Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38

S.03-67

. ?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Office of the Vice-President, Academic

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of Senate

RE:

SCEMP Motions on the Final Report

of the Course Accessibility Task Force

FROM:

John Watehe, chair

SCEMP

DATE:

June 17,2

The establishment of a Course Accessibility Task Force (CATF) was recommended by

the Ad Hoc Senate Committee to Review and Develop the Undergraduate Curricula

(UCC), which delivered its report to Senate in October, 2002. The UCC felt strongly

that issues around course accessibility should be addressed before the writing,

quantitative and breadth requirements are successfully introduced. The enabling

motion was passed by Senate on October 7, 2002, and a Task Force was subsequently

created, and began meeting in February, 2003.

The chief aim of the CATF is to improve access and, in doing so, ensure that the quality

of an SFU education is maintained. Specifically, the CATF mandate was to

"review and

;izake recommendations to address the issues of undergraduate course availability, accessibility

and timely completion in accordance with the reco,nmendations of the Ad Hoc Committee."

The

specific tasks and responsibilities of the CATF were to:

• Examine whether course accessibility is an issue;

• Determine the causes of the problem;

• Recommend a course of action to remedy the problem.

In accordance with its terms of reference (attached), the CATF submitted its final report

to the Senate Committee on Enrollment Management and Planning (SCEMP) for

consideration at its June 11, 2003 meeting. In addition, the CATF chose to provide the

Senate Committee on University Priorities (SCUP) with a copy of their final report for

information. SCEMP has chosen to recommend five motions in relation to the twenty-

two recommendations contained within the Task Force's Report.

The Senate Committee on Enrollment Management and Planning unanimously

recommends consideration of the following five motions for approval by Senate:

Motion 1

It is moved that Senate authorize the Vice-President, Academic to establish an Ad Hoc

Steering Committee to:

• oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the Course Accessibility

Task Force;

• create monitoring and evaluative mechanisms to assess the impact of the

measures taken to address course accessibility;

• review departmental plans on how CATF recommendations will be

implemented and to provide advice/ comment where appropriate;

explore additional areas and ideas to address course accessibility issues

including, but not limited to, irregular time-tabling patterns, multi-semester

scheduling, alternative methods of course delivery, and constraints on the

development and offering of distance education courses etc.

communicate and work with the University community in relation to course

accessibility.

The suggested membership of the Steering Committee is as follows:

• Chair (appointed from the Faculty representatives)

• Faculty member representative from each of the faculties

• 1 staff representative from the Registrar's Office

• 1 staff representative

• 1 senior undergraduate student

• Director, Academic Planning

• Director, Analytical Studies or designate

Motion 2

It is moved that Senate direct the Ad Hoc Steering Committee on Course Accessibility

to develop a scheduling policy for the approval of Senate that will make greater use of

currently unpopular times and days, and the summer semester, with implementation of

this recommendation to begin Fall 2004 or earlier.

Motion

It is moved

3 ?

that Senate direct that all programs, in consultation with the Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies (SCUS) review program regulations and pre-

requisite requirements and modify or delete any with weak justification that create

barriers to course access.

o Sp1-

03 £nc

\eeir

It is moved that Senate encourage the Vice-President, Academic to seek resources for

additional base-budgeted resources for CFL positions and TA funding.

Motion

It is moved that Senate expresses deep concern about the increasing shortage of

classroom facilities and advises the Board of Governors that the construction of

additional instructional space be given high priority in future capital planning for the

University and that conversion of existing classroom space to other uses be resisted.

Attachments: Course Accessibility Task Force Terms of Reference

Report of the Course Accessibility Task Force

c. Members of the CATF

Course Accessibility Task Force

Terms of Reference

Mandate

To review and make recommendations to address the issues of undergraduate

course availability, accessibility and timely completion in accordance with the

recommendations of the Ad Hoc Senate Committee to Review and Develop the

Undergraduate Curricula and the related motion passed at the October 7, 2002

meeting of Senate.

Reporting Structure

The Course Accessibility Task Force reports to the Senate Committee on Enrollment

Management and Planning (SCEMP).

Membership

Roger Blackman, Chair

2 Faculty Representatives (appointed by the VP Academic)

• Larry Weldon, Faculty of Science

.• Rob Gordon, Faculty of Arts

Director, Analytical Studies

• Walter Wattamaniuk

1 Staff Representative from the Registrar's Office

• Diane Whiteley, Director of Records and Admissions

1 Senior Staff Representative from Faculties or Departments

• Sherrill King, Economics

1 Senior Undergraduate Student (appointed by the VP Academic)

David Cross

Director, Academic Planning

Laurie Summers

Coordinator, Undergraduate Curriculum Implementation Coordinator

K.C. Bell

Time/me for the Task Force

The Task Force is expected to undertake and to complete its work during the Spring

2003 term and to provide a final report to June 2003 Senate meeting.

6/12/03

Frequency of Meetings

B i-weekly

Specific Tasks and Responsibilities

The task force will be asked to focus on the following areas of concern:

• Examine whether course accessibility is an issue;

• Determine the causes of the problem;

• Recommend a course of action to remedy the problem.

6/12/03

Simon Fraser University

REPORT OF THE

• ?

COURSE ACCESSIBILITY TASK FORCE

June 3, 2003

Chair: ?

Roger Blackman, Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts

Members: ?

Larry Weldon, Faculty of Science

Rob Gordon, Faculty of Arts

Walt Wattamaniuk, Director, Analytical Studies

Diane Whiteley, Director of Records and Admissions

Sherrill King, Departmental Assistant, Department of Economics

David Cross, Undergraduate Student

Laurie Summers, Director, Academic Planning

KC Bell, Undergraduate Curriculum Implementation Coordinator

REPORT OF THE

COURSE ACCESSIBILITY TASK FORCE

Previous committees that have examined the SFU undergraduate curricula have

made numerous recommendations concerning the accessibility and efficiency of

the curricula, course availability and timely completion by students of

requirements. Despite these recommendations, course accessibility remains a

problem, as evidenced by four indicators:

• The number of course full turnaways per student in each Fall semester.

Between 1994 —2002 this went from 1.25 to 1.71;

• The number of course spaces available per course enrollment. Between

1994-2002 this went from 1.26 to 1.18;

• The percentage of students able to get the number of courses they

wanted. Between 1994-2001 this went from 89% to 87%;

• The percentage of students able to get the specific courses they wanted.

Between 1994 —2001 this went from 64% to 58%.

