For Information
?
S.94-7
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
40.
?
OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC
MEMORANDUM
To: Senate ?
From: ?
J.M. Munro
Vice-Prsident, Academic
Re: Report of the Senate Committee on
?
Date: ?
November 9, 1993
Instructional Methods and
Organization
SCAP received the report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods
and Organization in June, 1993, and circulated it to the departments of the
University for review and comment for the period July-September 1993.
SCAP has started its review of the report's 32 recommendations and we
expect to continue the consideration of the report over the next two meetings.
However, SCAP was aware that the report would be of interest to Senate as a
whole, and the following motion was approved:
"That SCAP accept the report of the Senate Committee on Instructional
Methods and Organization and forward it to Senate for information."
All
C.
?
SCAP members
11
I
I,
I
I
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
I
b
I
I
I
?
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS
AND ORGANIZATION
I
I
I
I
I
June 30,
1993
I
I
I
I
'
?
REPORT OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS AND ORGANIZATION
I ?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I
I ?
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
?
1
I
II
BACKGROUND
?
3
ifi
ENROLLMENT INCREASES
?
4
I
i. ?
History
?
4
2. ?
Costs and Benefits of Enrollment
?
7
3.1 Costs of Enrollment Increases -Inadequate Operating Funding
?
7
I ?
3.2 Costs of Enrollment Increases - Lack of Capital Expansion
?
8
3.3
?
Costs of Enrollment Increases - The Unpredictable Nature of
?
8
Enrollment
I
?
4.1 Benefits of Enrollment Increases - Impact on Revenue
?
8
4.2 ?
Benefits of Enrollment Increases - Capital Expansion
?
8
4.3 ?
Benefits of Enrollment Increases - Responding to the Public
?
8
and Government
I
.
5.
Recent Enrollment Management Strategies
9
6.
Future Directions for Enrollment Management
9
b
7.
Course Planning
10
IV ?
THE
ROLE OF TEACHING IN THE UNIVERSITY
11
?
I
i. ?
The Importance of Teaching in the University
?
11
2.
The Interaction Between Teaching and Research
?
11
3.
The Evaluation of Teaching
?
12
1
4.
Teaching and Faculty Evaluation
14
5.
Enhancing the Quality of Teaching
14
6.
Accountability in Instruction
15
I
V ?
THE
ORGANIZATION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
16
1.
Issues of Course Size
16
I
2.
Learning Environment
20
3.
The Tutorial System
21
I
4.
Instructional Technology
?
.
24
VI ?
TEACHING ASSIGNMENTS
26
I
i.
Measuring and Assigning Teaching
26
VII ?
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEACHING PROGRAM
27
I
i.
The Trimester System
27
2.
Evening Courses
29
'
3.
Advance Registration
30
31
VIII ?
ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES
I
I
'
I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization has
undertaken an extensive review of instruction at Simon Fraser University.
I
It completed a survey which provided a great deal of new useful
information. A continuation of the survey would provide further
information and bench marks against which some indicators of success
I
could be measured.
Instructional methods and organization are part of a complex network of
I
departmental and disciplinary pedagogies entwined with University
standards. There is no quick formula for enhancing instructional methods
and organization at Simon Fraser University. However, we believe that we
I
have identified some areas through which improvements can be made.
The cumulative effect of several modifications of current practice would,
the Committee believes, contribute to increased instructional
I
effectiveness.
The Committee's recommendations span the following areas:
1 ?
1. ?
The elimination of unnecessarily small classes; the present
range of class sizes is neither academically justified nor
considered desirable by students. This range is not sustainable
I
within present and expected financial constraints.
2. ?
The rigorous and consistent application of existing policies on
b
??
faculty workload across
all
academic units; the present range of
teaching workloads is inequitable and unacceptably costly.
I ?
3. ?
The improved planning of course offerings and the provision of
advance registration to allow students to register early and
improve access to the courses they need, when and in the
I
?
sequence in which they need them. This would alleviate a
major frustration for students.
I
?
