its elements are combined to promote the institution to prospective students. The marketing department may utilize faculty-to-student ratios, classroom formats and amenities, institution size, the number of full-time versus part-time faculty, and graduation rates. All of this information will assist the prospective student in determining the fit of the institution with their needs. Touting highly paid, full-time faculty, high percentage of graduation rates, selectivity and demand may present a high level of prestige to prospective students. Emphasizing the institution’s catering to part- time or adult student schedules, a high use of part-time or adjunct faculty, and lower graduation rates often speak to prospective students interested in flexibility, affordability, and convenience (Kalsbeek & Hossler, 2009).

Process. Process can be defined as the mechanics of implementing a plan.

Process can also be viewed as a roadmap that illustrates the path from point A to point B. To successfully make a change to a current plan, the current state of the process and the work that is underway must be understood. Building upon the existing foundation will help establish a successful process (Chaffee & Jacobson,

1997).

Timetabling and resource scheduling processes are dependent on a range of information relating to the curriculum, staff, students, and available locations for teaching and learning activities. The availability of timely, accurate information for the coming session is one of the most significant challenges constraining the planning of the timetable. Where possible, this dependence should be recognised and the deadline for production of accurate information as a result of these contributing processes agreed. This action is limited by the unavoidable change in certain information, such as the number of entrant students, or staff turnover (Oakleigh Consulting, 2009, pp.42-43).

Waite (2008) examined the classroom scheduling process, illustrating and documenting the necessary steps. The author examined the timelines, the responsibilities of faculty and staff involved, and the workflow related to the classroom scheduling process. The goal was to more readily identify performance gaps and to create an awareness of the process for those unfamiliar with it.

Process Improvement. In order to improve process, an initial step is to assess current habits and their tendency to produce the desired results. What we learn can be applied to future actions to increase their likelihood of success

(Dewey, 1950).

Effective practices. Effective practices are techniques utilized by one or more institutions and supported through subjective or objective data. Effective practices have proven success and have the ability to be applied broadly at other institutions. These practices may not yet be categorized as best practices (U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). In order to develop a compilation of best practices in classroom scheduling, data are collected by benchmarking the effective practices of other colleges and universities.

Benchmarking. The concept of process improvement examines, or

“benchmarks,” the effective practices of others. The formal process of benchmarking emerged in the late twentieth century. Benchmarking began as an opportunity for organizations (such as Xerox) to think differently about what they were or should be doing. Through the careful systematic examination, identification, and implementation of what the organizations learned from others, benchmarking provides an opportunity to improve quality and performance

(Alstete, 1995; Marchese, 1997; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

2010). There are several areas which should be benchmarked in order to improve one’s own process: resources, people, technology, products, facilities, and equipment.

As a learning organization, the applicability of benchmarking is particularly relevant to the higher education institution. The use of benchmarking tools provides the opportunity for organizations to improve their processes through the critical examination of themselves, through seeking out what similar organizations are doing well, and through the adaptation and implementation of what they have learned. Effective benchmarking begins with a clear understanding of the phenomena at their own institution. Next, institutions seek out the competencies of other institutions similar to their own.

Best Practices. The definition of best practice is “a program, activity, or strategy that has the highest degree of proven effectiveness, supported by objective and comprehensive research and evaluation” (U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, 2010, Appendix B). It is particularly appropriate, and beneficial, for institutions of higher education to examine the best practices of others in order to develop and apply best practices at their own institutions.

The process of benchmarking allows organizations (and institutions) “the discipline of searching out and learning from the ‘best practices’ elsewhere”

(Marchese, 1997, p. 509). It provides an opportunity to recognize inefficient practices, as well as to learn from others (Alstete, 1995). As a learning organization, the applicability of benchmarking is particularly conducive to the

higher education environment. Effective benchmarking begins with a clear understanding of the phenomena at their own institution, such as inefficient classroom scheduling.

Policy. “Policy serves to define an organization’s [sic] range of activities and includes mission. It lays out an organization’s reason for existing”

(Fugazzotto, 2009, p. 293). In higher education, policy is a communication between internal constituents. Within institutions, there are a variety of constituents who may have differing interests, visions, goals, and resources. In effectively designing policy in higher education, it is important to utilize research to formulate objectives, analyze constraints, and break down problems into solvable subsets. Further, it is equally important to negotiate the interests of the various constituents and develop a resolution to conflicts (Van Vught, 1997).

A strong policy encompassing the timetabling and resource scheduling process, communicating the nature of the process and who is responsible for this, and stating how the institution approaches the scheduling of learning activities in order to accommodate staff preferences, efficient use of resources, and enhance the student experience. This should be coupled with recognition of the extent to which timetabling is impacted by other institution processes and the value of considering timetabling and resource scheduling within the institution’s strategic agenda setting. (Oakleigh Consulting, 2009, p.5)

As it relates to classroom scheduling, well-developed policy considers the issues of quality, cost, and utilization. Policy should consider the limitations of existing resources and the institution’s mission. Finally, well-developed policy shifts the focus from automatically building anew based on perceived need, to understanding and managing existing resources for maximum utilization (Janks,

2012).

Summary

Post World War II growth in higher education significantly impacted colleges and universities, providing access to far more students than ever before.

This growth impacted both assets and budgets at colleges and universities. With recent calls to action with respect to controlling costs and keeping tuition affordable, institutions must do more with less and need to change. Developing a list of best practices in efficient classroom scheduling created from registrar feedback provided the framework to develop a benchmarking self-score sheet.

The score sheet provides institutions the opportunity to self-evaluate their practices and identify opportunities for improvement.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

In order to assess factors in the classroom scheduling process and to explore internal and external forces that influence classroom scheduling, a quantitative, cross-sectional survey research design was implemented. An electronic survey instrument, distributed via e-mail was used to collect objective data regarding classroom scheduling at private, non-profit colleges and universities. Creswell (2008) indicates that survey research is particularly useful in the field of education. More specifically, survey research design is useful “to describe the attitudes, opinions, behaviors, or characteristics” (p. 388) of a sample or entire population. Utilization of quantitative research via an electronic survey instrument allowed for the inclusion of a larger sample in the research.

Data collected from the electronic survey instrument were used to benchmark one’s practices against the practices of others. In combination with the results of the research, feedback and those responses with the highest means related to effective practices from a panel of registrars was utilized to develop a list of best practices in efficient classroom scheduling. The panel of registrars lent their expertise and experience to pilot-test the initial electronic survey instrument prior to its full distribution. Any necessary edits based on their expert opinion were made before full distribution. The final results from the survey were then compiled. These final results were used to develop the list of best practices in classroom scheduling. Respondents’ expertise was leveraged to evaluate the list

of best practices for viability and adoptability by a variety of institutions of higher education. The resulting list of best practices in classroom scheduling provided the framework which was used to develop a benchmarking score sheet. The score sheet provided institutions the opportunity to self-evaluate their practices and identify opportunities for improvement. This increased the likelihood of adoption of best practices in efficient classroom scheduling and the benefit to institutions of higher education.

Restatement of the Purpose of the Research

Research Questions

Three research questions were considered to aid in building a list of best practices in efficient classroom scheduling in non-profit, private, non- professional, institutions of higher education, offering a baccalaureate degree or higher, and having enrollments of at least 1,000 students during Fall 2009 in the

United States. The first question related to the internal and external forces that

impact classroom scheduling. The second question related to the processes utilized and the formal policies developed to guide the classroom scheduling process. The third question related to the course formats that institutions of higher education utilize for scheduling their courses.

1. What are the internal and external forces encountered that influence the

classroom scheduling process?

2. What are the processes utilized and the formal policies that guide the

classroom scheduling process?

3. What course formats are utilized in scheduling courses?

Research Design

An electronic survey instrument was developed to fulfill the first two objectives of the study. The survey was distributed via electronic mail (e-mail) to registrars at institutions identified through Integrated Postsecondary Education

Data System (IPEDS) and served as the primary vehicle in the collection of classroom scheduling practices data. Once the survey was returned and the data compiled, work toward the development of the list of best practices in classroom scheduling began. In compiling a list of best practices in classroom scheduling, the factors representing the most favorable characteristics, practices, and outcomes were compiled and subsequently listed. The most prevalent best practices were used to create a benchmarking score sheet, to serve as a self- evaluation tool. The benchmarking score sheet serves as a resource to institutions seeking to develop or improve their own classroom scheduling.

Figure 2. Survey, Best Practices, and Benchmarking Self-Score Sheet Development

Draft Survey Based on Research

Submit Draft to Panel for Review and Pilot Testing

Revise Survey

Administer Survey

Compile Results

Develop List of Best Practices/ Benchmarking Self-Score Sheet

Figure 2. Survey and Best Practices Development Process. Figure 2 illustrates the steps involved in the survey development and distribution process, as well as the creation of a list of recommended practices and benchmarking self-score sheet.

Sample and Population

The National Center for Education Statistics IPEDS data tool was utilized to compile a database of private, non-profit institutions in the United States that offer a baccalaureate or higher. The preliminary search utilizing the IPEDS data tool resulted in a list of 1,589 institutions. From this population, the sample was selected by eliminating institutions that do not have at least five years of enrollment data for the academic terms Fall 2005 through Fall 2009 and/or are career-focused institutions. Among the institutions that were excluded are those

with titles that include: seminary, theological, engineering, technical, medical, law, and visual arts. Institutions that indicated graduate only or online only were excluded as well. Closed institutions were excluded. Further, those with fewer than 1,000 students during Fall 2009 were excluded from the original population.

There was no maximum in the number of students enrolled at the institutions.

The purpose of setting these parameters is to eliminate the influence that a small size or career/technical focused institutions may have on the results. The revised list included 768 institutions (Appendix A). From there, the list was alphabetized and a systematic sampling method implemented to include every second record.

The final sample size included 383 institutions.

Instrumentation

To solicit participants to serve on the expert panel of registrars, an announcement was placed on the LinkedIn website group entitled College and

University Registrars. The announcement briefly described the study and invited group members to serve on the panel. The goal was to secure five volunteer panel members from the 359 current members of the group. The five panel members were selected by their timely response to the announcement, having a minimum of five years of experience in a registrar’s office, and their commitment to providing feedback on the survey. Those serving on the expert panel received an e-mail with an embedded link to the test survey (Appendix B). After the five panel members pilot-tested the survey and provided feedback, the survey was then revised. It was then distributed to registrars working at the approximately 383 institutions included in the sample. Results from the survey were compiled and

practices described in order to create a list of benchmarks and subsequent self- evaluation tool.

In order to collect data from the institutions, web survey software

SurveyMonkey® was utilized. This survey served as the initial instrument in the research study. The purpose of the instrument was to collect data regarding factors and elements influencing the classroom scheduling process from the perspective of college and university registrars.

Creswell (2008) notes that there are three guidelines in developing the survey instrument:

1. Use a variety of types of questions such as: open and closed-ended

questions, behavioral questions, personal questions, and attitudinal

questions.

2. Construct good survey items by developing questions that are clearly

written, apply to all respondents, and prevent overlapping response

options.

3. Pilot the instrument and solicit feedback by administering the survey to a

small group in order to make requisite changes prior to full administration.

The survey instrument was developed to gather data related to the research questions. The survey questions were created to mirror the research presented in the literature review. The survey consisted of 28 main questions related to several elements in classroom scheduling in higher education: policy, process, internal and external forces, course formats, technology, institutional data, and demographics. Within the policy element question, there were 11 ordinal-scale

sub-questions. Within the process element question, there were four ordinal-scale sub-questions. Within the internal and external element question, there were eight ordinal-scale sub-questions. Within the course format element question, there were 13 ordinal-scale sub-questions. Because the survey collected institution- specific numerical data, there were ten numeric questions. There were six open ended questions, primarily asking respondents to describe the most influential elements based on their opinion. There were four yes/no questions based on the following: the institution offering a college success course for freshman students, having a line item budget to purchase and maintain classroom scheduling software, whether the institution’s classroom scheduling software interfaces with the institution’s Enterprise Resource Planning system (ERP), and if enrollment capacities impact the institution’s overall classroom utilization rates.

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that the technology in their classrooms were up-to-date. There were two multiple choice questions. One multiple choice question surveyed the technology available in the institutions’ classrooms. The other multiple choice question surveyed the tools (such as software or pencil and paper) utilized in the classroom scheduling process.

Finally, there were two demographic questions. One demographic question asked the respondent the number of years worked at their institution. The other demographic question asked the respondent their job title. Finally, the respondent had the opportunity to add comments at the end of the survey. The survey is included as Appendix D.

A volunteer panel of five registrars was used to pilot-test the survey instrument prior to full distribution to the sample. Feedback offered was utilized to increase the clarity and ease of use of the final version of the electronic survey instrument. There were two recommendations of significance that should be noted. The first was to eliminate the requirement of answers to every question.

This was to increase the rate of response. The second was to add an opportunity to provide comments to many questions. Data collected as a result of the pilot- test were not included in the final analysis.

Delimitations of the Research

1. The expert panel was solicited through the LinkedIn group College and

University Registrars. The first five volunteers providing feedback served

on the expert panel. Their recommendations for the improvement of the

questions and format were incorporated into the survey, prior to

distribution of the sample. This took place February through March 2013.

2. The criteria used in selecting the registrars for participation were based on

the type of institution for which they work. Non-profit, private institutions

offering baccalaureate degrees or higher were be selected. Those with

enrollments of less than 1,000 in Fall 2009 and those without enrollments

reported in IPEDS for all years between 2005-2009 were eliminated.

Institutions with titles such as: seminary, theological, engineering,

technical, medical, law, and visual arts were also eliminated. Further,

those institutions now closed were eliminated. There were no maximums

with respect to student enrollments.

3. Publically available e-mail addresses of college and university registrars

were the mode of transmitting the electronic survey. A cover letter was

the content of the e-mail and consent for participation, and a link to the

SurveyMonkey® survey instrument was provided.