Further detailed information on course availability indicators as well as classroom

usage statistics, is contained in Appendix I. A review of past reports suggests

that the obstacles to better access have been accurately identified and

appropriate solutions offered. The key to decisively addressing the issue is to

implement the recommendations put forward.

At Simon Fraser, some departments mount service courses that are taken by

students from many different disciplines. Moreover, there is a plethora of

interdisciplinary programs that require the meshing of different curricula. Add to

that the trimester structure, and the fact that the average SFU student load varies

considerably, and assuring course accessibility becomes an immense challenge.

The nature and extent of the ongoing course accessibility problem is further

illustrated by the course-full-turnaway and student completion rates shown in

Appendix I.

The establishment of a Course Accessibility Task Force (CATF) was

recommended by the Ad Hoc Senate Committee to Review and Develop the

Undergraduate Curricula (UCC), which delivered its report to Senate in October,

2002. The UCC felt strongly that issues around course accessibility would need

to be addressed before the writing, quantitative and breadth requirements could

be successfully introduced. The enabling motion was passed by Senate on

October 7, 2002, and the Vice-President Academic created the Task Force.

The chief aim of the CAlF is to improve access and, in doing so, ensure that the

quality of an SFU education is maintained. Specifically, the CATF mandate was

"review and make recommendations to address the issues of undergraduate

course

availability, accessibility and timely completion in accordance with the

recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee."

The tasks and responsibilities of

June 3, 2003

Final

the CATF were to:

• Examine whether course accessibility is an issue;

• Determine the causes of the problem;

• Recommend a course of action to remedy the problem.

The CATF began its work by listing all aspects of curriculum, scheduling,

registration and course delivery that appeared to constitute a

prima fade

limitation to course access. This list formed the basis of a questionnaire sent to

all departments, schools and non-departmentalized faculties in March, 2003 (see

Appendix 3 for the questionnaire and Appendix 4 for a summary of responses).

That resulted in the identification of limitations and barriers to course accessibility

at the system, faculty, program, instructor and student level (see Appendix 2 for

the discussion paper).

The many limitations to course access identified in the discussion paper can be

viewed as obstacles to achieving an optimal balance between teaching supply

and student demand. As a result of its research, consultation and discussion, the

CAlF has developed a series of recommendations designed to improve course

accessibility.

I. Classroom Facilities

Recommendation 1.0

New building plans must give high priority to classroom space, particularly in the

mid-large range. Every time a new building is planned, a specific demand

analysis must be conducted regarding classroom space. At a minimum, one

additional 450 seat lecture theatre needs to be constructed on the Burnaby

campus within the next three years.

Rationale:

With the current projected growth of student FTEs on the Burnaby

campus within the next three years, the University will require this facility to meet

the demand for this size of classroom.

Recommendation

1.1

Conversion of classroom space to other uses must be resisted, and efforts

should be made to create additional classrooms when current space

assignments are changed.

Rationale:

In order for the University to meet its demands for teaching space,

existing classroom space must be protected from conversion to alternative uses,

and where possible space should be converted to classroom use.

June 3, 2003

Final

2. Scheduling

Recommendation 2.0

Scheduling of classes must make greater use of currently unpopular times and

days (e.g. 8:30 - 9:30 am, Fridays and evenings).

Rationale:

The instructional hours of the University are 8:30 am - 10:30 pm,

Monday to Friday. A "flattening" of the day/time classroom usage patterns

through more frequent scheduling of classes at currently unpopular periods

would create more scheduling opportunities.

Recommendation 2.1

Departments should increase summer semester course offerings.

Rationale:

Increasing summer course capacity would reduce demand on

overextended facilities in the Fall and Spring semesters and would make the

summer a more attractive semester in terms of offerings for students.

Recommendation 2.2

When scheduling courses and distributing instructional capacity across them,

departments should review enrolment history and strive to match their course

selection and capacity allocation to the predicted pattern of student demand.

Rationale:

In order to appropriately allocate instructional resources, departments

need to be aware of and respond to patterns of student demand.

Recommendation 2.3

Consideration should be given to the development of cohort based programs.

Rationale:

Cohort programs would enable departments to better predict and

accommodate course demand and could provide students with a schedule that

guaranteed access.

Recommendation 2.4

Programs with interlocking or interacting program requirements should consult

when scheduling so as to avoid course overlap.

Rationale:

Coordinated scheduling will provide students with improved course

access and more timely completion of their program requirements.

3. Teachin g

and Pedagogy

Recommendation 3.0

In conjunction with the Learning and Instructional Development Centre, e-Linc

and the Centre for Distance Education, departments need to explore ways to

promote the use of non-face-to-face teaching.

Non-face-to-face teaching would reduce the demand on physical

campus facilities and introduce more flexibility into student and faculty schedules.

Recommendation 3.1

Departments should consider adopting alternative course delivery methods such

as taped lectures moderated by TAs, use of a unit mastery system with voluntary

lectures and drop-in tutorial sessions, and the use of small group seminars

instead of large lectures.

Rationale:

Use of alternative delivery modalities would reduce demand on

facilities, particularly large lecture theatres, and provide students with alternative

and flexible ways of learning.

4. Registration

Recommendation 4.0

The criteria used in the Registration Priority Number (RPN) system should be re-

examined and if necessary adjusted to improve the overall fairness and efficiency

of the system.

Rationale:

The aim of the RPN system is to provide greater equity and fairness

for students during the registration process. Therefore, a re-examination of the

. ?

system to ensure that it is still working in the best interests of the students would

be appropriate.

Human and Fiscal Resources

Recommendation 5.0

The University must continue its commitment to provide additional base-

budgeted resources for CFL positions.

Rationale:

Adding continuing faculty (CFL tenure-track, Lecturers and Lab

Instructors) increases the pool of experienced teaching and research faculty as

well as providing supervisors for graduate students. By reducing the

University's reliance on sessional instructors, a greater predictability in

scheduling can also be achieved.

Recommendation 5.1

The University Administration must continue to make increased base-budgeted

TA funding available.

Rationale:

Enhanced TA allocations would enable programs to increase the

number of sections offered, particularly in the large-capacity lower division

offerings that are experiencing high levels of course-full-turnaway.

June

Final

3, 2003

Recommendation 5.2

The Dean of Graduate Studies is encouraged to promote the recently established

Certificate Program in University Teaching and Learning for PhD students.

Rationale:

For those PhD students in the latter stages of their program and who

are contemplating a career that includes teaching, this program would allow them

to obtain instructional training and experience and provide the University with a

supply of well-qualified short-term instructors.

Recommendation 5.3

Faculties and Programs should more actively consider bundling individual

sessional instructor positions to allow for full-load and partial-load limited term

lecturer appointments.