4. ?
Further examination of the potential for improving and
?
extending the use of educational technology.
I
5. The provision of more opportunities for instructional staff
(faculty and teaching support staff) to receive constructive
feedback on their teaching practices in a supportive, collegial
icontext.
6. ?
The orderly management of enrollment increases. This will
I
require a co-ordinated effort at the Departmental, Faculty and
University levels in establishing targets and controlling
admission to programs.
1 ?
7. The continued review of standards and measures which
address accountability to government, the public and students
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page 1
of the use of University resources. Re-establishment of the
annual reporting of the University's activities is recommended.
Together, these thrusts would have a considerable impact on the
effectiveness and efficiency of instruction at Simon Fraser University and
would place the University in an advantageous position for the changing
educational environment of the next ten years.
Page 2 ?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30, 1993
I
'
II BACKGROUND
The Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
I
(SCIMO) was established by action of Senate at its meeting of March 2, 1992. Its
terms of reference and membership are attached as Appendix A. The
Committee was elected at the Senate meeting of April 6, 1992. The rationale
for SCIMO is set out in the President's memorandum to Senate.
"It is timely that there be a comprehensive examination of the
University'sinstructional system. We have experienced major
and unpredicted increases in enrollment. The pressures of this
growth led to the establishment of the Task Force on the Quality
I
of Service in 1990. More recently, the AUCC's Smith Report
(1991) has noted many concerns over the approach to
instruction in all universities.
I
These concerns are set in an extended period in which
increases in funding are falling well short of increases in costs.
I
For us; this situation may worsen in the next three years.
Further, pressures on the University to continue to grow will be
strong and, perhaps, irresistible. Funding will increasingly be
I
tied to the level of enrollment, especially undergraduate
enrollment. Therefore, growth can be expected to bring
increases in resources; these could exceed the direct costs
b
associated with growth, but only if we can introduce ways of
operating the University which reduce the per student cost of
instruction. If we cannot do this, the downward pressures on
salary levels, infrastructure, and non-salary budgets will become
I' ?
ever stronger."
In carrying out its mandate, SCIMO has met many times and has consulted
with various groups, including the Faculty Association, the Teaching Support
Staff Union (TSSU), and the' Deans. In March 1993, a draft report was issued
for the purpose of consulting further with the community. The Committee held
two public meetings to receive advice and comments, and received 25 written
responses from individuals and groups. Committee members have read a
considerable amount of information relevant to our terms of reference and have
I
obtained opinion from the general student body through a questionnaire ("the
SCIMO
Survey") distributed to a sample of 1,000 undergraduate students.
Information on this survey is presented in Appendix B.
I
While some aspects of this report will apply to both graduate and
undergraduate instruction at the University, the primary focus of this report is
I
instructional methods and organization affecting our undergraduate programs.
I
P
July 8, 1993 ?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page 3
III ENROLLMENT INCREASES
1.
History
The University's enrollment increase from 1965 to the present is shown
on Table 1 and Charts 1 and 2. Over the six years between 1986/87 and
1992/93, we have added 3335 undergraduate FTIs and 627 graduate
FIEs, increases of 38 percent and 58 percent, respectively. Growth over
this period has been spread fairly evenly across the Faculties, but not
across Departments. Moreover, the pattern of growth from semester to
semester has been erratic, ranging from a
15.2
percent year-over-year
increase in 91-2 to a 4.3 percent decrease in 92-2. Fall semester changes
have ranged from increases of 10.8 percent in 89-3 and 91-3 (not
planned) to a decrease of 0.1 percent in 92-3 (planned).
The President's strategic plan, Challenge 2001 1 , projected enrollment
growth for the 1990's as shown on Table 2. The growth of the University
has been slower than projected in Challenge 2001 because the funding
assumptions upon
which
Challenge 2001 was based have not been
realized. It appears that the proposed Fraser Valley university will not be
opened before 1997 (and perhaps not then) and so the pressure for
enrollment at Simon Fraser could be even greater than projected in the
plan. Also, recent information suggests that population in the Lower
Mainland is growing more rapidly than expected at the time the
projections were done for Challenge 2001.