4. A series of three e-mails, an initial e-mail and two follow-up e-mails, were

distributed over the course of fourteen days in March 2013.

5. After fourteen days, the survey instrument closed.

IRB Approval and Respondent Confidentiality

The Benedictine University Institutional Review Board (IRB) granted approval to proceed with research in January 2013. Two conditions were cited for approval. The first, was that the application was to be treated as “expedited”, as opposed to the “exempt” originally applied for. The second condition was for the

IRB Chair’s contact information to be included in the emails to participants.

In order to protect respondent confidentiality, all data collected were combined and not tied to any one individual. Although the survey was distributed via e-mail, individual feedback will not be presented in accompaniment with the e-mail address. The body of the e-mail described the research and served as the letter of informed consent. The only individual who has access to the individual responses and respective e-mail address is the researcher. Respondents were not asked to indicate the name of their institution, their gender, their ethnicity, or their age. Thus, the data collected and how the information was presented will maintain the respondent’s anonymity. Data will be stored electronically in the

SurveyMonkey® website for one year after the conclusion of the research and will be subsequently destroyed.

Data Collection and Procedures

Using the web addresses provided as a part of the IPEDS data report, an e- mail distribution list of institutional registrars was compiled. Registrar name and e-mail information publicly available on the institutions’ websites were used to create the distribution list. The distribution list served to invite participants to respond to the web-based survey instrument. Specifically, an e-mail cover letter

(Appendix C) was sent to a sample of approximately 383 registrars from the list compiled using the IPEDS data tool with a link to the web-based survey instrument. The use of SurveyMonkey® for the web-based survey instrument allowed for the tracking of respondents and non-respondents. In effort to increase the completion rate, those not responding to the first round of e-mails received one or two subsequent follow-up e-mails. Specifically, three days after the first e- mail was distributed, a second e-mail was distributed to non-respondents. Three days after the second attempt, a third and final e-mail distributed to non- respondents. Two weeks from the initial distribution of the survey, the data collection discontinued. Of the 383 registrars included in the sample, there were

76 responses. The overall response rate was 19.84%. Data were compiled, best practices were listed, and a benchmarking self-evaluation tool was developed.

The decision to utilize a web-based survey format versus a traditional mail-in questionnaire was based on speed, access, cost, and the ability to compile and export data into statistical software. The timeline in the distribution of the

web-based survey instrument was shorter as there is no travel time from mailbox to physical mailbox. Most, if not all, college and university registrars have access to high speed internet and e-mail. While there is a subscription cost for

SurveyMonkey®, it is a flat fee. There were no additional costs related to e- mailing the web-based tool as there are with traditional mail-in questionnaires such as envelopes, costs to copy the instrument, postage, reply postage, and repeat follow-up mailings. Finally, SurveyMonkey® compiled data electronically and data are exportable into SPSS® statistical software.

Data Analysis

SPSS® statistical software was utilized to analyze data collected through the web-based survey instrument. SurveyMonkey® converted data into a file that was uploaded into SPSS® statistical software. Further, SurveyMonkey® offered the ability to code open-ended responses as themes to include in the analysis of data.

The electronic survey instrument consisted of several ordinal scale questions. The reliability and internal consistency of the ordinal scales were examined through Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Creswell, 2008; Pallant, 2007).

In the case of the open-ended questions, answers were converted into counts.

Counts identify the frequency of the word appearing in the results (Creswell,

2008). Descriptive statistics such as mean, median and mode were used to analyze the numeric data provided by respondents. Percentages were used to describe the respondents’ job titles. Table 1 describes the data analysis plan to analyze the survey instrument.

Table 1

Survey Instrument Data Analysis Plan

Statistical or Analysis Question Data Type Procedure Identify Key Themes/Descriptive 1. Policy Elements Ordinal Data Statistics/Cronbach’s alpha 2. Most Important Policy Element Open Ended Identify Key Themes Identify Key 3. Process Elements Ordinal Data Themes/Descriptive Statistics 4. Most Important Process Element Open Ended Identify Key Themes Identify Key 5. Internal and External Force Themes/Descriptive Elements Ordinal Data Statistics/Cronbach’s alpha 6. Most Important Internal Forces Open Ended Identify Key Themes 7. Most Important External Forces Open Ended Identify Key Themes Identify Key Themes/Descriptive 8. Course Format Elements Ordinal Data Statistics/Cronbach’s alpha 9. Biggest Challenge in Scheduling a Variety of Formats Open Ended Identify Key Themes 10. Classroom Scheduling Tools Descriptive Descriptive Statistics 11. Budget for Scheduling Semi-Closed Software Ended Descriptive Statistics 12. Does ERP Integrate With Scheduling Software Nominal Data Descriptive Statistics 13. Percentage with Windows Numeric Descriptive Statistics 14. Flexible Furniture Numeric Descriptive Statistics 15. Technology-Related Amenities Descriptive Descriptive Statistics 16. Plentiful, Current Technology Nominal Data Descriptive Statistics 17. Square Feet Per Student Numeric Descriptive Statistics 18. Seats Filled vs. Seats Available Numeric Descriptive Statistics 19. Influence of Enrollment Caps. Nominal Data Descriptive Statistics

20. Number of Hours Per Day in Use Numeric Descriptive Statistics 21. Number of Days Per Week in Use Numeric Descriptive Statistics 22. Number of Weeks Per Year in Use Numeric Descriptive Statistics 23. College Success Course for Freshmen Nominal Data Descriptive Statistics 24. Fall 2011 Total Enrollment Numeric Descriptive Statistics 25. 2011 Retention Rate Numeric Descriptive Statistics 26. Number of Years at Institution Numeric Descriptive Statistics Semi-Closed 27. Current Job Title Ended Descriptive Statistics

Reliability

To ensure that results are consistent, reproducible, and valid, a statistical test was employed. With respect to the ordinal data, Cronbach’s coefficient α was utilized to measure the reliability of the following scales: policy elements α=.538

(n=11); internal and external force elements α=.563 (n=8); and course format elements α=.637 (n=13). Although dependent on the number of variables, the recommended minimum level is .7. It is not uncommon for scales with less than ten items to have values as low as .5 (Creswell, 2008; Pallant, 2007).

Validity

To ensure that the survey was well-designed and that meaningful inferences could be drawn from the sample, content validity was utilized. Content validity was evaluated through the use of the expert panel of registrars. The expert panel of registrars determined if the drafted questions represented the possible questions regarding classroom scheduling and offered feedback for improvement (Creswell, 2008; Pallant, 2007).

Summary

In order to develop a list of best practices in classroom scheduling and a benchmark self-evaluation tool, a survey was sent to registrars at 383 private, non-profit colleges and universities with at least 1,000 students during Fall 2009.

The survey consisted of ordinal, yes/no, multiple choice and open ended questions. Due to the nature of web-based survey instruments, the tool saved both time and money in comparison to traditional mailed questionnaires. The identification of key themes, the use of descriptive statistics, and Cronbach’s coefficient α were utilized to analyze data.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine best practices in efficient classroom scheduling at private, non-profit institutions in the United States that offer a baccalaureate or higher. A sample of registrars and those performing classroom scheduling functions at such institutions across the United States were surveyed in order to develop a greater understanding of the process. The resulting data were used to develop a list of best practices of efficient classroom scheduling and a self-score sheet to enable institutions to evaluate their practices and identify opportunities for improvement.

This chapter consists of two parts. The first part is to provide a detailed description of the study’s procedures. The second part is to provide an analysis of the results in relation to the research questions and the literature review.

Procedures

An electronic survey instrument was developed using SurveyMonkey® to collect data with respect to classroom scheduling in higher education. A notice was placed on the LinkedIn® group forum College and University Registrars.

The purpose was to solicit a group of five registrars to serve as a panel of experts.

After testing the instrument, the panel provided feedback on areas of improvement. The survey was revised to reflect the feedback gathered.

Using the IPEDS data report, a list of 1,589 private, non-profit institutions from across the nation offering a baccalaureate or higher was developed. From

this population, institutions that did not have at least five years of enrollment data for academic terms Fall 2005 through Fall 2009 were eliminated. Institutions that were career-focused, graduate, online, closed, and had fewer than 1,000 students in Fall 2009 were eliminated as well. There was no maximum with respect to student enrollment. The resulting list included 768 institutions. The list was alphabetized and a systematic sampling method was implemented to include every second record. The final sample included 383 institutions. Publicly available e-mail addresses for each institution’s registrar were collected to develop the distribution list.

Data were collected through the use of SurveyMonkey®, a web-based electronic survey instrument. Over the course of two weeks, an initial and two follow-up e-mails were distributed. The initial e-mail invited participants to enroll in the study. The two follow-e-mails served as reminders to non- responders. Once the survey closed, the data set was exported into SPSS® statistical software. There were 76 responses to the survey.

It should be noted that due to the expert panel’s recommendation of removing the requirement of the completion of all questions, there was variance in the response rates for individual questions. However, the researcher exerts that the removal of the required question element increased overall response rates.

Additionally, the panel’s recommendation of adding the opportunity to provide comments was invaluable in data collection.

In order to protect the anonymity of the participants, names were not collected. The responses were only tracked by e-mail address. However,

respondent e-mail addresses are not presented in the findings to connect with any response. Specific responses tied to respondent e-mail addresses are not shared.

Once uploaded into SPSS®, data were cleaned for errors. In order to correct for missing values in data analysis, whenever possible, the “exclude cases pairwise” option was selected. Because the intent of the research was to provide a list of best practices, the primary method of analyzing was through the use of descriptive statistics.

Results

Three primary research questions with respect to classroom scheduling in higher education were addressed through this research:

1. What are the internal and external forces encountered that influence the

classroom scheduling process?

2. What are the processes utilized and the formal policies that guide the

classroom scheduling process?

3. What course formats are utilized in scheduling courses?

To answer the research questions, an electronic survey instrument was utilized. The electronic survey instrument collected data with respect to demographic information related to those completing the survey and the institution in which they work; internal and external forces influencing classroom scheduling; the processes utilized and the formal policies that guide classroom scheduling; and the course formats utilized in scheduling courses at the respondents’ respective institutions.

Demographic Data and Characteristics

The researcher distributed the electronic survey instrument via e-mail to

383 registrars, as explained in Chapter 3. Of the 383 surveys, the researcher received 76 responses (n=76); therefore, the response rate was 19.4%.

With respect to job titles, there were 58 respondents. Of those, 94.8% were Registrars (n=55), 3.4% were Assistant Registrars (n=2), and 1.7% (n=1) was a Director. Of the 66 respondents, the largest group 83.3% came from institutions with fewer than 4,999 (n=55) students enrolled in Fall 2011. Next,

6.1% (n=4) of the respondents belonged to institutions reporting Fall 2011 enrollments of 5,000-7,499 students. While 3.0% of respondents reported that they were enrolled in institutions with the range of 7,500-9,999 students (n=2).

One respondent (1.5%) selected other. Finally, 6.1% of the respondents (n=4) were enrolled in institutions with more than 10,000 students. The average number of years the respondent has worked at their respective institutions was 15.23 years

(n=66).

Institutional Data and Characteristics

Respondents were surveyed on several factors with respect to their institutions. Factors included: percentage of classrooms with windows; percentage of classrooms in which the furniture can be rearranged to address different teaching and learning pedagogies; percentage of seats filled versus the number of seats available in an average classroom; the number of hours per day, days per week and weeks per year the average classroom is in use; and the

institution’s retention rate for Fall 2011. Descriptive statistics were utilized to describe the factors illustrated above. The factors are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2

Institutional Data and Characteristics

Factor Mean Standard Dev. n

% of rooms with windows 89.1864 12.99002 59

% of rooms/furniture rearranged 72.1475 25.5484 61

% of seats filled 75.9020 12.25766 51

Classroom use-hours per day 7.7018 2.77080 57

Classroom use-days per week 4.8103 0.66112 58

Classroom use-weeks per year 39.3500 8.89072 60

Retention rate for Fall 2011 79.8936 11.36401 47

With respect to classroom utilization, respondents were asked if enrollment capacities of individual classes impacted their institution’s overall utilization rates. There were 67 respondents that completed the question. Of those, 88.06% indicated “yes” (n=59), 8.96% indicated “no” (n=6), and 2.99% indicated “unsure” (n=2).

Respondents (n=63) were asked if their institution offers a college success course for freshman students. The majority, or 71.43% of respondents answered

“yes” (n=45). Those indicating that their institution did not offer a college success course for freshman students included 28.57% (n=18).

When asked what tools they utilize to assist with classroom scheduling, respondents were allowed to select more than one tool. Respondents (n=76) indicated that they utilize the following tools: Pencil and Paper (n=31), Microsoft products such as Excel or Access (n=40), Proprietary Software to Perform

Classroom Scheduling (n=6), and Purchased Classroom Scheduling Software

(n=32).

Technology

The influence of technology permeates institutions of higher education.

Several survey questions were related to technology. Respondents (n=67) were asked to select from a list the standard technology-related amenities present at their institution and were allowed to select all amenities that applied. Their results are as follows: LCD projector (n=64), SmartBoard (n=16), internet (n=64), extra ports and plug-ins for student laptops (n=18), televisions (n=30), and

DVD/VHS/Blu Ray players (n=48). Respondents were allowed to note other technology-related amenities in their average classrooms by using a text box.

Thirteen respondents indicated the following amenities were present in their average classrooms: Questron, speakers, Elmo, wireless internet, computers, document cameras, Apple TV, and the ability to connect to a central server to retrieve documents.

When respondents (n=66) were asked if the technology at their institution was plentiful and up-to-date, their responses were as follows: 66.67% agreed

(n=44) and 33.33% disagreed (n=22). Respondents were allowed to provide comments. Comments included:

 As a private, liberal arts institution we have a strong IT department with

great resources.