Rationale:

This would provide these instructors with a more favorable level of

compensation and provide departments with improved continuity in teaching and

scheduling.

Recommendation 5.4

Chairs should encourage the expectation among continuing faculty members

(especially at the time of their appointment) that they share the responsibility for

teaching lower division courses as well as being available to teach at less

popular times during the regular university instructional hours in all three

semesters.

Rationale:

Acceptance of this expectation would help chairs meet the

considerable challenge of creating a course schedule that better serves student

needs.

Recommendation 5.5

Deans should ensure that teaching reductions are fairly distributed and

are approved only when warranted by excessive demands on the faculty

member in other areas.

Rationale:

Teaching reductions for research or administrative reasons deprive

students of contact with the University's best teachers and researchers. They

also add to the difficulties faced by Chairs as they attempt to establish a

predictable and comprehensive teaching schedule, since a greater reliance must

be placed on short-term instructors.

6. Program Design

Recommendation 6.0

All programs should review the regulations and requirements for their

undergraduate credentials and eliminate those with weak or outdated

Excessive and unnecessary program regulations and prerequisite

requirements increase student completion times and lead to greater complexity

and restrictions in the scheduling and registration processes for departments and

students.

Recommendation

6.1

Departments should ensure that students from other programs can gain

reasonable access to their upper division courses and that there are upper

division courses without excessive pre-requisite requirements available.

Rationale:

Majors and honours students from other programs require upper

division courses to complete their requirements. With the forthcoming

introduction of the undergraduate breadth requirements, access to courses in

other programs will become an even more critical issue for students.

Implementation of Recommendations

With the submission of its final report, the CATF will have completed its mandate.

Some of its recommendations, if approved, can be implemented immediately.

Others may need further discussion and elaboration before they can be applied.

The CAlF proposes that prompt action should be taken on the following six

recommendations:

Recommendation 1.0— Classroom Space

Recommendation 1.1 - Classroom Space

Recommendation 2.0 - Scheduling

Recommendation 2.1 - Scheduling

Recommendation 5.0 - Human and Fiscal Resources

Recommendation 5.1 - Human and Fiscal Resources

In addition, the CATF recommends the following specific actions be undertaken

with respect to implementation:

Recommendation 7.0

Establish an Ad Hoc Steering Committee, reporting to SCUP, to guide the

implementation and evaluation of the course accessibility recommendations and

to communicate with the University community.

Recommendation

7.1

The work to implement those recommendations identified as being of the highest

priority should begin no later than January 2004.

Recommendation 7.2

Departments should be required to provide a plan to their Dean proposing how

they intend to implement the CATF recommendations who in turn will forward it

June 3. 2003

Final

to the Vice-President, Academic.

Recommendation 7.3

A monitoring system needs to be established to ensure that the measures

designed to improve course accessibility are in fact working and that those that

fail are revised or replaced. For example, the administration should continue to

measure the proportion of students who report failing to register in the number of

courses they were seeking and determine whether the changes designed to

enhance access improve this key index of accessibility. In addition, tools such as

student polls and wait lists should also be utilized to ensure that immediate

feedback is obtained. This is particularly important since the new SIMS does not

have the capacity to record course-full-turnaways.

8. Issues for Future Consideration

The issues contained in this section were identified by the CAlF as important

additional areas that should be further explored by the Ad Hoc Steering

Committee:

• Departments should consider expanding the current practice of listing

courses to be given in future semesters to full multi-semester scheduling.

Multi-semester scheduling would allow the collection of information from

students that supplied a better basis for predicting demand and therefore

more appropriate resource allocation decisions. Students, departments

and instructors would all stand to benefit if the full course schedule was

known 2-3 semesters in advance. However, that benefit would be realized

only if there were few changes to the planned schedule.

• If full multi-semester scheduling could be achieved, that can provide a

basis for introducing multi-semester registration.

• The University should consider establishing a goal of increasing overall

summer enrollments from the current 20% to 25%.

• The University should revisit the budget-mandated 10% cap on distance

education enrollments and look at decreasing the constraints on growth

for non face to face instruction.

• Prior to the introduction of the undergraduate Writing (W), Quantitative (0)

and Breadth (B) requirements, appropriate planning must be undertaken

to ensure that an accessible and adequate number and selection of W, Q

and B courses are available to students.

June 3, 2003

Final

APPENDICES

I.

Statistical Information 

II.

Discussion Paper: Course Access Limitations 

III. 

Course Accessibility Task Force Questionnaire 

(available on request) 

IV.

Course Accessibility Task Force Final Summary 

of Questionnaire Responses 

(available on request) 

APPENDIX I

STATISTICAL INFORMATION

COURSE AVAILABILITY INDICATORS

Undergraduate students at SFU have found it increasingly more difficulty to register in

the number and specific courses they want.

Four indicators are used to measure availability of undergraduate courses. The first is

the number of course full turnaways per student in each fall semester (A).

The second is available course spaces per course enrollment (B), which is a measure

of utilization.

The third (C) is the % of the 1,200 students we survey each fall who indicated that

they were able to get the number of courses they wanted.

The fourth is the % of the 1,200 students we survey each fall who indicated that they

were able to get all the specific courses they wanted.

Unfortunately we did not do the survey last fall.

As shown below, the first three indicators have been pretty steady over the tution

freeze, except for

last fall, which was the first semester out of the freeze,

when a

whole bunch more students accepted our offers than we thought.

The fourth indicator has been steadily dropping, which means that students are

survey not administered

-94-- Wednesday

Classroom Utilization by Room Type, Day, and Time Slot

FALL 2002

Room Type: ALL

CENTRALLY SCHEDULED

Utilization of all 107 Rooms Assigned to the Registrar's Office, As of Fall 2002

100%'------------------------------------------------------- ----------------

- -----------------------------

------------. ------------------------------__\

..\..---------------------------------.---..

- ------------------------------------------- ........-----

----------------------------------------------

Room Type: Lecture + Policy Rooms

CENTRALLY SCHEDULED

Utilization of the 20 Lecture and Policy Classrooms Assigned to the Registrars Office, As of Fall 2002

Page

Classroom Utilization by Room Type, Day, and Time Slot

ALL

2002

TOO

F M

Type: Lecture Theatre

CENTRALLY SCHEDULED

Utilization of the 12 Lecture Theatres Assigned to the Registrar's Office, As of Fall 2002

CENTRALLY SCHEDULED ?

Utilization of the 75 Serninarllutorial Classrooms Assigned to the Registrars Office As of Fall 2002

1000/-------------------

............................