Table 2
Annualized FTE Enrollment: 1990/91 - 2000/2001
1990/91
1992/93
1995/96
2000/01
actual
actual
prolected
proJected
Undergraduate, Burnaby Mountain and other ?
11,250
11,693
14,000
15,000
Undergraduate, Harbour Centre
? 487
526
1,000
2,000
Graduate (all locations) ?
1.403
1.720
2.000
3.000
13,140
13,939
17,000
20,000
2.
Costs and Benefits of Enrollment Increases
This section presents a summary of the perceived effects of recent
enrollment increases on the University. It should be noted that a
University-level perspective necessarily omits many costs and benefits
experienced at the program level. Also, enrollment increases have had
intangible effects on the University. For example, some believe that
Simon Fraser University has lost important social qualities by becoming a
larger and inevitably less collegial institution.
Simon Fraser University Challenge 2001: The President's Strategic Plan. February 21.
1991,
pp
31-32.
Page 4
?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization ?
July 8, 1993
Chart I
2.500
2,000
1,500
1,000
Full-Time Equivalent
500
0 ?
T'
I
I ?
I
I
I
co
CD
0
N
V
CO
co
0
N
V
CO
co
0
N
CD
CD
F-.
F-
F-
F-
F-
CO
CO
CO
CO
co
0)
C) ?
C)
10
F-.
C)
—
C')
U)
F-
C)
.-
C')
U)
N.
C)
-.
.- ?
C')
CO
CO
CO
F-
F--
F--
N.
Fiscal
F,
Year
CD
CD
CD
co
co
0) ?
0)
Chart 2
Under g
raduate Student Enrollment Growth At Simon Fraser University
20,000
T
18,000
----- - --------------------------------------
-
- ---------
?
6,000 ?
Full-Time Equiv
2,000
T
?
0
?
I ?
;
?
CO
?
GO ?
0 ?
C.1 ?
V ?
CO ?
CO ?
0 ?
01
?
V
?
CD ?
co ?
0 ?
N
?
CO ?
CO ?
-. ?
i- ?
F- ?
F- ?
F-. ?
CO
?
CO
?
CO
?
CO
?
co
?
CD
?
0) ?
C)
?
In ?
F-
?
CD ?
. ?
C') ?
U) ?
P. ?
CD
?
.- ?
C') ?
CO ?
F-.
?
0) ?
- ?
C')
?
CO ?
CD ?
CO
?
I-. ?
PS
?
F-
?
F- ?
F- ?
CD ?
CD ?
co ?
co ?
CD ?
C) ?
0)
FIscal Year
Office of MaytcaZ S1udes. Novenber. 1992
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page 5
Table I
_Io
'-T1
C') C (CC') C','C') ?
U) 'C CO C 1 4
?
'C 'C CO Q) C'4 co
,
C) Go C), C') 0 U) C')
C)WC
Q
.-O
C
u
o
cJC,)(',.-
<I
...
CO ?
U,.
It
C) C) ?
C) ?
C) N- N to — ?
C)
N- CO:CO C)C) C) C
'C.
U,
CC U)
L ?
(C co (C CO
C) C) C) C) C)
?
C)
?
4 C) C) C) C) ?
U)
CO
N
I".
N-
CM CC)
U) N
C)
CL)
'C ?
co
(C
'C
C) L)
C)
N-
C) (C C
C) C')',)
CU U) C) 'C
CC
C') N -
?
CU ?
C)
(C)
N-
C)
'C C)
C) C)
C)
C) C) 'C ?
I)CU —
'C
N
ci)
<
C')'CC) ?
C)C)C')CJ'CN-Lt)
)
C)C)C)U)U)
C(Or-r-NN
C,
N- ?
It)
C) (C CO co r-
'C
co , C)
C) C) C) C) C) C) N- C) —
(C0 -
LO
CO C)
C)
U)
C) 'C
U) ?