 Up-to-date is a fairly relative term. I would say we are somewhat up to

date but there is always room to improve.

 The basics are plentiful. We'd love more high-tech specialized equipment.

 Who wouldn't!

 SmartBoards are few and far between.

 Not all classrooms are smart classrooms.

 More demand for a computer per student in a classroom than we can

accommodate.

 If/when budget allows, classrooms would benefit from the installation of

more SmartBoards.

 It's moving forward at a quicker pace than the past, but is not plentiful

enough yet.

 We have an exceptionally good Information Technology Services

Department that has one member assigned full-time to monitor, repair, and

upgrade classroom technology.

 I would say it is in a good place, not sure what you mean by "plentiful".

 That'll be the day!

 Always can use more.

 Some not all classrooms have been updated.

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems in higher education are software packages which allow communication across the organization.

Respondents were asked if their classroom scheduling software interfaces with their ERP. Further, they were asked which ERP their institution utilizes. The results were nearly equal between those with scheduling software that interfaces with their ERP and those that do not. Of the 61 respondents, 30 selected “no” and

31 answered “yes”. Those indicating an affirmative response were asked which

ERP their institution uses. The respondent’s answers are as follows:

Table 3

Enterprise Resource Planning System Utilized

ERP Utilized n=

Banner 14

Ellucian PowerCampus 6

Jenzabar 4

EMS 3

PeopleSoft 2

Datatel 2

Other 3

______

Total Responses 34

Respondents were asked if their institution has a line item in its budget to purchase or maintain classroom scheduling software licenses. The line item could have been within or outside their departmental budget. Of those answering the question (n=63), 46% indicated “no” (n=29) and 54% indicated “yes” (n=34).

When asked what their budgeted line item was for technology, including the purchase of software or licensing fees (if known), respondents gave a range of

$2,500 to $7,000 annually (n=5). The remainder of the respondents indicated that they did not know, or could not disclose the information (n=7).

Answering the Research Questions

The following sections describe the results related to each of the three research questions.

Research Question One: What are the internal and external forces encountered that influence the classroom scheduling process?

Table 4 describes the internal and external forces in the classroom scheduling process. Specifically, it measures the presence and/or influences of internal and external forces in classroom scheduling at respondent institutions.

Table 4

Internal and External Forces in Classroom Scheduling

institution at scheduling my onclassroom influence is not element This an institution ofnot areas my all, some, but in scheduling influence is element This an institution areas majority at of my the in scheduling onclassroom influence is element This an institution permeates my that scheduling onclassroom influence is element This an N/A Average Rating ResponseCount

onclassroom

Internal Force Elements 26.03% 31.51% 21.92% 10.96% 9.59% 2.20 73 Gatekeepers (n=19) (n=23) (n=16) (n=8) (n=7) Faculty Needs and/or 2.67% 28.00% 29.33% 38.67% 1.33% Preferences 3.05 75 (n=2) (n=21) (n=22) (n=29) (n=1) are Maximized Faculty 29.33% 25.33% 24% 14.67% 6.67% 2.26 75 Seniority (n=22) (n=19) (n=18) (n=11) (n=5) Faculty Union 36.49% 1.35% 1.35% 1.35% 59.46% 1.20 74 Contracts (n=27) (n=1) (n=1) (n=1) (n=44) Assignments are Not 9.33% 16% 30.67% 38.67% 5.33% Permanent 3.04 75 (n=7) (n=12) (n=23) (n=29) (n=4) and May Be Changed External Force Elements Accreditation Bodies Oversee 52% 6.67% 0% 1.33% 40% 1.18 75 Optimal (n=39) (n=5) (n=0) (n=1) (n=30) Classroom Usage State or Federal Bodies 52% 4% 0% 1.33% 42.67% Oversee 1.14 75 (n=39) (n=3) (n=0) (n=1) (n=32) Optimal Classroom Usage Affiliation 54.67% 0% 0% 1.33% 44% 1.07 75 Bodies (n=41) (n=0) (n=0) (n=1) (n=33) answered question 75 skipped question 1

As can be seen in Table 4, faculty needs and preferences represented the largest internal factor affecting classroom scheduling. Accreditation bodies, state or federal bodies, and affiliation bodies had no influence on classroom scheduling at the majority of the institutions. SurveyMonkey® was utilized to analyze data, including average ratings.

After ranking internal and external forces, respondents were asked to describe the influential internal and external force elements. An analysis of the text with respect to the answers the respondents (n=75) provided were used to develop the following list of influential force elements. A full list of responses is provided in Appendix E.

Most Influential Internal Force Elements

1. Resources (including university needs).

2. Faculty preferences (particularly that of senior faculty).

3. Student needs and demands.

4. Course size paired with classroom size and/or time offered.

5. Technology/pedagogical needs.

6. Ownership of classrooms.

7. Registrar’s office.

8. Gatekeepers and maintaining status quo.

9. Flexibility and communication with respect to change.

Most Influential External Force Elements

1. Accreditation bodies.

2. External groups requesting space.

3. State requirements regarding minimum class meeting times in order to

grant credit for the course.

4. Fluctuations in enrollment and retention rates.

5. Americans with Disabilities Act.

6. Federal regulations pertaining to course schedule formats such as the

advance posting of textbooks online, prior to registration.

Research Question Two: What are the processes utilized and the formal policies that guide the classroom scheduling process?

Table 5 describes the process elements in classroom scheduling.

Specifically, it measures the observation and/or adoption of various process elements in classroom scheduling at respondent institutions.

Table 5

Process Elements

My My Some, but not All institution institution all, departments does not does not departments or and divisions observe, and observe, but divisions at at my Average would not N/A Total could my institution institution Rating benefit benefit from follow this follow this from, this this process process process process element element element element Create Master Classroom Schedule 12.16% 35.14% 18.92% 18.92% 14.86% Utilizing (n=9) (n=26) (n=14) (n=14) (n=11) 74 2.52 Classroom Scheduling Software Manually Create Master Classroom 43.24% 14.86% 22.97% 16.22% Schedule 2.70% (n=2) (n=32) (n=11) (n=17) (n=12) 74 2.21 Utilizing Pencil and Paper Set Current Semester's Scheduling Framework by 17.81% 21.92% 41.10% 10.96% Rolling 8.22% (n=6) (n=13) (n=16) (n=30) (n=8) 73 2.97 Previous Semester's Schedules Forward Utilize Microsoft 29.73% 20.27% 22.97% 21.62% Excel to Build 5.41% (n=4) (n=22) (n=15) (n=17) (n=16) 74 2.47 Classroom Schedule

As can be seen in Table 5, the majority of institutions do not utilize classroom scheduling software, but could benefit from it. Additionally, the majority of institutions also note that all departments and divisions set the framework of their current semester by rolling forward a previous semester’s

schedule. SurveyMonkey® was utilized to analyze data, including average ratings.

After ranking classroom scheduling practice factors, respondents were asked to describe the most important or effective process elements. An analysis of the text with respect to the answers the respondents (n=47) provided were used to develop the following list of best practices. A full list of responses is provided in Appendix E.

Best Practices in Classroom Scheduling Process Elements

1. Classroom scheduling software is utilized to create the classroom

schedule.

2. Classroom scheduling processing is completed by a centralized

department.

3. Established priorities for assigning classrooms, including addressing the

following needs: student, faculty, course, room, technology, and

institution.

4. Adherence to deadlines; correct and consistent data from departments.

5. Equal distribution of classrooms across the departments.

6. Utilization of a Master Classroom Schedule.

Table 6 describes the policy elements in classroom scheduling.

Specifically, it measures the need for and/or adoption of various policy elements in classroom scheduling at respondent institutions.

Table 6

Policy Elements

Institution Institution Institution could benefit Institution has no need has well from, but does has vague for formal developed not have, policy with Average policy with policy with N/A Total formal policy respect to Rating respect to respect to with respect to this criterion this criterion this criterion this criterion or element or element or element or element Target Goals for Course 39.47% 31.58% 23.68% 0% 5.26% (n=4) Dist. Across (n=30) (n=24) (n=18) (n=0) 76 2.74 Times of Day Target Goals for Course 12.16% 35.14% 31.08% 21.62% 0% Dist. Across (n=9) (n=26) (n=23) (n=16) (n=0) 74 2.62 Days of Week Target Goals for Ave. 17.57% 40.54% 27.03% 13.51% 1.35% Classroom (n=13) (n=30) (n=20) (n=10) (n=1) 74 2.37 Occupancy Target Goals for Per Semester 36.49% 31.08% 13.51% 9.46% 9.46% (n=7) Course (n=27) (n=23) (n=10) (n=7) 74 1.96 Cancellation Rates Guidelines to 37.84% 25.68% 17.57% 10.81% 8.11% (n=6) Achieve Goals (n=28) (n=19) (n=13) (n=8) 74 2.59 Guidelines to 21.62% 36.49% 36.49% 1.35% 4.05% (n=3) Assign Rooms (n=16) (n=27) (n=27) (n=1) 74 3.07 Resources and 15.07% 26.03% 39.73% 12.33% Contacts for 6.85% (n=5) (n=11) (n=19) (n=29) (n=9) 73 3.13 Help Pool of Classrooms 12.33% 13.70% 13.70% 53.42% are Managed 6.85% (n=5) (n=9) (n=10) (n=10) (n=39) 73 2.62 by Individual Units Pool of Classrooms 17.33% 10.67% 4% (n=3) 4% (n=3) 64% (n=48) are Managed (n=13) (n=8) 75 3.58 by Registrar Pool of Classrooms 10.96% 12.33% 64.38% are Managed 8.22% (n=6) 4.11% (n=3) (n=8) (n=9) (n=47) 73 2.77 by Provost or Other Office

As reflected in Table 6, the majority of institutions report having a well- developed policy in which the pool of classrooms is managed by the registrar.

Further, the majority of institutions reported that they could benefit from, but does not have a formal policy with respect to target goals to for average classroom occupancy. SurveyMonkey® was utilized to analyze data, including average ratings.

After ranking classroom scheduling policy factors, respondents were asked to describe the most important or effective policy elements. An analysis of the text with respect to the answers the respondents (n=57) provided were used to develop the following list of best practices. A full list of responses is provided in

Appendix E.

Best Practices in Classroom Scheduling Policy Elements

1. Well defined policy is communicated and enforced.

2. Student centered—Policy insures that student needs are met for optimal

progression, retention, and graduation.

3. Promotes faculty equality across the institution while minimizing silos,

seniority, and turf issues.

4. A centralized classroom scheduling office has the authority and oversight

to give guidance, set benchmarks, and arbitrate conflict.

5. Classroom schedules are balanced across the times of day and the days of

the week. Standard meeting times are recommended.

6. Enrollment size, classroom utilization, pedagogy, and technology are

considered when assigning rooms.

Research Question Three: What course formats are utilized in scheduling courses?

Table 7 describes the course formats utilized in classroom scheduling.

Specifically, it measures the proliferation of various formats to schedule courses at respondent institutions.

Table 7

Course Formats

My My Some, but All institution institution not all, departments does not does not departments and T observe, observe, or divisions divisions at Ave ot and would but could at my my rage N/A al not benefit benefit institution institution Rati

from, this from this follow this follow this ng N course course course course format format format format element element element element Physical 20.97% 79.03% 0% Classroom 0% (n=0) 0% (n=0) 6 (n=13) (n=49) (n=0) 3.79 Based 2

Courses 10.61 9.09% 4.55% 66.67% 9.09% Online % 6 (n=6) (n=3) (n=44) (n=6) 2.85 Courses (n=7) 6

Blended, (or 6.15% 7.69% 64.62% 13.85% 7.69

from, this from this follow this follow this ng N course course course course format format format format element element element element Hybrid (n=4) (n=5) (n=42) (n=9) % 65 2.93 Courses) (n=5) Courses that 42.42% 56.06% 1.52 0% (n=0) 0% (n=0) Meet Two (n=28) (n=37) % 66 3.57 Days/Week (n=1) Courses that 4.55% 42.42% 3.03 0% (n=0) 50% (n=33) Meet Three (n=3) (n=28) % 66 3.42 Days/Week (n=2) Courses that Meet 7.69 13.85% 3.08% 56.92% 18.46% Four/Five % (n=9) (n=2) (n=37) (n=12) 65 2.87 Days Per (n=5) Week 1.54 Evening 3.08% 66.15% 29.23% 0% (n=0) % Courses (n=2) (n=43) (n=19) 65 3.27 (n=1) 9.09 Saturday 33.33% 3.03% 42.42% 12.12% % Courses (n=22) (n=2) (n=28) (n=8) 66 2.37 (n=6) 16.67 Sunday 59.09% 7.58% 10.61% 6.06% % Courses (n=39) (n=5) (n=7) (n=4) (n=11 66 1.56 ) Courses That 15.15 Meet 30.30% 6.06% 34.85% 13.64% % Between (n=20) (n=4) (n=23) (n=9) (n=10 66 2.38 Fall/Spring ) Semesters Courses That 3.03 4.55% 66.67% 25.76% Meet During 0% (n=0) % (n=3) (n=44) (n=17) 66 3.17 the Summer (n=2) Enhance 4.69% 7.81% 35.94% 28.13% 23.44 Student (n=3) (n=5) (n=23) (n=18) % 64 3.14

from, this from this follow this follow this ng N course course course course format format format format element element element element Learning (n=15 ) 21.88 Enhance 7.81% 10.94% 31.25% 28.13% % Student (n=5) (n=7) (n=20) (n=18) (n=14 64 3.02 Retention )

As reflected in Table 7, the majority of institutions offer coursework in a variety of formats, including courses that meet two or three days per week.

Further, the majority of institutions report that they do not observe and would not benefit from offering Sunday courses. SurveyMonkey® was utilized to analyze data, including the average ratings.