High Capacity Rooms (Greater than 190 Seats)

Occupied rooms during daily time slots

tumor Kegusterea aiqgs

er iassrQom

Rooms Key

Time Slot

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

247

464

APPENDIX II

Discussion Paper: Course Access Limitations

This Discussion Paper details the systematic exploration by the Course

Accessibility Task Force (CATF) of the factors that may affect a student's access

to a course. For each identified limitation to access, the problem is explicated,

possible remedies are considered, and Potential Recommendations are

sketched. After much discussion and debate, this was winnowed down to the

smaller set of recommendations and brief rationales found in the Final Report of

the CATF. A number of the possible remedies and potential recommendations

failed to survive. Some were seen as too speculative and others of only marginal

relevance to accessibility. Some did not gain consensus support, and in other

cases we lacked empirical evidence to validate the problem or to justify the

solution. Nonetheless, this Discussion Paper is being included as an appendix to

the final report since it may contain information or opinion of some value. The

CATF worked within a short time frame that made it impossible to pursue all

leads and check all possibilities. This working document is submitted to facilitate

such efforts should any of its ideas be deemed worthy of further attention.

1. System-wide Limitations

1.1 Available classrooms not large enough for needed capacity

Problem

In the questionnaire survey of the severity of various limitations to course

access, half the programs gave lack of large classrooms a rating of 5-7 on

a 7-point scale, and 5 programs rated it 7 (most severe).

Possible Remedies

There are three ways to address this limitation to course access:

a) create more mid-large classrooms;

b) lessen demand by reducing the number of mid-large classes;

c) more efficient scheduling of courses into mid-large classrooms.

Possible remedies are available in each regard.

More classrooms: The University is designing several new buildings for

the Burnaby campus, and is planning to create or take over space at each

of its other campuses. In formulating these plans, the administration

should give a high priority to the Registrar's need for more classrooms,

particularly large ones. Also important is protecting existing classroom

space from conversion to alternative uses (generally research).

June 3, 2003

Fewer large classes: Pressure on the largest classrooms would be eased

if a large course was split into two smaller classes or sections. That does

double instructor costs (unless the class is split into halves that meet at

the same time with students in one room receiving an audio-visual feed

from the instructor in the other room). However, there is a compensating

gain in smaller class size.

More efficient scheduling: The vector for most very large courses is 2

hours of lecture plus a 1-hour tutorial. The pressure on large classrooms

would be reduced if the lecture time was cut to one hour per week. A

replacement 1-hour activity could be scheduled in smaller rooms. This

would incur increased instructional costs (extra TAs, for example), but only

for a small number of courses. Since building more classrooms is

essentially impossible in the short term and challenging in the long term,

more efficient scheduling may be the most viable remedy to the shortage

of mid-large lecture rooms.

A more ambitious remedy is the radical redesign of large courses.

Acknowledging that lectures do not have to be live to be lively, this might

involve taped lectures that can be replayed where and when convenient to

small groups of students. TAs could moderate such sessions, stopping

and replaying the tape as appropriate and responding to student

questions. These small group meetings could be structured in way that

facilitated student-to-student teaching.

There are other ways of organizing large classes without needing large

classrooms. Under a unit mastery system, for example, students pace

themselves and take automated exams on each chapter of the textbook

as they feel ready. An instructor may provide a voluntary weekly lecture

and TAs offer drop-in tutorial sessions. This arrangement may seem to

have too few of what many consider essential course characteristics, but it

may be worthwhile considering it for one or two experimental versions of a

large introductory course.

Potential Recommendations

1.1.1 New building plans must give high priority to classroom space, particularly

in the mid-large range.

1.1.2 Conversion of classroom space to other uses must be resisted, and efforts

should made to create additional classrooms when current space

assignments are changed.

1.1.3 Programs with courses needing large classrooms should consider

changing the course vector to reduce demand on this space.

June 3,2003 ?

. ?

1.1.4 Incentives should be provided to encourage experimental offerings of

radically redesigned large-enrollment courses not involving large lectures.

1.2 Insufficient classrooms available at desired day and/or time

Problem

This refocuses the problem from an insufficient supply of mid-large

classrooms to a day/time preference pattern indicating avoidance of

unpopular class times (e.g., 8:30 am.) and days (e.g., Fridays). It was

rated by Departments as the

7th

most severe limitation to course access.

Possible Remedies

Since it is implausible to consider reducing overall demand on space (that

is, reducing the number of courses), the potential remedies are to increase

overall supply (create more classrooms - see Recommendations

1.1

and 1.1.2), and to flatten the day/time preference pattern through more

frequent scheduling of currently unpopular periods. Although there is

likely to be a drop-off in enrollment as a course is moved to a less popular

time, this will be less pronounced for required than elective courses.

Incentives may be needed to ensure cooperation at the program level.

The final remedy for classroom unavailability is to create courses that do

not use a classroom at all (this will be pursued below in Item 1.5 on

distance education).

Potential Recommendations

2.1.1 Scheduling of classes must make greater use of currently unpopular

times and days.

1.3 Course not at desired location (Burnaby Mountain, HC, Surrey)

Problem

As the number of SFU campuses increases, the limitations of inter-

campus travel will affect course access for an initially small but growing

number of students.

Possible Remedies

The need for inter-campus travel is largely avoided when a student's

courses in a given semester are packaged into campus-specific bundles.

However, since such 'semester-study" programs are difficult to integrate

June 3, 2003

into the highly flexible scheduling currently enjoyed by almost all students,

efforts should also be made to facilitate inter-campus travel.

Potential Recommendations

1.3.1 Program planning for the SFU-Surrey campus should include

consideration of semester-study packages that allow students to take all

courses in a given semester at one campus, thereby avoiding inter-

campus travel.

1.4 Registration Priority Number (RPN) system affects access

Problem

The RPN system may not be maximally efficient, perhaps because it fails

to give sufficient priority access to certain categories of students.

Possible Remedies

Fine-tune the RPN system to reduce any inequities. For example, the

high priority granted to first semester direct-entry students is withdrawn for

the second semester. Perhaps this elevated priority for new students

should be reduced less abruptly.

Potential Recommendations

1.4.1 The criteria used in the RPN system should be reexamined and if

necessary adjusted to improve the overall fairness and efficiency of the

system.

1.5 Too little use of other delivery systems (e.g., distance, on-line)

Problem

There is an image problem with Distance Education (DE) courses. Eleven

programs rank as their

reason for not giving more DE courses that it is

"not seen as good as face to face". A key issue is whether this perception

has a basis in reality. To the extent that it does, it will be difficult to

promote its use. But to the extent that that the perception is incorrect, the

Centre for Distance Education should work to change it.