After describing classroom scheduling format elements, respondents were asked to describe their biggest challenge in creating a schedule that addresses multiple formats. An analysis of the text with respect to the answers the respondents (n=41) provided is illustrated below. A full list of responses is provided in Appendix E.

Biggest Challenges in Creating a Schedule Accommodating Multiple Formats

1. Classroom availability.

2. Providing an even distribution of course formats.

3. Addressing faculty wants and needs.

4. Optimizing classroom utilization.

5. Logistics of schedule development to accommodate multiple, overlapping,

and non-standard course formats.

6. Offering general education courses that accommodate all programs

equally.

7. Developing a schedule that matches student needs.

8. Courses scheduled that are unassigned to a faculty member.

Creation of the Self-Score Sheet

The best practices identified through literature review and survey data were utilized to create the classroom scheduling self-score sheet. The self-score sheet consists of a rubric of ten best practices. Points ranging from zero through two are assigned to one of three categories that best describe classroom scheduling at the institution. In addition, there is a column for items that are not- applicable. Once points are assigned to each of the ten best practices, the score is totaled. Points are then expressed as a percentage of total possible points. If the respondent does not select any not-applicable option, the total possible number of points is 20. Institutions reporting a percentage of 90% or greater of possible points are considered to have an excellent use of best practices. Institutions reporting a percentage falling into the range of 70-89% are considered to have a modest use of best practices. Finally, institutions reporting a percentage of possible points of 0-69% are considered to have a poor use of best practices.

Summary

An electronic survey instrument was developed and distributed to registrars and those participating in classroom scheduling at sample of 383 private, non-profit institutions of higher education in the United States.

Enrollment data in IPEDS reported at least 1,000 student enrollments during Fall

2009. Of the 383 institutions receiving the survey via e-mail, there were 76 responses.

Using a variety of question formats, respondents answered questions related to classroom scheduling at their institution. There were a total of 28 questions in alignment with the research questions and literature review. A combination of best practices, challenges, and influential factors were described as a result of the data. Additionally, demographic data were collected with respect to classroom scheduling at the respondent’s institution.

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUMMARY

The purpose of the study was threefold: (a) to assess factors in the classroom scheduling process; (b) to explore internal and external forces that influence classroom scheduling, explained from the viewpoint of the institution’s registrars tasked with classroom scheduling; and (c) to develop a list of best practices in efficient classroom scheduling from survey and panel feedback. The resulting list of best practices in classroom scheduling provided the framework to develop a benchmarking score sheet (Appendix F). The score sheet provides institutions the opportunity to self-evaluate their practices and to identify opportunities for improvement.

All too often, colleges and universities base classroom scheduling on history, institutional culture, and faculty preference (Fink, 2002). The schedule is passed on from one semester to another, year after year, without considering the efficiency of the model. The list of best practices created from registrar feedback and a benchmarking self-score sheet are significant resources in the implementation of change.

An electronic survey instrument was developed and distributed via e-mail to registrars and those participating in classroom scheduling at 383 private, non- profit institutions of higher education in the United States. Enrollment data in

IPEDS reported at least 1,000 student enrollments during Fall 2009. Of the 383 institutions receiving the survey via e-mail, there were 76 responses.

Using a variety of question formats, respondents answered questions related to classroom scheduling at their institution. There were a total of 28 questions in alignment with the research questions and literature review. A combination of best practices, challenges, and influential factors emerged from the data. Additionally, data such as institution size were collected with respect to classroom scheduling at the respondent’s institution.

University registrars were best suited to participate in this research as they serve as the primary stewards of the classroom schedule (Stewart, & Wright,

2005). As such, they may either coordinate the schedules provided by academic units, or they may develop the classroom schedule for the entire institution.

Because of this role, they were the best source of information in the development of a list of best practices in classroom scheduling.

Using an electronic survey instrument, registrars tasked with classroom scheduling at their respective institutions evaluated factors which influence classroom scheduling. Practices rated highest by the participants were used to create a list of best practices. These best practices, and resulting self-score sheet, may be used by any institution interested in improving their classroom scheduling.

This research was unique in that it combined many elements that have been independently researched, such as resource scheduling and organizational change, into a series of best practices. Factors impacting course scheduling that are considered in the creation of best practices include: internal and external forces current processes utilized, the presence of formal policy, and course format

offerings. The purpose was to investigate these factors; to develop one cohesive, set of best practices in efficient classroom scheduling; and to develop a benchmarking self-score sheet which may be utilized by private, non-profit institutions of higher education in the United States to determine the level effectiveness of practices at their institution.

Conclusions

What are the internal and external forces influencing classroom scheduling that emerged from the research?

A total of 75 respondents ranked the proliferation of internal and external force elements at their institution. Further they provided feedback with respect to the most influential of all internal and external force elements, whether measured on the scale or not.

Most Influential Internal Force Elements

1. Resources (including university needs).

2. Faculty preferences (particularly that of senior faculty).

3. Student needs and demands.

4. Course size paired with classroom size and/or time offered.

5. Technology/pedagogical needs.

6. Ownership of classrooms.

7. Registrar’s office.

8. Gatekeepers and maintaining status quo.

9. Flexibility and communication with respect to change.

Most Influential External Force Elements

1. Accreditation bodies.

2. External groups requesting space.

3. State requirements regarding minimum class meeting times in order to

grant credit for the course.

4. Fluctuations in enrollment and retention rates.

5. Americans with Disabilities Act.

6. Federal regulations pertaining to course schedule formats such as the

advance posting of textbooks online, prior to registration.

What are the processes utilized and formal policies guiding classroom scheduling that emerged from the research?

A total of 76 respondents ranked policy elements and a total of 74 respondents ranked process elements at their institution. Further they provided feedback with respect to best practices in classroom scheduling policy and process.

Best Practices in Classroom Scheduling Policy Elements

1. Well defined policy is communicated and enforced.

2. Student centered—Policy insures that student needs are met for optimal

progression, retention, and graduation.

3. Promotes faculty equality across the institution while minimizing silos,

seniority, and turf issues.

4. A centralized classroom scheduling office has the authority and oversight

to give guidance, set benchmarks, and arbitrate conflict.

5. Classroom schedules are balanced across the times of day and the days of

the week. Standard meeting times are recommended.

6. Enrollment size, classroom utilization, pedagogy, and technology are

considered when assigning rooms.

Best Practices in Classroom Scheduling Process Elements

1. Classroom scheduling software is utilized to create the classroom

schedule.

2. Classroom scheduling processing is completed by a centralized

department.

3. Established priorities for assigning classrooms, including addressing the

following needs: student, faculty, course, room, technology, and

institution.

4. Adherence to deadlines; correct and consistent data from departments.

5. Equal distribution of classrooms across the departments.

6. Utilization of a Master Classroom Schedule.

What course formats are utilized in classroom scheduling as emerged from the research?

A total of 66 respondents answered questions related to course formats.

Institutions indicated offering a variety of formats at their institution, including, but not limited to: on-ground, on-line, blended, multiple days per week, evenings, and between-term classes. However, this variance of course formats is not without challenge. The following list details some of the challenges institutions

encounter with the development of a schedule that accommodates multiple formats:

Biggest Challenges in Creating a Schedule Accommodating Multiple Formats

1. Classroom availability.

2. Providing an even distribution of course formats.

3. Addressing faculty wants and needs.

4. Optimizing classroom utilization.

5. Logistics of schedule development to accommodate multiple, overlapping,

and non-standard course formats.

6. Offering general education courses that accommodate all programs

equally.

7. Developing a schedule that matches student needs.

8. Courses scheduled that are unassigned to a faculty member.

What are the best practices in classroom scheduling in higher education that emerged from the research?

Summary of Best Practices in Classroom Scheduling

 A centralized classroom scheduling office has the authority and oversight

to give guidance, set benchmarks, and arbitrate conflict. Ownership of all

classrooms belongs to the centralized office and not individual colleges or

departments.

 The institution has a well-developed Master Classroom Scheduling

Calendar that is adhered to and followed.

 Classroom scheduling software is utilized to develop an efficient

classroom schedule.

 Classroom scheduling is primarily student-centered. Scheduling is

designed to enhance the teaching and learning environment, increase

progress, retention, and graduation.

 Classroom scheduling addresses guidelines set by federal, state,

accrediting, and affiliation bodies.

 Upon assignment, the schedule addresses the enrollment size, classroom

utilization, technological and pedagogical needs of courses. Further,

fluctuations in enrollment and retention rates are accommodated.

 Classroom scheduling addresses faculty preferences, while promoting

equality amongst the faculty.

 Classroom scheduling optimizes utilization while prioritizing the use of

space for academic needs versus use by external groups for other

purposes.

 Classroom schedules are balanced across the times of day and the days of

the week. Standard meeting times are recommended to overcome the

logistics of accommodating multiple, overlapping and non-standard course

formats.

 Well-defined policy with respect to classroom scheduling is developed,

communicated, and enforced.

Recommendations for Future Research

The population surveyed was somewhat narrow. It included private, non- profit institutions of higher education, non-professional in nature, offering a baccalaureate or higher, with at least 1,000 students as reported to IPEDS for Fall

2009. Further research could be expanded to a wider range of institutions such as: public, for-profit, those with enrollments of less than 1,000 students, professional in nature, and those offering an associate’s degree or higher. While the amount of data would vastly increase the size of the study, comparisons across a larger population may help provide additional insight amongst different institutional classifications.

While the research makes recommendations for best practices in efficient classroom scheduling and a self-score worksheet, it does not suggest an actual policy. Further research could examine policy at highly effective institutions with respect to classroom scheduling. Recommendations of broad policies could be examined and adapted by the institution that fits their mission and vision.

Finally, this research examines the efficient utilization of classroom space.

It neither examines laboratory space, nor does it examine any other non-academic space. Additionally, it does not examine the use of academic space for non- academic purposes such as rentals by outside groups or vendors.

Limitations and Assumptions of the Research

Limitations

1. The best practices in efficient classroom scheduling described as part of

this research were dependent on the responses given by the registrars

and/or other responsible administrators selected to participate. Their

respective institutions were identified and selected by utilizing the

Integrated Postsecondary Education System (IPEDS) online database;

however, it was their choice to participate in the survey process. Response

bias occurs when the responses are not an accurate portrayal of the views

of the population or of the sample (Creswell, 2008).

2. The responses may have been limited by what was known to the

individual completing the survey.

3. A limitation of the study was that the best practices described were not

able to be tested empirically.

Assumptions

1. The registrars currently in their roles at the time of the study were

qualified to assess the internal and external factors influencing classroom

scheduling at their institutions. These factors may have varied from

institution to institution. Additionally, they could have determined what

type of scheduling practices existed, if there were formal classroom

scheduling policies in place, and what type of course formats were

present.

2. There were identifiable commonalities between institutions with respect to

classroom scheduling, regardless of mission.

3. Best practices in efficient classroom scheduling could have been

developed out of feedback with respect to the effective practices of others.

This description of the best practices in efficient classroom scheduling will

be beneficial to institutions of higher education interested in implementing

change.

Application

There is little research explaining how classroom scheduling processes and policies impact efficient classroom utilization. Further, there is little research available to illustrate what processes and policies best support institutions of higher education in making efficient use of their classroom space. This study contributes to the literature so that faculty, staff, administrators, and board members may more fully understand the classroom scheduling process from an impartial perspective.

Administrators will benefit from a list of best practices in classroom scheduling and a subsequent self-scoring tool in that they can implement effective change in their institution. Further, it will also be of use to space utilization consultants, software developers, and governmental policymakers interested in efficient classroom utilization.

REFERENCES

Academic Quality Improvement Program. (2009). Room scheduling process:

Madison Area Technical College. Retrieved from

http://intranet.matcmadison.edu/forms-db/forms/Final%20Report%

20Room%20Scheduling.pdf

Alexander, F. (2000). The changing face of accountability. Journal of Higher

Education, 71(4), 411-431. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable

/2649146?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2010, November). Class differences: Online education

in the United States, 2010. Retrieved from Sloan Consortium website:

http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/class_differences.pdf

Alstete, J. (1995). Benchmarking in higher education: Adapting best practices to

improve quality. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 5.

Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University Press.

Altbach, P. (2005a). Harsh realities. In P. Altbach, R. Berdahl, & P. Gumport.

(Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century. (pp. 287-

314). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Altbach, P. (2005b). Patterns in higher education development. In P. Altbach, R.

Berdahl, & P. Gumport. (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-

first century. (pp. 15-37). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University

Press.

American Association of University Professors. (2006). AAUP Contingent

faculty index 2006. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/sites/

default/files/files/AAUPContingentFacultyIndex2006.pdf

American Association of University Professors. (n.d.). What do faculty do?

Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/

facwork/facultydolist.htm

American Federation of Teachers. (2011). Student success in higher education.

Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/studentsuccess0311.pdf

August, B., Cota, A., Jayaram, K., & Laboissiere, M. (2010). Winning by

degrees: The strategies of highly productive higher-education institutions.

(McKinsey and Company). Retrieved from

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social_Sector/our_practices/

Education/Knowledge_Highlights/Winning%20by%20degrees.aspx

Baby boomer. (2012, July 10). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved

22:34, July 16, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/

index.php?title=Baby_boomer&oldid=501549404

Baird, L. (1974, Summer). The practical utility of measures of college

environments. Review of Educational Research 44(3), 307-329. doi:

10.3102/00346543044003307

Barham, A., & Westwood, J. (1978, November). A simple heuristic to facilitate

course timetabling. The Journal of the Operational Research Society,

29(11), 1055- 1060. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Berrett, D. (2012, February 19). How ‘flipping’ the classroom can improve the

traditional lecture. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lewisu.edu/docview/922583343/13B7

65DC26769756F50/1?accountid=12073

Beyrouthy, C., Burke, E., Landa-Silva, D., McCollum, B., McMullan, P., &

Parkes, A. (2009). Towards improving the utilization of university

teaching space. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(1),

130-143. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602523

Biddison, G., & Hier, T. (1998). Wringing dollars out of campus space.

Facilities Manager. Retrieved from http://www.appa.org/Facilities

Manager/article.cfm?ItemNumber=645&parentid=262&zoom_highlight=

classroom+scheduling

Blakesley, J., Murray, K., Wolf, F., & Murray, D. (1998). Academic scheduling.

In E. Burke, M. Carter (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1408,

223-236. Retrieved from http://www.unitime.org/papers/patat98.pdf

Bloomfield, S., & McSharry, M. (1979, August). Preferential course scheduling.

Interfaces, 9(4), 24-32.

Blumenstyk, G. (1993). Colleges look to benchmarking to measure how efficient

and productive they are. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 40(2), A41-

A41. Retrieved from ProQuest.

Brache, A. (n.d.). What is a process? Why should you care? Retrieved from

http://rummlerbrache.com/upload/files/What%20is%20a%20Process%20-

%20A%20Brache.pdf

Brown, B. (1968, September). Dephi process: A methodology used for the

elicitation of opinions of experts. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/

content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2006/P3925.pdf

Burke, E., MacCarthy, B., Petrovic, S., & Qu, R. (2006). Multiple-retrieval case-

based reasoning for course timetabling problems. Journal of the

Operational Research Society, 57(2), 148-162.

Carlson, S. (2009, April 17). Campus officials seek building efficiencies, one

square foot at a time. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved

from http://chronicle.com/article/Campus-Officials-Seek-Building/3292

Carter, E. (1977, July). Critical uses of college resources. Part II: Utilization of

space facilities. Paper presented at the Southeastern Region Conference

of the AERA Special Interest Group in Community/Junior College

Research, New Orleans, Louisiana. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb

=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED14699

4&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED146994

Carter, M., & Tovey, C. (1992, January/February). When is the classroom

assignment problem hard? Operations Research, 40(1), S28-S39.

Center for College Affordability and Productivity. (2010). 25 Ways to reduce the

cost of college. Retrieved from http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/

uploads/25Ways_to_Reduce_the_Cost_of_College.pdf

Chaffee, E., & Jacobson, S. (1997). Creating and changing institutional cultures.

In Peterson, Dill, & Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a

changing environment (pp. 230-245). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Christensen, C., & Eyring, H. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the

DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Cladellas, R., & Castelloˈ, A. (2011). University professors’ stress and perceived

state of health in relation to teaching schedules. Electronic Journal of

Research in Educational Psychology, 9(1), 217-240.

Cornell, P. (2002, Winter). The impact of changes in teaching and learning on

furniture and the learning environment. New Directions for Teaching and

Learning, 92, 33-42. Retrieved from EBSCO.

Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among

five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education.

Delta Cost Project. (2009). Trends in college spending: Where does the money

come from? Where does it go? Retrieved from

http://deltacostproject.org

Derx, W. (1987). Managing space at a public higher education institution: A

microcomputer space requirement projection model (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

(UMI No. 8727590)

Dewey, J. (1950). Human nature and conduct. New York, NY: Random House.

Dinkel, J., Mote, J., & Venkataramanan, M. (1989, November/December). An

efficient decision support system for academic course scheduling.

Operations Research, 37(6), 853-864.

Dungy, G. (2003). Organization and functions of student affairs. In Komives,

Woodard, & Assoc. (Eds.), Student Services: A Handbook for the

Profession (pp. 339-357). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

EDUCAUSE. (2009, October). Learning environments: Where space,

technology, and culture converge. Retrieved from

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3021.pdf

Epper, R. (1999). Applying benchmarking to higher education: some lessons

from experience. Change, 31(6), 24-31.

Espey, M. (2008, Winter). Does space matter? Classroom design and team-based

learning. Review of Agricultural Economics, 30(4), 764-775.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.00445.x

Eyring, H. (2011, July). Unexploited efficiencies in higher education.

Contemporary issues in educational research, 4(7) 1-18.

Fain, P. (2005, January 7). Balance sheets: Seeking efficiency and finding new

income. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(18), All.

Fink, I. (2002, May/June). Classroom use and utilization. Facilities Manager.

Retrieved from http://www.appa.org/files/FMArticles/classroomspace.pdf

Flynn, W. (2006, Spring). The vision thing-How scenario thinking can help

colleges face an uncertain future, 35(1), 12-16.

Fugazzotto, S. (2009, July 21). Mission statements, physical space, and strategy

in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 34, 285-298. doi:

10.1007/s10755-009-9118-z

Geiger, R. (2005). The ten generations of American higher education. In

Altbach, Berdahl, & Gumport (Eds.), American Higher Education in the

Twenty-First Century (pp. 38-70). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Gladieux, L., King, J., & Corrigan, M. (2005). The federal government and

higher education. In P. Altbach, R. Berdahl, & P. Gumport. (Eds.),

American higher education in the twenty-first century. (pp. 163-197).

Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Graetz, K., & Goliber, M. (2002, Winter). Designing collaborative learning

places: Psychological foundations and new frontiers. New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, 92, 13-22. Retrieved from EBSCO.

Greatest Generation. (2012, July 12). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Retrieved 22:21, July 16, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Greatest_ Generation&oldid=501811384

Greenberg, M. (2004, June 18). How the GI Bill changed higher education. The

Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(41), B9.

100

Hubbell, L. (2007, Winter). Quality, efficiency, and accountability: Definitions

and applications. New Directions for Higher Education, 140, 5-13. doi:

10.1002/he.276

IHELP. (2010, April). Advancing by degrees: A framework for increasing

college completion. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/

ED511863.pdf

Jamieson, P. (2003). Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning

spaces: A role for academic developers. International Journal for

Academic Development, 8(1/2), 119-133. doi:10.1080/1360144

042000277991

Janks, G. (2012). Kings of infinite space: How to make space planning for

colleges and universities useful given constrained resources. Retrieved

from www.scup.org.

Johnson, D. (1993). A database approach to course timetabling. Journal of

Operational Research Society, 44 (5), 425-433.

Kaslbeek, D. & Hossler, D. (2009, Winter). Enrollment management: A market-

centered perspective. College and University, 84 (3), 3-11. Retrieved

from http://www.aacrao.org/Libraries/Publications_Documents/

winter2009.sflb.ashx

Kezar, A. (2009, November/December). Change in higher education: Not

enough or too much? Change, 41(6) 18-23.

101

Kripakaran, S. (2007). Integer programming approach to university space

planning. (Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses database.

Lenington, R. (1996). Managing higher education as a business. Phoenix,

Arizona: The Oryx Press.

Marchese, T. (1997). Sustaining quality enhancement in academic and

managerial life. In Peterson, Dill, & Mets (Eds.), Planning and

management for a changing environment (pp. 502-520). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mayhew, L. (1972, November). American education now and in the future.

Annals of the American academy of political and social science, 404, 44-

57.

McKeon, H. (2003, July 11). Controlling the price of college. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, 49(44), B20.

Merriam-Webster. (2011). Sustainable. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/sustainable

Milgrom, G., & Sisam, E. (1989). Using macro standards at a micro level:

Bridging the gap. In Kaiser (Ed.), Planning and Managing Higher

Education Facilities, New Directions in Educational Research, 61, 63-75.

Milne, A. (2006). Designing blended learning space to the student experience.

In D. Oblinger. (Eds.), Learning Spaces. (pp. 142-156). Retrieved from

www.educause.edu/learningspaces.

102

Mooney, E., Rardin, R., Parmenter, W. (1995). Large scale classroom

scheduling. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source

=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2F

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.69.

2708%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=LARGE%20

SCALE%20CLASSROOM%20SCHEDULING&ei=0J_FTciuHIiFtgf

9z9mjBA&usg=AFQjCNFv3Hq5jQ2z7rxb3aCIxnKfq0lGCQ

National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Postsecondary education

facilities inventory and classification manual (FICM): 2006 Edition.

Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006160.pdf

Newman, A. (2011, July/August). Do more, build less: Space utilization as a tool

that supports sustainability. University Business. Retrieved from

http://www.universitybusiness.com/article/do-more-build-less/page/0/1

Niemeyer, D. (2003). Hard facts on smart classroom design: Ideas, guidelines,

and layouts. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Oakleigh Consulting Ltd. (2009). Study on timetabling and resource scheduling.

Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/

elearningcapital/timetablingresourcescheduling_finalreport.pdf

Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual. New York: NY: McGraw-Hill.

Reynolds, G. (September, 2007). The impact of facilities on recruitment and

retention of students. New Directions for Institutional Research, 135, 63-

80. doi:10.1002/ir.223

103

Rudden, M. (2010, October-December). Five recession-driven strategies for

planning and managing campus facilities. Planning for Higher Education,

5-17. Retrieved from http://www.scup.org/phe.html.

Russell, J., & Doi, J. (1957). Manual for studies of space utilization in colleges

and universities. Menasha, WI: George Banta Company, Inc.

Sampson, S., Freeland, J., & Weiss, E. (1995, May/June). Class scheduling to

maximize participant satisfaction. Interfaces, 25(3), 30-41.

Silent Generation. (2012, July 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Retrieved 22:26, July 16, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/

w/index.php?title=Silent_Generation&oldid=500708139

Space Management Group. (2006). Space utilisation: practice, performance and

guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.smg.ac.uk/documents/

utilisation.pdf

Stauffer, G. (1991, April). Class scheduling: An opportunity for innovation.

Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED331382)

Stewart, G. & Wright, D. (2005, Summer). The American registrar: A view of

the profession. College and University Journal, 81(1), 23-25.

Street, S., Maisto, M., Merves, E., & Rhodes, G. (2012, August). Who is

professor “staff’ and how can they teach so many classes? Center for the

Future of Higher Education Policy Report #2. Retrieved from

http://futureofhighered.org/uploads/ProfStaffFinal.pdf

104

Temple, P. & Barnett, R. (2007, October-December). Higher education space:

Future directions. Planning for Higher Education, 36(10), 4-15.

Retrieved from Wilson Web.

UNESCO. Benchmarking. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/

0011/001128/112812eo.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the

future of U.S. higher education. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/ list/hiedfuture/reports/final-

report.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Identifying and

promoting effective practices. Retrieved from ttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/

programs/ocs/ccf/resources/toolkit.html

U.S. Office of Education. (1968). Higher education facilities inventory and

classification manual. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED025901.pdf

Van Vught, F. (1997). Using policy analysis for strategic choices. In Planning

and management for a changing environment. In Peterson, Dill, & Mets

(Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment (pp. 382-

404). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vedder, R. (2011, July 20). College inefficiency: Resource misallocation or

underutilization? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/college-inefficiency-resource-

misallocation-or-underutilization/29844

105

Waite, A. (2008). Visualizing work flow for process improvement: A case study

of class scheduling at a university (Doctoral dissertation). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3332739)

Wesson, D. (1995, October). The interactive effects of rules on teaching

timetable flexibility and resource utilization. Higher education, 30(3),

305-312. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Young, J. (2012, June 25). Customization is the future of teaching, Harvard

researcher says. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com.ezproxy.lewisu.edu/article/The-Future-of-Teaching-

/132493/

106

APPENDIX A: INITIAL IPEDS INSTITUTION LIST

National Center for Education Statistics UnitId Institution Name 222178 Abilene Christian University 188429 Adelphi University 168528 Adrian College 128498 Albertus Magnus College 168546 Albion College 210571 Albright College 188641 Alfred University 210669 Allegheny College 110468 Alliant International University 168591 Alma College 210775 Alvernia University 238193 Alverno College 222628 Amberton University 164447 American International College 164465 Amherst College 150066 Anderson University 217633 Anderson University 168740 Andrews University 164492 Anna Maria College 168786 Aquinas College 211088 Arcadia University 156213 Asbury University 201104 Ashland University 164562 Assumption College 173045 Augsburg College 143084 Augustana College 219000 Augustana College 143118 Aurora University 222983 Austin College 176628 Avila University 109785 Azusa Pacific University 164580 Babson College 206817 Bacone College 444167 Baker College of Allen Park 404073 Baker College of Auburn Hills

404648 Baker College of Cadillac 404082 Baker College of Clinton Township 168847 Baker College of Flint 414160 Baker College of Jackson 171298 Baker College of Muskegon 168838 Baker College of Owosso 381617 Baker College of Port Huron 154688 Baker University 201195 Baldwin-Wallace College 189088 Bard College 189097 Barnard College 132471 Barry University 197911 Barton College 160977 Bates College 164632 Bay Path College 223232 Baylor University 164720 Becker College 175421 Belhaven University 156286 Bellarmine University 180814 Bellevue University 197984 Belmont Abbey College 219709 Belmont University 238333 Beloit College 217721 Benedict College 154712 Benedictine College 145619 Benedictine University 164739 Bentley University 156295 Berea College 139144 Berry College 150145 Bethel College-Mishawaka 173160 Bethel University 219718 Bethel University 132602 Bethune-Cookman University 139153 Beulah Heights University 110097 Biola University 100937 Birmingham Southern College 183822 Bloomfield College 201371 Bluffton University 164924 Boston College 164988 Boston University 161004 Bowdoin College 143358 Bradley University 165015 Brandeis University

108

262086 Brandman University 139199 Brenau University 139205 Brewton-Parker College 152992 Briar Cliff University 231581 Bridgewater College 230047 Brigham Young University-Hawaii 142522 Brigham Young University-Idaho 230038 Brigham Young University-Provo 217156 Brown University 219790 Bryan College-Dayton 217165 Bryant University 211273 Bryn Mawr College 211291 Bucknell University 153001 Buena Vista University 150163 Butler University 211352 Cabrini College 183910 Caldwell College 110361 California Baptist University 110413 California Lutheran University 150172 Calumet College of Saint Joseph 169080 Calvin College 165167 Cambridge College 198136 Campbell University 156365 Campbellsville University 189705 Canisius College 201548 Capital University 238430 Cardinal Stritch University 173258 Carleton College 132842 Carlos Albizu University-Miami 211431 Carlow University 211440 Carnegie Mellon University 180106 Carroll College 238458 Carroll University 219806 Carson-Newman College 238476 Carthage College 201645 Case Western Reserve University 198215 Catawba College 131283 Catholic University of America 189848 Cazenovia College 211468 Cedar Crest College 201654 Cedarville University 183974 Centenary College 153108 Central College