It is misleading to characterize this as a problem with distance education.

A high proportion of DE students are in fact local students taking this type

of course for reasons other than their distance from campus (e.g. campus

section of course is full; convenience; conflicting work schedule). The

June 3, 2003

defining characteristic of this delivery mode is that it typically includes no

group face-to-face (F2F) instruction, so it is here labeled "non-F217".

Possible Remedies

Increased use of non-F2F courses is one remedy. Such courses avoid

access limitations associated with classroom availability, and they may be

less costly than F2Fcourses (although this is debatable). In addition to

their obvious value in serving students at a distance, they also offer

flexible additional capacity when F2F course sections are over-subscribed.

Potential Recommendations

1.5.1 Identify and where possible address the limitations stated by programs as

obstacles to greater use of non-F2F courses.

1.5.2 Promote non-172F course ownership by:

• increasing the supervisor's stipend;

• convincing programs that these are their courses;

• ensuring regular course updates and rewrites;

• introducing an effective program evaluation system.

•

1.5.3 Explore ways to motivate non-F2F course authorship.

1.6 Registration allowed only one semester at time

Problem

Although information about course offerings in the following two semesters

is now available to students at the time of registration, it may not be very

reliable. Some programs may be unwilling or unable to invest the effort to

ensure predictive accuracy of scheduling. Even if the information is

reliable, students may not pay much attention to it since they can register

only for the coming semester. Nonetheless, other universities manage to

allow registration for up to 3 semesters. There might be some gains in

course accessibility if we provided multi-semester scheduling information

and if we also allowed multi-semester registration.

Possible Remedies

The logical first step is to provide multi-semester scheduling information.

Thus, although summer registration would be for the Fall only, students

could be provided at that time with full scheduling information for the Fall

and Spring (and possibly Summer) semesters. That should allow them to

make better considered mid-range plans, even if they still had to register

those plans one semester at a time.

June 3, 2003

If a sufficient level of predictive accuracy could be achieved in multi-

semester scheduling, that would provide the experience and confidence

needed to move toward partial or full multi-semester registration. A partial

system might see students register in the summer for 3 semesters in

advance, with "mini-registration" opportunities in the Fall and Spring for

the following semesters. Mini-registration would allow students to

implement changes in their own plans and to respond to course

scheduling changes introduced by programs. If a sufficiently high

proportion of the students' initial registration decisions went unchanged,

there would be an incentive to move to a full system of multi-semester

registration.

Potential Recommendations

1.6.1 Once the Registrar gains sufficient experience with AdAstra, the

scheduling software program, Departments should be asked to provide

sufficiently reliable information to allow multi-semester scheduling.

1.6.2 Students should be asked in the summer registration to state their course

selection plans for the following year, both to aid in fine-tuning capacity

distribution, and depending on the predictive accuracy of scheduling

information, to pave the way for multi-semester registration.

1.7

Registration

system allows

irregular timetabling patterns

We have several regular scheduling practices: e.g., starting classes on the

half-hour; science lectures run for one hour each Monday, Wednesday

and Friday; 50-minute periods. The AdAstra software allows us to model

variations from these practices. For any given set of courses and vectors,

there are doubtless differences in scheduling efficiency according to the

particular practices employed.

A serious impediment to implementing scheduling changes in the near

future is the impending introduction of the new SIMS. The administration

will doubtless wish to limit the changes in business practices at that time

to those that are required by the move to the PeopleSoft system. It is

likely that implementation of any recommendations we make will be

deferred until we have cleared the SIMS hurdle.

1.8

Implementation of W- I Q- I B-course requirements

Problem

At best, the introduction of the Writing

Quantitative

Breadth course

requirements will be neutral in terms of enrolment patterns. That is,

enough courses will be given those designations that students will have to

June 3, 2003

• ?

make few if any changes to their "normal" course selections in order to

satisfy the requirements. At worst, however, establishing these

requirements (expected in 06-3) could create severe access bottlenecks.

Whether it is a significant number of science students looking for breadth

courses in the humanities, or a sizeable group of Arts students looking for

breadth courses in Science, the changes could be quite disruptive if they

are not anticipated and accommodated.

Possible Remedies

The proposed future Ad Hoc Steering Committee, recommended by the

CATF, should consult with and advise the UCC Implementation Task

Force with respect to potential access limitations created by the

introduction of W- / Q- / B-course requirements.

Faculty-level Limitations

2.1

Inadequate number of base-budgeted continuing instructors

Problem

. ?

Continuing faculty (CFL tenure-track, lecturers and Lab Instructors)

provide only 2/3 of all course instruction across the University, with the

balance accounted for by short-term appointees (mostly sessional

instructors and some limited term faculty). Although many Sis are

excellent teachers, they cannot - as a group - match continuing faculty in

respect to such pedagogically important attributes as active research

involvement, experience, continuity, and, for graduating students, the

capacity to provide references.

Possible Remedies

The single best way to improve course access is to provide more

instructors, and the best type of instructor is a continuing faculty member.

This is also the most expensive remedy, but there are encouraging recent

signs that the administration can and will commit funds for net new CFL

appointments. In some cases, this is closely tied to increased demand

(student FTE5), as with Access and Doubling the Opportunity funding and

one component of revenues from international student tuition fees. The

commitment in the 03/04 budget to reducing the FTE/CFL ratio, and the

application of a significant portion of international student tuition fees to

improving access, should make a substantial difference. These focused

actions to address course access limitations should have lasting effects.

June 3, 2003

Potential Recommendations

2.1.1 The University should maintain its commitment to reducing the

student:faculty ratio and supplying the base-budgeted resources needed

to improve course

access.

2.2 Insufficient budget for short-term instructors

Problem

In one sense we have too many SIs, as argued in the previous section. In

another sense, judging by departmental responses on the questionnaire,

we have too few. Thus, lack of SI funding was rated by programs as the

second most severe limitation on course access.

Possible Remedies

Of course, everyone would prefer to fill teaching needs with continuing

faculty than with short-term instructors. However, even if we improve our

continuing instructor course coverage from 2/3 to 3/4 or better, we will still

need Sis. The good news is that as the number of CFL positions

increases, so will the CFL salary fall-out that is the principal source of SI

funding.

Programs lose instructional capacity every time a faculty member is on

leave or is provided with a teaching release in return for administrative

contributions. It may be overly optimistic to expect that Faculties will be

able to fund full teaching replacement with short-term appointments, but

they can be expected to improve on current replacement rates.