109

Central Methodist University-College of Liberal Arts & 176947 Sciences 156408 Centre College 141486 Chaminade University of Honolulu 230852 Champlain College 111948 Chapman University 217688 Charleston Southern University 211556 Chatham University 211583 Chestnut Hill College 198303 Chowan University 219833 Christian Brothers University 201858 Cincinnati Christian University 234915 City University of Seattle 217873 Claflin University 112260 Claremont McKenna College 138947 Clark Atlanta University 165334 Clark University 153126 Clarke University 190044 Clarkson University 153144 Coe College 217907 Coker College 161086 Colby College 182634 Colby-Sawyer College 190099 Colgate University 193399 College of Mount Saint Vincent 204200 College of Mount St. Joseph 163578 College of Notre Dame of Maryland 167394 College of Our Lady of the Elms 174747 College of Saint Benedict 186618 College of Saint Elizabeth 181604 College of Saint Mary 166124 College of the Holy Cross 178697 College of the Ozarks 126669 Colorado Christian University 126678 Colorado College 217934 Columbia College 177065 Columbia College 144281 Columbia College-Chicago 217925 Columbia International University 190150 Columbia University in the City of New York 173300 Concordia College at Moorhead 144351 Concordia University-Chicago 112075 Concordia University-Irvine

110

208488 Concordia University-Portland 173328 Concordia University-Saint Paul 180984 Concordia University-Seward 224004 Concordia University-Texas 238616 Concordia University-Wisconsin 128902 Connecticut College 217961 Converse College 210331 Corban University 153162 Cornell College 190415 Cornell University 170037 Cornerstone University 139393 Covenant College 181002 Creighton University 174862 Crown College 219949 Cumberland University 165529 Curry College 190725 Daemen College 224226 Dallas Baptist University 182670 Dartmouth College 169479 Davenport University 198385 Davidson College 165574 Dean College 202514 Defiance College 211981 Delaware Valley College 202523 Denison University 144740 DePaul University 150400 DePauw University 210739 DeSales University 212009 Dickinson College 158802 Dillard University 448284 Doane College-Lincoln Grand Island and Master 190761 Dominican College of Blauvelt 148496 Dominican University 113698 Dominican University of California 153250 Dordt College 190770 Dowling College 153269 Drake University 184348 Drew University 212054 Drexel University 177214 Drury University 198419 Duke University 212106 Duquesne University 190716 D'Youville College

111

150455 Earlham College 224527 East Texas Baptist University 232043 Eastern Mennonite University 165644 Eastern Nazarene College 212133 Eastern University 144883 East-West University 133492 Eckerd College 238661 Edgewood College 212197 Elizabethtown College 144962 Elmhurst College 190983 Elmira College 198516 Elon University 165662 Emerson College 165671 Emmanuel College 232025 Emory and Henry College 139658 Emory University 165699 Endicott College 177339 Evangel University 385619 Everglades University 196680 Excelsior College 129242 Fairfield University 184694 Fairleigh Dickinson University-College at Florham 184603 Fairleigh Dickinson University-Metropolitan Campus 101189 Faulkner University 184612 Felician College 232089 Ferrum College 165802 Fisher College 133711 Flagler College-St Augustine 133881 Florida Institute of Technology 133979 Florida Memorial University 134079 Florida Southern College 177418 Fontbonne University 205957 Franciscan University of Steubenville 212577 Franklin and Marshall College 150604 Franklin College 182795 Franklin Pierce University 202806 Franklin University 220215 Freed-Hardeman University 114813 Fresno Pacific University 155089 Friends University 218070 Furman University 131450 Gallaudet University 212601 Gannon University

112

198561 Gardner-Webb University 212656 Geneva College 208822 George Fox University 131469 George Washington University 156745 Georgetown College 131496 Georgetown University 184773 Georgian Court University 212674 Gettysburg College 115083 Golden Gate University-San Francisco 130989 Goldey-Beacom College 235316 Gonzaga University 129154 Goodwin College 165936 Gordon College 150668 Goshen College 162654 Goucher College 153366 Graceland University-Lamoni 153375 Grand View University 198598 Greensboro College 145372 Greenville College 153384 Grinnell College 212805 Grove City College 198613 Guilford College 173647 Gustavus Adolphus College 212832 Gwynedd Mercy College 191515 Hamilton College 173665 Hamline University 232256 Hampden-Sydney College 166018 Hampshire College 232265 Hampton University 177542 Hannibal-Lagrange College 107044 Harding University 225247 Hardin-Simmons University 191533 Hartwick College 166027 Harvard University 181127 Hastings College 212911 Haverford College 141644 Hawaii Pacific University 203085 Heidelberg University 107080 Hendrix College 235422 Heritage University 198695 High Point University 203128 Hiram College 191630 Hobart William Smith Colleges

113

367884 Hodges University 191649 Hofstra University 232308 Hollins University 212984 Holy Family University 115728 Holy Names University 162760 Hood College 170301 Hope College 191676 Houghton College 225399 Houston Baptist University 225548 Howard Payne University 131520 Howard University 101435 Huntingdon College 150941 Huntington University 161165 Husson University 145646 Illinois Wesleyan University 213011 Immaculata University 151801 Indiana Wesleyan University 191931 Iona College 191968 Ithaca College 134945 Jacksonville University 200156 Jamestown College 107141 John Brown University 203368 John Carroll University 116712 John F Kennedy University 162928 Johns Hopkins University 439288 Johnson & Wales University-Denver 414823 Johnson & Wales University-Florida 217235 Johnson & Wales University-Providence 198756 Johnson C Smith University 146339 Judson University 213251 Juniata College 170532 Kalamazoo College 203535 Kenyon College 169983 Kettering University 192192 Keuka College 213303 Keystone College 220516 King College 213321 King's College 146427 Knox College 213358 La Roche College 213367 La Salle University 117627 La Sierra University 213385 Lafayette College

114

140234 LaGrange College 203580 Lake Erie College 146481 Lake Forest College 238980 Lakeland College 220598 Lane College 166391 Lasell College 239017 Lawrence University 192323 Le Moyne College 213507 Lebanon Valley College 220613 Lee University 213543 Lehigh University 198835 Lenoir-Rhyne University 166452 Lesley University 226231 LeTourneau University 209056 Lewis & Clark College 232557 Liberty University 140252 Life University 218238 Limestone College 146676 Lincoln College 220631 Lincoln Memorial University 177968 Lindenwood University 157216 Lindsey Wilson College 209065 Linfield College 219976 Lipscomb University 198862 Livingstone College 117636 Loma Linda University 192439 Long Island University-Brooklyn Campus 192448 Long Island University-C W Post Campus 153825 Loras College 159568 Louisiana College 203757 Lourdes College 117946 Loyola Marymount University 163046 Loyola University-Baltimore 146719 Loyola University-Chicago 159656 Loyola University-New Orleans 226383 Lubbock Christian University 153834 Luther College 213668 Lycoming College 232609 Lynchburg College 132657 Lynn University 173902 Macalester College 170806 Madonna University 203775 Malone University

115

151777 Manchester College 192703 Manhattan College 192749 Manhattanville College 239080 Marian University 151786 Marian University 203845 Marietta College 192819 Marist College 239105 Marquette University 198899 Mars Hill College 220701 Martin Methodist College 151810 Martin University 232672 Mary Baldwin College 170842 Marygrove College 209108 Marylhurst University 192864 Marymount Manhattan College 232706 Marymount University 220710 Maryville College 178059 Maryville University of Saint Louis 213826 Marywood University 164270 McDaniel College 147013 McKendree University 226587 McMurry University 192925 Medaille College 140447 Mercer University 193016 Mercy College 203960 Mercy College of Northwest Ohio 213987 Mercyhurst College 198950 Meredith College 166850 Merrimack College 213996 Messiah College 198969 Methodist University 190114 Metropolitan College of New York 245953 Mid-America Christian University 155520 MidAmerica Nazarene University 157359 Mid-Continent University 230959 Middlebury College 157377 Midway College 423643 Midwestern University-Glendale 101675 Miles College 221014 Milligan College 147244 Millikin University 118888 Mills College 175980 Millsaps College

116

214069 Misericordia University 176053 Mississippi College 178244 Missouri Baptist University 178369 Missouri Valley College 193292 Molloy College 147341 Monmouth College 185572 Monmouth University 199032 Montreat College 140553 Morehouse College 154004 Morningside College 214166 Mount Aloysius College 166939 Mount Holyoke College 166948 Mount Ida College 219198 Mount Marty College 239390 Mount Mary College 154013 Mount Mercy University 199069 Mount Olive College 193353 Mount Saint Mary College 119173 Mount St Mary's College 163462 Mount St Mary's University 204194 Mount Vernon Nazarene University 214175 Muhlenberg College 204264 Muskingum University 127653 Naropa University 119605 National University 147536 National-Louis University 193584 Nazareth College 181446 Nebraska Wesleyan University 214272 Neumann University 182980 New England College 193900 New York University 218414 Newberry College 155335 Newman University 193973 Niagara University 167260 Nichols College 199209 North Carolina Wesleyan College 147660 North Central College 174437 North Central University 218441 North Greenville University 147679 North Park University 167358 Northeastern University 142461 Northwest Nazarene University 236133 Northwest University

117

174491 Northwestern College 154101 Northwestern College 147767 Northwestern University 171492 Northwood University-Michigan 230995 Norwich University 204468 Notre Dame College 120184 Notre Dame de Namur University 136215 Nova Southeastern University 194161 Nyack College 152099 Oakland City University 101912 Oakwood University 204501 Oberlin College 120254 Occidental College 140696 Oglethorpe University 201964 Ohio Christian University 204617 Ohio Dominican University 204635 Ohio Northern University 204909 Ohio Wesleyan University 207403 Oklahoma Baptist University 207324 Oklahoma Christian University 207458 Oklahoma City University 206835 Oklahoma Wesleyan University 171599 Olivet College 147828 Olivet Nazarene University 207582 Oral Roberts University 105367 Ottawa University-Phoenix 204936 Otterbein University 107512 Ouachita Baptist University 160065 Our Lady of Holy Cross College 160074 Our Lady of the Lake College 227331 Our Lady of the Lake University-San Antonio 194310 Pace University-New York 236230 Pacific Lutheran University 120865 Pacific Union College 209612 Pacific University 136330 Palm Beach Atlantic University-West Palm Beach 178721 Park University 121071 Patten University 214883 Peirce College 121150 Pepperdine University 199306 Pfeiffer University 215099 Philadelphia University 140818 Piedmont College

118

157535 Pikeville College 121257 Pitzer College 121309 Point Loma Nazarene University 215442 Point Park University 121345 Pomona College 194578 Pratt Institute-Main 218539 Presbyterian College 105589 Prescott College 186131 Princeton University 217402 Providence College 199412 Queens University of Charlotte 148131 Quincy University 130226 Quinnipiac University 233295 Randolph-Macon College 209922 Reed College 231651 Regent University 167598 Regis College 127918 Regis University 140872 Reinhardt University 221351 Rhodes College 227757 Rice University 186283 Rider University 239628 Ripon College 183211 Rivier College 233426 Roanoke College 215655 Robert Morris University 148335 Robert Morris University Illinois 194958 Roberts Wesleyan College 148405 Rockford College 179043 Rockhurst University 217518 Roger Williams University 136950 Rollins College 148487 Roosevelt University 148511 Rush University 176318 Rust College 130253 Sacred Heart University 195137 Sage College of Albany 154235 Saint Ambrose University 183239 Saint Anselm College 148876 Saint Augustine College 199582 Saint Augustines College 195164 Saint Bonaventure University 227845 Saint Edward's University

119

215743 Saint Francis University 195720 Saint John Fisher College 174792 Saint Johns University 130314 Saint Joseph College 152363 Saint Josephs College 161518 Saint Joseph's College of Maine 195544 Saint Joseph's College-New York 215770 Saint Joseph's University 137032 Saint Leo University 179159 Saint Louis University-Main Campus 236452 Saint Martin's University 152381 Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College 152390 Saint Mary's College 123554 Saint Marys College of California 174817 Saint Mary's University of Minnesota 231059 Saint Michael's College 239716 Saint Norbert College 186432 Saint Peter's College 195243 Saint Thomas Aquinas College 137476 Saint Thomas University 215798 Saint Vincent College 148627 Saint Xavier University 214564 Salus University 217536 Salve Regina University 102049 Samford University 122296 Samuel Merritt University 122931 Santa Clara University 195304 Sarah Lawrence College 228042 Schreiner University 236577 Seattle Pacific University 236595 Seattle University 186584 Seton Hall University 215947 Seton Hill University 221519 Sewanee-The University of the South 199643 Shaw University 233541 Shenandoah University 140988 Shorter University 195474 Siena College 172264 Siena Heights University 167783 Simmons College 154350 Simpson College 123457 Simpson University 195526 Skidmore College

120

167835 Smith College 163921 Sojourner-Douglass College 137564 Southeastern University 221661 Southern Adventist University 228246 Southern Methodist University 206862 Southern Nazarene University 183026 Southern New Hampshire University 217776 Southern Wesleyan University 179326 Southwest Baptist University 228325 Southwestern Assemblies of God University 155900 Southwestern College 228343 Southwestern University 157757 Spalding University 141060 Spelman College 172334 Spring Arbor University 102234 Spring Hill College 167899 Springfield College 175005 St Catherine University 195809 St John's University-New York 195216 St Lawrence University 174844 St Olaf College 195173 St. Francis College 243744 Stanford University 179548 Stephens College 137546 Stetson University 164173 Stevenson University 102270 Stillman College 167996 Stonehill College 168005 Suffolk University 216278 Susquehanna University 216287 Swarthmore College 196413 Syracuse University 152530 Taylor University 221731 Tennessee Wesleyan College 228875 Texas Christian University 228981 Texas Lutheran University 229160 Texas Wesleyan University 142294 The College of Idaho 193645 The College of New Rochelle 195234 The College of Saint Rose 174899 The College of Saint Scholastica 206589 The College of Wooster 193654 The New School

121

202763 The University of Findlay 137847 The University of Tampa 216366 Thomas Jefferson University 157809 Thomas More College 206048 Tiffin University 196592 Touro College 157818 Transylvania University 221892 Trevecca Nazarene University 152567 Trine University 149505 Trinity Christian College 130590 Trinity College 149514 Trinity International University-Illinois 229267 Trinity University 131876 Trinity Washington University 196653 Trocaire College 168148 Tufts University 160755 Tulane University of Louisiana 200527 Turtle Mountain Community College 221953 Tusculum College 102377 Tuskegee University 157863 Union College 196866 Union College 206279 Union Institute & University 221971 Union University 128744 University of Bridgeport 237312 University of Charleston 144050 University of Chicago 224323 University of Dallas 202480 University of Dayton 127060 University of Denver 169716 University of Detroit Mercy 153278 University of Dubuque 150534 University of Evansville 129525 University of Hartford 151263 University of Indianapolis 117140 University of La Verne 200217 University of Mary 226471 University of Mary Hardin-Baylor 135726 University of Miami 101693 University of Mobile 204185 University of Mount Union 161457 University of New England 129941 University of New Haven

122

204486 University of Northwestern Ohio 152080 University of Notre Dame 215062 University of Pennsylvania 209825 University of Portland 236328 University of Puget Sound 121691 University of Redlands 233374 University of Richmond 205203 University of Rio Grande 195030 University of Rochester 152336 University of Saint Francis-Fort Wayne 155812 University of Saint Mary 122436 University of San Diego 122612 University of San Francisco 215929 University of Scranton 219383 University of Sioux Falls 123961 University of Southern California 148584 University of St Francis 174914 University of St Thomas 156541 University of the Cumberlands 225627 University of the Incarnate Word 120883 University of the Pacific 207971 University of Tulsa 154493 Upper Iowa University 206330 Urbana University 216524 Ursinus College 206349 Ursuline College 197045 Utica College 216542 Valley Forge Christian College 152600 Valparaiso University 221999 Vanderbilt University 123651 Vanguard University of Southern California 197133 Vassar College 216597 Villanova University 234164 Virginia Union University 234173 Virginia Wesleyan College 240107 Viterbo University 197197 Wagner College 199847 Wake Forest University 236896 Walla Walla University 206437 Walsh University 210304 Warner Pacific College 138275 Warner University 199865 Warren Wilson College

123

154527 Wartburg College 216667 Washington & Jefferson College 162210 Washington Adventist University 234207 Washington and Lee University 164216 Washington College 179867 Washington University in St Louis 229780 Wayland Baptist University 216694 Waynesburg University 179894 Webster University 168218 Wellesley College 131098 Wesley College 130697 Wesleyan University 237969 West Virginia Wesleyan College 433387 Western Governors University 168254 Western New England University 179946 Westminster College 230807 Westminster College 216807 Westminster College 125727 Westmont College 168281 Wheaton College 149781 Wheaton College 238078 Wheeling Jesuit University 168290 Wheelock College 237057 Whitman College 125763 Whittier College 237066 Whitworth University 216852 Widener University-Main Campus 229887 Wiley College 216931 Wilkes University 210401 Willamette University 176479 William Carey University 179955 William Jewell College 154590 William Penn University 179964 William Woods University 168342 Williams College 206507 Wilmington College 131113 Wilmington University 199962 Wingate University 206525 Wittenberg University 218973 Wofford College 125897 Woodbury University 206622 Xavier University 160904 Xavier University of Louisiana

124

130794 Yale University 197708 Yeshiva University 217059 York College Pennsylvania

125

APPENDIX B: PANEL COVER LETTER

Dear Colleague,

As a college or university Registrar, I need your help in serving on a five-person panel. Your assistance will help to build a list of best practices that private, non- profit colleges can adapt to effectively scheduling their classrooms. Your participation can greatly contribute to understanding the factors involved in classroom scheduling.

I am a doctoral student at Benedictine University in Lisle, Illinois. My dissertation research consists of surveying college and university Registrars from across the United States in order to develop an efficient model of classroom scheduling. If you accept, your responsibility would to test the electronic survey tool. Once feedback has been collected from all panel members, the tool will be edited to reflect the panel’s recommendations. It will then be distributed to the full sample.

Your participation in this study is voluntary and should take about thirty minutes of your time. There are no foreseeable risks to those that participate and you can withdraw participation at any time without consequence. Your anonymity will be protected and your feedback will not be individually tied to your institution by name. Results will be compiled and presented as part of my dissertation and may be published in the future. Please give consent by submitting the attached survey. My research has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of Benedictine University in Lisle, Illinois.

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this research, please contact Benedictine IRB Chair, Dr. Weller-Clarke at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Leslie Jacobson

APPENDIX C: SURVEY COVER LETTER

Dear Colleague,

I am a doctoral student at Benedictine University in Lisle, Illinois. My dissertation research consists of surveying college and university Registrars from across the United States in order to develop a benchmarking self-score sheet. The summary of survey responses will used to create a list of best practices. Once complete, the self-scoring tool will allow institutions to measure how effective they are in classroom scheduling.

As a college or university Registrar, I need your help in building a list of best practices that private, non-profit colleges follow in effectively scheduling their classrooms. Your response to this survey can greatly contribute to understanding the factors involved.

Sincerely,

Leslie Jacobson

127

APPENDIX D: CLASSROOM SCHEDULING ELECTRONIC SURVEY INSTRUMENT

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

APPENDIX E: RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS

Most Important or Effective Policy Elements

The policy needs to address concerns of need and current resources. How to respond to increase demands for certain courses from an organizational (not departmental) perspective.

Being sure that each department is given the same options.

Balance across times of day and days of the week. Assigning classrooms based on enrollment size vs professor desire for a specific room.

* Deadlines * Guidelines for the assignment of rooms based on need/preference *

Target goals considering courses needed by current student population within their particular preferred time blocks/delivery methods

Setting deadlines that are adhered to as well as effectively utilizing rooms on campus.

Maximum utilization of available classroom space by all schools and departments by using the entire ""academic day"" from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Meeting student needs for courses, available at times not in conflict with other courses.

Optimal usage of space, reasonable pedagogy-based maximums on class size, balancing courses throughout the day and the week.

Clear and concise directions regarding scheduling across time/day/week and the approval process Chair to Dean to Registrar.

The student's schedule to achieve graduation on time should be the highest priority.

Technology use. We have space, but not all is technologically updated

Target goals for distribution across times of day and days of week.

Rolling a course schedule from like semester to next like semester.

Our primary concern should be that students are able to create schedules each semester that include the courses they need.

Type of curriculum, i.e., open curriculum requires greater attention to avoiding built in conflicts. Departments not working in silos when creating schedules. Seniority iussues around favorite rooms, turf issues, 1) Clear policy on which office controls each teaching space. 2) Courses that use and need the technology have priority in getting multi-media equipped rooms.

Departments must maintain that the students are the priority as to when courses are offered...not department or faculty preference. Looking at your department's course schedule through the eyes of a freshman, sophomore, junior and senior is very important. meeting the needs of our adult servincing population

Goals for distribution of sections across time of day and day of week

Targeting goals for distribution

An enforceable policy requiring departments to utilize teaching blocks across the schedule.

Keeping the assignemnt of classrooms in the hands of the Registrar.

Fewer people involved in the room situation would be helpful.

Having a well defined process, and having as centralized unit to manage the scheduling. managing a rotation that accomodates the needs of various student populations. Individual faculty members realizing that they work for an organization and that they should think collegially rather than only about their own needs.

A balance between size and type, and days of week/times.

% of room utilization

With limited space, facilities, and technology it is most important to have well distributed course offerings during each day, which in our case we do not have. So we really need a firm policy that is enforced with the backing of the Dean.

Classroom technology/space meeting the needs of course criteria.

Faculty have to have buy in on any policy.

Timely and effective communication to all involved parties. The ability to be flexible to meet student needs.

Needs of the students to have classes meet their requirements

136

Taking into account the size of the classroom to fit capacity of the course. Taking into account the need of the faculty. Making sure that if the faculty is teaching back to back remains in the same room. Classes meet in the same room all days of the course. maintaining a meeting pattern

1. The Provost and Dept. Chairs regularly inform Faculty that curriculum scheduling and classroom assignments are organized and processed for the benefit of the students and the college...NOT for faculty convenience. 2. Setting aside minor issues, and as long as an assigned space is functioning properly and comfortable within normal limits, faculty are expected to remain in the space for the duration of the term.

Classrooms must be assigned to meet the needs of the University at large and not necessarily those of individual departments or faculty.

We are a small institution and our biggest issue is that everyone wants to teach during the same time periods and we have a limited number of rooms. We allow the programs the freedom to determine when they will teach classes, but we do sometimes have to force a class time change based on room availbility and we try to do so with the faculty and students' best interest in mind.

Communication regarding responsibilities

Course offerings need to be evenly distributed throughout the day to maximize space utilization. Policies for course scheduling need to be in place and enforced.

Course distribution across the week and the days to enable students to find the courses they need and build them into a schedule.

Distribution across times of day/week to ensure students have access to classes. n/a

Size of class in relation to room capacity, teaching schedule of faculty member.

Flexibility amongst faculty in classroom assignments

1) Tight control over the use of standard meeting times, so that courses can't create unusual meeting times that ruin room usage patterns. 2)As much centralized control over the scheduling of classrooms as possible. 3) Effective planning across departments about when to offer related courses.

A centralized office with the authority and oversight to give guidance, set benchmarks, and arbitrate conflict.

137

Establishing goals for course distribution across time periods and days

Production Calendar of Deadlines in the Classroom Scheduling Process, Including When the Classroom Assignments are Due to the Office of the Registrar and When the Schedule is Available to Students

Clear and concise communication to departments. Uphold deadlines. Keep exceptions to a minimum.

Course distribution across times of day

Spreading classes over all time periods all days of the week. target goals across days and times

Not allowing movement of courses after registration opens.

Courses have priority over classrooms and event scheduling can only occur after courses scheduled.

Clear guidelines developed in consultation with faculty that govern classroom assignment and distribution of classes across the breadth of the available teaching schedule

Scheduling class, and therefore classrooms, across times of day and days of week.

Most Important or Effective Process Elements

The evaluation and monitoring class size within the summer months, for Fall registration, to ensure the schedule is effective, reduce the amount of adjustments based on resources, and increase and/or add courses as needed.

We will be going to a formal classroom scheduleing in the next 6 months.

In the ideal world it would be when students want to take a class and rooms are available vs when faculty wants to teach but that would never be the case at my small private college.

* utilizing classroom scheduling software to create and manage classroom scheduling

Utilizing software that makes the process efficient, as well as having the capability to easily report on room utilization.

Establishing priorities for assigning classrooms based on: (1) valid educational/instructional needs of each class; (2) needs for particular kinds of

138

students seating, such as tables or individual desks; (3) accommodation of common ""back to back"" class scheduling by many faculty members (4) professional courtesy to give preferred tclassrooms to senior faculty members.

Using available facilities to fullest capacity.

Initial schedule-building within the departments and schools, followed by institution-wide adjustments and room scheduling by one entity.

Student demand is the most important element that is often not a factor in the faculty process of scheduling when the courses will be offered.

Operationally controlling room scheduling out of a single unit, like the registrar's office, rather than multiple units.

Knowledge of indiviual faculty

Create Master Classroom Schedule Utilizing Classroom Scheduling Software

Centralization.

Classroom scheduling software, which, unfortunately, we do not have!

Software to identify room conflicts and to produce useage reports, matrices. software designed to assist in scheduling is effective, but so is Excel.

Scheduling software is the most effect method of maintaining policy.

Classroom scheduling software

Keeping the distribution of classrooms as equal as can be across Departments.

Consistent formatting of incoming data. If all departments would utilize the forms we provide.

Having software that effectively streamlines the process. having helpful software that gives a glimpse of the big picture in scheduling schedule software

Clear deadlines for submission of courses and regularization of times

Planning ahead by the department chair.

Software utilization for optimal usage

139

A program available to let us no no room conflicts.

Rolling schedules forward

Having a robust and properly programmed space scheduling software application with an optimizer (AdAstra)

It varies by school size. Ours is a small school with just over 700 undergraduate students. Our Jenzabar system provides us with enough information to be able to assign classrooms to courses in a fast and efficient way. We use the following criteria when assigning classrooms: course delivery mode (lec, lab, on-line, hybrid, etc), we also use class size but the registrar balances the expected enrollment with historical data of what the enrollment size has been in the recent past. We also take into account an individual faculty need for ""smart technology"" for his or her course delivery.

Allowing instructors the freedom to choose their classroom spaces and teaching times as much as possible seems to be very effective for our institution. The faculty appreciate our role in the scheduling process, but they never feel like we are focring them to teacj at certain times or in spaces they dislike.

Utilize scheduling preferences to ensure faculty needs are met, but also have processes in place that look at space utilization in conjunction with preferences.

Having an organized, easy way of accessing the schedule info. having an algorithm to assign spaces based on occupancy, preferences, etc. Keeps individual needs at least at a lower level of preference for scheduling.

We have our own software developed for this.