Potential Recommendations

2.2.1. Faculties should supply their programs with sufficient resources to cover

an increased proportion of "lost" instruction, preferably by continuing

faculty and if not by short-term teaching appointments.

2.3 Insufficient budget for teaching assistants

Problem

Course-full-turnaway figures show that our most acute access problems

are in lower division lecture/tutorial courses. TA allocations to programs

are such a powerful constraint on course capacity that this was identified

in questionnaire responses as the most severe limitation to course access.

June 3, 2003

• ?

Possible Remedies

At one level, the remedy is simple - increase funding for TAs. However, it

should be noted that such a move, other things equal, will tend to increase

the FTE/CFL ratio, which is contrary to the Administration's goal. That

does not mean that TA funding should not increase, but it highlights the

importance of assessing the access improvement recommendations in

this report collectively rather than in isolation. A second concern is the

availability of TAs. In some programs this is already a major issue, with

1/3

or more of their TAs being external.

Potential Recommendations

2.3.1 The Administration should increase TA funding so that more

tutorials can be opened in those courses experiencing the highest levels

of course-full-turnaway.

3. Program Limitations

3.1 Hard to attract qualified short-term instructors

Problem

This limitation was rated as the 4' most severe on the departmental

survey. It is unlikely that this simply reflects a diminished supply of

qualified individuals. More plausibly, the levels of remuneration for

sessional instructors are becoming increasingly non-competitive.

Possible Remedies

One readily available but not always considered source of supply is PhD

students near the end of their program. Some programs regularly employ

these students as Sis, while others do not. In conjunction with the

Learning and Instructional Development Centre, the Dean of Graduate

Studies has developed a Certificate Program in University Teaching and

Learning. This will provide instructional training for PhD students

contemplating a career that includes teaching. There is always a concern

with graduate students that an increased involvement in teaching might

unduly slow their research progress. But if it is successful, the Certificate

Program will increase the supply of well-qualified short-term instructors

and will make appointment of these students as Sis a more attractive

prospect both to PhD students and to Departments.

Increasing the levels of remuneration for Sls is a challenge. Even if

achieved, the financial climate is such that improvements in pay would be

modest at best, and it is debatable whether such small changes would

June 3, 2003

have any appreciable effect on the attractiveness of the job to potential

Sis. A more effective strategy may be to package the short-term

instructional positions in ways that make them more desirable. For

example, more use could be made of limited term lectureships, particularly

in larger Departments that have more courses that need covering and are

have greater flexibility in creating course packages. A full-load lecturer

has a nominal teaching load twice that of a tenure-track faculty member,

or 5-8 courses depending on the Faculty (actual loads are generally

somewhat lower than nominal loads). However, it is possible to create a

partial-load lectureship where, for example, a Department has 4 courses

needing coverage over two semesters that lie within a single person's

range of teaching competence. The per-course cost of such appointments

is a little more than the sessional rate, but the instructional package may

be significantly more attractive than if the program attempts to cover the

courses with four different Sls.

Potential Recommendations

3.1.1 The Dean of Graduate Studies is encouraged to promote the recently

established Certificate Program in University Teaching and Learning for

PhD students.

3.1.2 Faculties and Programs should more actively consider bundling individual

sessional instructor positions to allow for full-load and partial-load limited

term lecturer appointments.

3.2 Not enough qualified teaching assistants

Problem

Although some programs have many qualified graduate students applying

for each TA position, a few Departments must rely on a sizeable number

of external applicants to fill all of their TA positions. This challenge is

made more difficult as more graduate students win scholarships and

fellowships or secure employment as RAs, all laudable achievements.

Possible Remedies

Departments that have more TAships than graduate student applicants

need to tap other populations. Four pools of potential TA candidates are:

honours undergraduates

graduates taking a year off before entering graduate school

graduates in cognate Departments

qualified individuals in the broader community.

June 3,2003 ?

• ?

Potential

Recommendations ?

[None]

3.3 Program curriculum requirements are

too

complex

3.4 Course prerequisite structure

too

restrictive

Problem

The more complex the requirements for a credential, the more problems

students seeking this credential will have accessing the courses they need

when they need them. Individual program regulations must vary in the

degree to which they are warranted on pedagogic or scholarly grounds.

Whereas some are clearly essential, others may simply be desirable, and

it is likely that a small number of program requirements can be justified

only as weak preferences. For example, when a new course is proposed

one consideration is whether it should have prerequisites. In answering

that question, little if any weight may have been given to the downside

argument that prerequisites limit course access. It is noteworthy when

Departments appreciate that unnecessary regulations present a problem

for their students and take appropriate action. This happened recently in

the Department of Political Science, when it changed most of the varied

•

and complex prerequisites for its upper division courses to a simple two-

category set (6/8 lower division credits or permission of the Department for

300/400-level courses).

Possible Remedies

Programs should be encouraged to review the regulations for their

credentials, and consider whether they could be simplified in order to

improve student access to courses. No-one would expect any lowering of

academic standards, but some regulations with only weak or outdated

justification might be identified and eliminated.

Potential Recommendations

3.4.1 All programs should review the regulations for their undergraduate

credentials and eliminate those with weak or outdated justification.

3.5 Too many course contact hours given the number of course credits

Problem

For most courses, contact hours and credit hours match. But in a few

cases the scheduled classroom and laboratory hours exceed the number

June 3, 2003

of credits for the course. The justification for the excess hours may be too

weak to warrant the additional scheduling and instructional costs.

Possible Remedies

Where appropriate, reduce contact hours to - but not below - credit hours.

Potential Recommendations

3.5.1 When the classroom/laboratory hours for a course exceed the credit

hours, the program should consider whether the extra scheduling and

instructional costs are warranted.

3.6 Discipline coverage fragmented into too many courses

Problem

The issue here is how thinly a disciplinary domain should be sliced? If a

Department requires its majors to take a minimum of 40 credits, say, in the

discipline, what is the optimum number of courses credits it should have

on offer? There can be no simple answer to this question, since it must

depend on such factors as the depth and breadth of the discipline as well

as on the Department's capacity to offer each of its courses at least once

offer in the calendar

of required credits; another program has fewer than 5 times the minimum.

One factor that contributes to course proliferation is the so-called "ratchet

effect." This describes the splitting of courses as professors seek to cover

their areas of expertise in more depth, a process that rarely seems to be

reversed.

Possible Remedies

An indicator that a Department may have too many course credits on offer

is regular difficulty in scheduling all of its courses with at least the

minimum frequency (the Registrar annually lists all courses that have not

been scheduled in the previous six semesters, and SCUS asks

Departments to drop these courses or justify maintaining them).

Departments whose courses appear frequently on this list should be

asked to consider aggregating some of their courses or in some other way

reducing the number of credits it has on offer.

June 3, 2003 ?

. ?

Potential Recommendations

3.6.1 Departments having difficulty scheduling all of their courses with adequate

frequency should consider aggregating courses or in some other way

reducing the total number of course credits on offer in the calendar.

3.7 Some courses offered too infrequently

[See comments in 3.6 above.]

3.8 Insufficient advance notice of semesterly course schedule

[See comments in 1.6 above]

3.9 Program's course offerings does not match student demand

Problem

Many Departments experience a total enrolment demand that exceeds

their instructional supply. The obvious remedy for this problem is to

increase the Department's instructional resources. There is a different

aspect of this general problem that needs addressing, and that is the

• ?

mismatch between the supply/demand patterns. When a Department

opens 100 seats in each of two courses, but receives 150 enrolment

attempts for I course and 50 for the other, it has sufficient capacity but is

allocating it in a way that does not match the pattern of student demand.

Possible Remedies

If the pattern of student demand can be predicted (and that is a big "if"),

Departments could try harder to ensure that their allocation of capacity

matches the predicted pattern as closely as possible. Even if this simply

stated goal is accepted, however, the obstacles to achieving it are

formidable in most Departments. They include many of the items in this

access limitation list, but the most severe problems are likely to be

associated with faculty teaching preferences, course enrolment caps,

classroom unavailability, and academic paternalism.

Potential Recommendations

3.9.1 When scheduling courses and distributing instructional capacity across

those courses, Departments should review the history of demand for its

courses, and should strive to match its course selection and capacity

allocation to the predicted pattern of student demand.

June 3, 2003

3.10 Enrolment caps limit capacity in high demand courses

Problem

Some enrolment caps are physically based (e.g., on classroom capacity,

or on fire marshal regulations). Others caps are pedagogically based,

perhaps on the argument that the quality of instruction would drop to an

unacceptably low level if the class size was any greater, or that no more

students could be accommodated without changing the assessment

system (from essay to multiple choice exams, for example). Finally, all

programs in which aggregate course demand is greater than total

instructional capacity must engage in what amounts to course capping.

Possible Remedies

Almost all Departments are faced with decisions on whether and how to

cap course enrolments (the maximum size of a seminar course is probably

the most common). They come to different conclusions, with some

programs showing a much greater willingness than others to absorb

demand by increasing course size (the student/faculty ratio varies across

programs from less than 10:1 to nearly 50:1). Undoubtedly access

problems would diminish if Departments could be persuaded to raise or

eliminate enrolment caps. However, there is no way to avoid construing

such a move as a pedagogic threat. It may be a minor threat (when, for

example, allowing 20 more students into a lecture course of 100 students),

but it is unlikely to be seen as negligible.

Departments that have responded to demand pressures by allowing

course size to increase are particularly concerned that they will suffer

double jeopardy if access remedies are based on the course-full-turnaway

(CFT) index. CFT is an imperfect but useful measure of demand/supply

imbalance, but it would be unfair to base remedies solely on variation of

this index since some of that variation reflects differential willingness to

accept large classes. The most willing Departments will tend to have

higher student/faculty ratios, so a fair application of remedies must take

both the CFT and. student/faculty indexes into account.

Potential Recommendations

3.10.1 When allocating additional resources to alleviate enrolment pressures, the

administration and departmentalized Faculties should consider statistics

on both course-full-turnaways and student/faculty ratios.

June 3,2003 ?

3.11 Program has too many course seats reserved for its own students

Problem

Students need to find room in courses in their own program as well as in

courses in other programs. When capacity is limited, Departments are

challenged to accommodate both demands in a fair manner. A program's

primary interest in meeting the needs of its majors and honours may lead

it to reserve a significant proportion of its course places for its own

students. However, all Departments share a common responsibility to

provide access to majors and honours from other Departments. This is a

greater problem at the upper than lower division, and it is likely to be

exacerbated when the new breadth regulations are implemented.

Possible Remedies

In general, Departments should allow reasonable upper division course

access to students from other programs. In particular, Departments

should consider mounting one or more 300-level courses with few if any

prerequisites that would be open to non-majors only. The absence of

prerequisites would put such courses within reach of most students, while

the content and presentation would be appropriate for the upper division.

Potential Recommendations

3.11.1

When reserving course spaces for their own students, Departments

should allow reasonable access for students from other programs.

3.11.2 Departments are encouraged to mount upper division courses for non-

majors that have few if any prerequisites.

3.12

Upper division students from other programs have too little access

[See comments in 3.11 above.]

3.13 Late cancellation of whole course or of tutorial/lab section

[This is a system error that should be avoided.]

3.14

Poor coordination of course scheduling across programs

Problem

When one set of program requirements mesh with that of another

program, it makes eminent sense for the two programs to consult closely

June 3, 2003

when scheduling courses. This is done to some extent, but it may not be

done as frequently and as fully as it should be.

Possible Remedies

It is possible that the new AdAstra scheduling system will make it easier

for such consultation to occur.

Potential Recommendations

3.14.1 Programs with interlocking or interacting program requirements should

consult when scheduling so as to avoid course overlap.

3.15 Insufficient use of summer semester

Problem

Over the last 5 years, the proportion of FTE enrolments that fall in the

Summer semester has held steady at about 20% (the remaining 80% is

fairly evenly split between the Fall and Spring semesters). The

underutilization of facilities in the Summer suggests an obvious remedy for

the course access problems that surface mainly in the other semesters.

When asked why they did not schedule more summer courses,

Departments identified one major obstacle - unavailability of continuing

instructors. Although chairs have the responsibility of assigning teaching

loads, which includes specifying the semesters in which colleagues teach,

in reality faculty members can usually beg off summer teaching if they

wish to, and most do.

Possible Remedies

Chairs regularly use a range of "sticks and carrots" in establishing their

course schedules. However, casual feedback suggests that increasing

course capacity in the summer has not been high on their priority lists. A

number of chairs have suggested that the importance of making best use

of scarce instructional resources is a deterrent to scheduling courses in

the summer when enrolments are lower. The counter is that this becomes

a self-fulfilling prophecy if lower summer enrolments are the result of

reduced course capacity. It is notable that summer semester usage varies

widely across programs.

Potential Recommendations

3.15.1 Departments are encouraged to increase summer semester course

offerings, thus reducing demand on facilities in the Fall and Spring.

June 3, 2003

4. ?