Some faculty see consistency in room assignments but others don't care. We have to maximize available rooms based on class size and times offered. classroom scheduling software and rolling of class schedules

1) Having a complete and up-to-date inventory of classroom attributes and of instructors' needs for particular courses. 2) Sufficient time to complete the process. 3) Much double-checking!

Room Scheduling Software could aid in the effective process of scheduling classes

The Master Classroom Schedule is very important

140

Utilize classroom scheduling software

The use of scheduling software. correct information received from departments

Allowing individual units/departments ability to build their schedule without access to unnecessary information or need training in the SIS - in effect taking the registrar's office out of the middle of course changes.

Have a consistent timeframe and proces

Use of scheduling software that allows you to optimize scheduling using various parameters. We use EMS and it has helped tremendously

Because we have such particular needs/likes/dislikes for and of particular classrooms it is difficult to imagine how room scheduling software would have enough benefit to move from Excel.

Most Influential Internal Forces Resources: Who needs what when, Who will teach, Where will the class be housed with limited locations and times available. size

Faculty preference, current trend to want to teach only two or three days per week. availability of enough of the right size of rooms

* faculty preferences and ""wants"" * lack of organization

It's importanty to address valid instructional needs first, followed by faculty preferences, consistent with the fixed availability of classroom space.

Meeting student needs, with some attention to faculty preferences.

Strong leadership from Academic Affairs, and cooperative interplay among all planners (Deans,event scheduler, IT and Registrar) - this must mitigate faculty preference

The focus should be on student demand, but most often it is overridden by faculty preference.

Senior faculty pushing to teach at the time that is most convenient for their schedule, rather than what is best for the common good of the entire University community.

141

Facutly time selection, whcih is submitted indivdually by faculty

Gatekeepers--Individuals With Vested Interest in Maintaining Status Quo in Classroom Scheduling. This may include a preference to keep the schedule as-is without changes from year to year.

Flexibility and good communication about changes

Registrar's Office

Faculty needs/preferences are currently the most influential. We are trying to move to a more student-centered approach.

Faculty preferences

At our institution, class size is most influential as well as classroom technology.

Faculty needs and promises made to faculty

Faculty preference

Class size.

Size of section vs size of classroom.

Technological and pedagogical needs. class size and faculty preference/request

Size and time/day of class feeling of ownership of areas

For us it is the faculty, and not always in a positive way that benefits the most people.

Department usage in select buildings

What faculty want and what the institution has in availability

At our institution, seating requirements and technology requirements determine room assignments. Faculty likes to teach in the building in which they office.

Faculty preference

The time frame for the courses to be offered.

142

Maintaining Status Quo

The expression of ""entitlement"" from senior faculty that they should be placed in the ""best"" facilities term-after-term Here is the criteria expressed above.

Faculty needs and seniority are the most influential, but at the end of the day, everyone knows that the Registrar's Office has the ultimate authority and can/will make changes if necessary. changes in technology

Faculty preferences are the most influential force at our institution.

The ability to adjust and adapt as need arises faculty needs/preferences.

College ownership of rooms faculty expectations

1) Faculty with narrow room preferences -- as much as we try not to cave to them! 2) Space allocation committees that control which rooms are available to schedule as classrooms.

Faculty needs

Assignments to optimize classroom space and meet university needs

Our faculty are not open to teaching outside of a Mon-Thurs 9-3 schedule. This makes scheduling very difficult both in terms of classrooms and for students (when all their courses meet at the same time/days). faculty

Student need for scheduling.

Instructor needs for special software or computer equipment. faculty needs. We have attributes attached to classrooms and when we do the schedule, we ask faculty to indicate the attributes (e.g., data projection, grand piano, white board, dual projection) needed to teach the course - we do NOT ask them for specific classrooms. faculty needs or preferences for particular rooms and departments who wish to hold all their classes in only their building.

143

Most Influential External Forces

New Hire availability and creditionals.

None

* external groups requesting space

There are none at my institution

No external forces, i.e., outside the university.

Bench-marking and excellent resources (software, training).

The cost factor - students that cannot get classes that are required or that they want will go elsewhere. n/a

There are none

None

We don't really have any external forces influencing us. faculty and avaiability of adjuncts

I do not see any external forces with respect to scheduling.

None.

Having the greatest amount of classroom space with which to places classes in. occasional outside use during summer terms- but minimal cost efficiency.

None, nor should there be external forces

Accreditation Bodies

The need for more large ground floor classrooms with up-to-date technology to accommodate our growing special needs population.

State requirements regarding minimum in class meeting times for granting credit

Number of students registered for the course.

144

recruitment

Unpredictable fluctuations in enrollment patterns and retention rates.

Class size and new technologies.

We have no influential external forces.

Student demand for varying times

ADA physical space available

N/A in my case -- it's all internal.

None right now.

Faculty preferences do not have external influences

Federal regulations pertaining to course schedule elements (e.g. textbooks posted online with course in advance of registration)

Pressure to use classrooms for external customers

We really don't have external factors that influence our classroom scheduling. The Board of Trustees is important here but I consider them to be an internal factor

Biggest Challenge in Creating a Schedule That Accommodates Multiple Formats

Time and Location overlapping

* courses/events crossing multiple time scheduling blocks

Considering faculty needs/wants and maintaining deadlines in the scheduling process.

Classroom availability

None

145

Gaining agreement about using a basic timeblock metric that applies across the board, not having enough mixed-use classroom space.

An even distribution of course formats that students can select from is the biggest challenge because many academic departments has certain biases regarding particiular classroom schedule formats.

The complexity of student registration.

Course whose time crosses more than one time slot (labs, studio courses, classes one day a week...)

Non standard (outside the 2-day 75 minute and 3-day 50 minute schedules) courses

Centralization

It is a puzzle and there is always a multiple set of formats based on number of credits assigned to a course.

We are a small institution with limited space, so accommodating everyone during peak hours is my biggest challenge. Online classes are helping to ease the problem a bit.

Our institution is smaller so this hasn't been an issue.

Tracking end of term processing for the all the various parts of term and custom schedules.

Courses that meet 4 or 5 days

Optimal usage of classrooms.

Optimal usage of classrooms based on standard classroom meeting times ensuring that all students can learn in a way most helpful for them.

The coordination of dept. scheduling to afford students a better schedule

Effective sharing of rooms; sometimes rooms may be forced to go empty because of irregular times or daily schedules overlaps that create impossibilities in scheduling.

My biggest challenge in creating a multi-format schedule is our software. So far we have managed ot find work arounds.

146

Optimizing the best usage of the classroom resources

Not having all faculty attached to the course.

Financial compliance

Lack of coordination among departments to allow their offerings to interlock with other departments to minimize course conflicts.

Note that your survey assumes a semester schedule and we have a quarter, as do a number of area institutions.

Ensuring that course types are spread across programs for general education purposes and that it doesn't ""benefit"" one group more than others.

Faculty schedules and teaching preferences

Just sheer logistics -- trying to make the jigsaw puzzle of needs for different times work in the context of faculty preferences for rooms close to their department/office.

Developing policies that guide their usage.

Making sure classes have adquate space and tools needed for instructors

Faculty preferences

Time periods that overlap.

Correct, consistent information from departments

Letting professors drive the schedule rather than the department giving guidelines within which professors need to schedule their courses.

Since some classes only meet a couple of times, we have to delete the others meetings from EMS to allow others to use them.

Departments or programs that seek exceptions to established and approved teaching times, which then creates overlaps and prevents optimal utilization of classrooms spreading cllasses across all day/time formats and not ""clumping"" in the middle of the day in the middle of the week.

147

Additional Comments

Retention - 95% freshment to sophomore, 86% 4 year grad rate - don't know what you want???

Fall to fall comparison - FTIAC seeking bachelors - FT = 82%; PT = 50%; room utilization figures unknown

One of the biggest problems I've faced in my efforts to provide good classroom assignments for all classes has been the long-term pattern of converting classrooms to non-instructional uses, notably offices. Although our enrollment and academic offerings have increased substantially during the last 20 years, our inventory of classrooms that are available for general course scheduling by all departments has actually dcreased by about 12% during that period.

Some of the questions require comment, but none available - For example, retention rate. I wanted to say ""Freshman to sophomore year, by cohort"" but couldn't. ""Unknown"" wouldn't work in many, either.

Thanks for doing this survey

We are an upper division transfer and graduate level institution in healthcare. Many of teh questions relate to ""traditional"" schools and do not apply to us.

Most of your questions have a large school orientation. We are about 1000 on campus Ug and maybe 150 on campus graduate. I know every building and faculty member, so much of this is just done in my head. The setup of the software is more trouble than just doing it by hand.

#17---unknown. I am not sure how many sq. ft. are allotted per student. Sorry.

Q. 17 established years ago unknown. Set by Wisconsin fire code.

This survey was badly worded and extremely difficult to provide answers.

In my professional experience, room scheduling management, and the ""politics"" that surround the process, are a bigger draw on a Registrar's Office resources (staff time) than the administration of routine student issues.

Our office is new to classroom scheduling. We have only been doing the classroom scheduling for one semester using our new scheduling software. Our Conference and Events office was doing the classroom scheduling previously. Some of these questions could be better answered by that office.

148

All the best with your dissertation!

Some of these questions cannot be answered by a central individual at our campus - the course schedule is a silo process and some specifics are not passed on to the registrar's office.

149

APPENDIX F: CLASSROOM SCHEDULING SELF-SCORE SHEET

Classroom Scheduling Self-Score Sheet

Instructions: The purpose of this worksheet is to evaluate your institution's practices in classroom scheduling against research based best practices in classroom scheduling. This research-based tool can be utilized to assist institutions to determine areas of strength and recognize opportunities for change.

For each area, select the statement that best describes your institution. Then, enter the point value assigned to the description under self-score. Add the points from the self-score column and enter under total.

In all areas, column 2 is the best practice level of performance in classroom scheduling. Institutions scoring a 0 or 1 have the opportunity to determine the applicability of the best practice from column 2 to their mission. How or if information is used, applied, or implemented will vary from institution to institution. 0 1 2 N/A Self-Score Academic The use of The use of The use of Needs classroom space classroom space classroom space Prioritized for non- for non-academic for non-academic academic purposes (such as purposes never purposes (such outside vendors) overrides use for as outside rarely overrides academic purposes. vendors) use for academic frequently purposes. overrides use for academic purposes. Addresses Federal, state, Federal, state, Federal, state, Federal, accrediting, and accrediting, and accrediting, and State, affiliation body affiliation body affiliation body Accrediting, guidelines are guidelines are guidelines are and not considered inconsistently consistently Affiliation in the classroom considered in the considered in the Body scheduling classroom classroom Guidelines process. scheduling scheduling process. process. Centralized The institution The institution has The institution has Scheduling has centralized a centralized decentralized scheduling, but scheduling office scheduling and has no authority or that has the is completed at oversight to give authority and the guidance, set oversight to give departmental or benchmarks or guidance, set individual arbitrate conflict. benchmarks and college level. arbitrate conflict. Ownership of all classrooms belongs to the centralized office and not individual colleges or departments.

150

Classroom Classroom There is some Classroom Schedule schedules are effort to balance schedules are Balance not balanced the classroom balanced across across the times schedule across times of day and of day, or days the times of day the days of the of the week. and the days of week. Standard There are no the week. There meeting times are standard is some effort recommended to meeting times. made to overcome the standardize the logistics of course meeting accommodating times. multiple, overlapping and non-standard course formats. Classroom There is no There is either a There is a well- Scheduling formal policy loose policy with defined policy with Policy with respect to respect to respect to classroom classroom classroom scheduling. scheduling, or scheduling that is there is a defined both policy that is not communicated and communicated or enforced. enforced. Classroom The institution The institution The institution Scheduling does not utilize utilizes classroom utilizes classroom Software classroom scheduling scheduling scheduling software, but it software and data software to does not integrate integrates with the perform with the institution's scheduling institution's Enterprise tasks. Enterprise Resource Planning Resource Planning system (ERP). system (ERP). Faculty Classroom Some effort is Strong effort is Preferences scheduling is made to made to and Equality inequitable at accommodate accommodate my institution. faculty faculty preferences, Some faculty preferences, while while promoting have more promoting equality amongst influence over equality amongst the faculty. their schedules the faculty. than other faculty. Master The institution The institution has The institution has Classroom does not have a a loose Master a well-developed Scheduling Master Scheduling Master Classroom Calendar Classroom Calendar, but it is Scheduling Scheduling not consistently Calendar that is Calendar of key adhered to or adhered to and milestones in followed. Key followed. the scheduling deadlines are process. sometimes are often missed.

151

Needs of Upon Upon assignment, Upon assignment, Course assignment, there is a the schedule there is little or moderate effort addresses the no effort to made to address enrollment size, address all of all of the classroom the following following: utilization, elements: enrollment size, technological and enrollment size, classroom pedagogical needs classroom utilization, of courses. utilization, technological and Further, technological or pedagogical needs fluctuations in pedagogical of courses. There enrollment and needs of is at least some retention rates are courses. effort made to accommodated. accommodate fluctuations in enrollment and retention rates. Student- Classroom Classroom Classroom Centered scheduling is scheduling is scheduling is Classroom not student- somewhat student- primarily student- Scheduling focused. There focused. There is centered. is no intentional some intentional Scheduling is consideration consideration designed to given to given to enhance enhance the enhance the the teaching and teaching and teaching and learning learning learning environment, environment, environment, increase progress, increase progress, increase retention, or retention, and progress, graduation, but it graduation. retention, or is inconsistent graduation of across the students. institution. Total Points as a Percentage of the Total Possible Points (Note: The total possible points without selecting n/a is 20). 90-100 Percent =Excellent Use of Best Practices 70-89 Percent =Modest Use of Best Practices 0-69 Percent =Poor Use of Best Practices

For more information on how to use this instrument at your institution, please contact Leslie Jacobson at [email protected].

152