Instructor Limitations

4.1 Continuing instructor prefers to teach small classes in own area

Problem

It is not cynical to suggest that the typical faculty member prefers smaller

courses to larger courses, graduate to undergraduate courses, and upper

to lower division courses. This is not based on workload considerations,

but rather on intellectual stimulation, and on the relationship of the

teaching to the faculty member's own research. These preferences make

it challenging for Chairs to ensure proper coverage, particularly for larger,

lower division courses. To the extent that this core teaching is seen as

chore teaching and is left primarily to non-continuing faculty members, we

are not serving our students' best interests.

Possible Remedies

It might be possible to establish a general expectation (if not a regulation)

that every faculty member contributed his/her fair share to the teaching at

all levels of the curriculum. However, such general expectations that are

unevenly applied lack force. Moreover, the equal shares principle ignores

Ol ?

the fact that some faculty members are better suited than others for

teaching at a particular level. As with persuading faculty to teach in the

summer semester occasionally, it may be best left to Chairs to ensure

reasonable contributions from continuing faculty at all levels of the

curriculum. In the long term, the problem would be eased if new faculty

members had appropriate expectations in this regard. If discussions of

teaching plans with new faculty members led them to expect to teach a

lower division course on a regular if infrequent basis, that outcome would

be more easily achieved.

Potential Recommendations

4.1.1 Chairs should inculcate the expectation among continuing faculty

members (especially at the time of appointment) that they share the

responsibility for teaching lower division courses.

4.2 Continuing instructor prefers to teach graduate courses

[See comments in

4.1

above.]

4.3 ?

Continuing instructors limit availability to certain times/days

June 32003

Problem

Although Departments claim that faculty semester preferences are a

significant deterrent to summer teaching, they give faculty time/day

preferences a low rating as a course accessibility limitation. Perhaps it is

a myth that many faculty members will not teach on Mondays/Fridays, or

before 10 or after 4. If that is a myth, then it should not be difficult to

persuade continuing faculty members to extend their teaching availability

over the full range of times and days.

Possible Remedies

As with scheduling more courses in the summer, an argument for avoiding

unpopular times/days is that enrolments will suffer. Certainly, if the choice

is between mounting a course when it will attract an enrolment of 100

versus only 50, the answer is obvious. But that is not the choice when the

popular slots are all filled. Then the issue is whether to put on the course

at an unpopular time if not at all. Framed that way, the best decision will

often be to offer the course even at the unpopular time even if enrolment

is modest.

Potential Recommendations

[See Recommendation 5.2.1 below.]

4.4 Course releases reduce availability of continuing instructors

Problem

Whenever a faculty member is approached to take on an administrative

task seen as onerous - chairing a committee, for example - they ask for a

teaching reduction. Greater than usual research involvement is also now

heard more often as an argument for reduced teaching. Each time such a

reduction is granted, the teaching program suffers; access is reduced or a

continuing instructor is replaced by a short-term one. Moreover, it

buttresses the growing impression that teaching is a chore rather than one

of the two core activities in which faculty members are expected to

engage.

Possible Remedies

It may be too difficult to wind back the clock and withhold teaching

reductions where previously they were granted. However, Deans should

be vigilant in ensuring that approval of such reductions is reasonable and

fair.

June 3, 2003

Potential Recommendations

4.4.1 Deans should ensure that teaching reductions are fairly distributed and

are approved only when warranted by excessive demands in other areas.

5. Student Limitations

5.1 Students insufficiently flexible in choosing electives

Problem

The greater the number of possible course combinations from which

students must choose when registering, the harder it is to satisfy them - to

give them access to their first choice set of courses. When the number of

combinations becomes very large, it is difficult to predict demand with the

specificity and accuracy needed for optimal course scheduling and

capacity allocation. However, it may well be the case that the student

would be well satisfied with not just their first choice but also course sets

representing Choice #2, #3, #4, and so on. What students likely care

about most is that they get into any required courses and that they get into

their desired number of courses. Problems with either become more than

mere inconveniences if they slow down a student's progress and increase

• ?

their time to program completion by a semester or more.

Possible Remedies

Current registration procedures do not make it easy for a student to

determine which of their top course sets are available. The new SIMS,

however, identifies capacity in real time, allowing students to quickly

separate accessible from non-accessible course sets.

It is probably not feasible to countenance broadening student decisions

about what is acceptable as a replacement elective when they encounter

a full course. It makes more sense to invest efforts into reducing the

likelihood that the courses they check first will be full. That said, there is

one way in which their course set preference could be shaped, particularly

for new direct entry students. That is to give preferential access to pre-

identified sets of courses.

It might be attractive to students if several exemplary course sets were

identified at registration time. They would be chosen to be of the right size

(12 or 15 credits, say), to have a coordinated lecture schedule within each

set, and to provide enhanced likelihood of access (through extra capacity,

1101 ?

package).

perhaps a bonus added to the RPN of a student who chooses such a

package). The component courses would change each semester so that

June 3, 2003

no Department was systematically favoured over the long run. The

reasons for thinking that these pre-packaged course sets might be

attractive are those listed above.

Potential Recommendations

5.1.1 The administration should monitor the proportion of students who fail to

whether improvements designed to enhance access improve this key

accessibility measure.

5.1.2 Consideration should be given to an experimental offering of pre-identified

course packages that would be attractive options for students who wanted

to simplify the registration process.

5.2 Students' availability limited to certain times/days

Problem

Just as popular wisdom lays some of the blame for the avoidance of

courses scheduled for unpopular times/days at the feet of faculty

members, so also are students given some of the blame.

Possible Remedies

It is reasonable to expect that if students can get the courses they want

but only at a less popular time, a significant number will choose to do so

rather than not taking the course at all. Students will not take courses at

unpopular times, so few courses are scheduled then. But because few

courses are scheduled then, enrolments at those days/times are modest.

The way to break the bind is to add more courses at unpopular days/times

(and in the evening and summer semester) without shifting courses away

from the scheduling mainstream. By using added resources rather than

moving existing ones, Departments would be less likely to feel that their

enrolments are being jeopardized. And gradually, students and instructors

would get used to this extension of scheduling parameters and what was

once unpopular would become less so.

Potential Recommendations

5.2.1 Extra instructional resources should be provided to Departments to induce

them to put on additional courses in less popular parts of the schedule

(e.g., 8:30 - 9:30, evening, Friday, summer semester).

June 3, 2003

Cl'

•

5.3 Course duplication reduces access to first-time enrollees

[This is a minor problem that will become even less important as the steps

taken to improve course accessibility take effect.]

June 3, 2003 ?