.
?
C) (C N- - ?
C) CO CO C) CO C) (C) cC) C) N-
C)
C N
C)
C)
•CO
C)
E
'C
CM
0 N
CL)
(0 ?
C) C) ' ?
C) C) -
C
O C) C) C) ?
C) C) (C ?
N
C)
'C)
C)
C)
vi
- ?
'CU)U)'C'L(C(C(CUCcD(C(C(Cr-.N-(C(CN-NC)C)C)C)
—
0
C)
-
I-
0
(C
N
C. cC)
?
C) C)
C)
C)
C) C) C) C) '-
'C
C) (C) 'C N- C) 'C <0 0 C) (C
'C
C(CCoN-OC)C)'CN-,C)C)(C)(CC)C)(CC)C)'CL)O,'C.00,)C)N
C)
I-
OD CU 'C CO N. N- N- C) C) C) C) C) C)
?
C) C)
C) 'C (C C) C) C)
LU
(0 N. C) -.
Z
C'4
?
CM
•0)
C)
O
-
N
'C 'C
CU
If) C
C) (0 co o U)
C)
U) U) N-
N- C)
C) 'C CU C') CO 0
N- N
(C C) N' C') LU
C) (D N- C- C)
C) COC, C') C') CO
I--
(C U)
C,
CO
-
0
.
• ?
N CU C')
C) C') C') 'C 'C
C) C) C') C) C') C') N N C') C')
a E
CL
11.1
I-
((C to
C)'
- 0
'C CO C)
'C N- C) (C "C C) C) (C) C) 'C N- 'C C) CO 'C
C) C) N
U)
U)
C)
C) C') C)
'C C) C) '-
(C C) CU
(C 'C C) C) C) (C) (C (C
?
(0 CD N N
CD
C) 'C
C) N- N. N.
?
N-
N- ?
N- ? C) ?
C) ?
04 C) - CO
C)
.
?
CC
Ui
rL ?
CD
Cl)
0
'
C)
?
0 0 .-
'C (C CC (C, V
?
N- CU
C)
CO
C)
CO CO CO
'-
?
'C
C)
C) '-
C)
C)
C CU 0 N CO
,
0
U)
C) (C C) V) CC 'C C) (C0'CO
(C C)
?
- 0 C) C)7) C) C')
U-
I—
.
o v
N- cC).- CM It) U)
(C
'C (C C) CO C) ?
C)
N 0 C') (CO
'C ?
CO CC (C
U-
)CsJ
C C ?
CCC')
N C')C'J
C) 'C 0) 'C C') CU.- CU CO C) LO CU U) C)
. C'J co 'C
0.
CO
in Ln
C) C')
'C C')
'C Coll,'C Q'C
N ?
C') ?
C) C-. N-
?
"r, LO C) 0 C) —C') .-
E
CU <'-C
C) CO CO
'C 'C 'C 'C
LO
Cl) LU
LO
U) CO N- )U. p...
0
o
U
'C
C'J
C)
C)
?
C) CO CD C) C CO C) ?
CO
C')
C) 'C CO
CO,C) CO
? r'- C') l" ? N- CD
'C p...
- ?
0
'C N .- N- C) 'C
?
C) 0 0 C)
N 0
C) 'C ?
LO -
U) CO 0 '- CD
•
'C 'C 'C ?
CO- C')
'C 'C U) If)
(C (C U) (C) (CU) CC (C
(C (C (C (C N- N- N- C)
coCO
CC ?
IL) ?
CO
UC)
S5 E
CO
. ?
I
0 Z
C')
'-
'C
'C
C)
'C
C
- -
CO
CC
.-
'CD
'- 0 CD
-
?
-C)
C)
?
'C
10,10
C) CU ?
U) N-
C) C)
C)
C)
N- C)
'C
C)
'- C)
N- CO
'C
?
(C C)
C)
Co 'C
U)
-
-Q
LO
C) ?
UC)C'(O0
(CC)C)C)CC)
?
CUO)
x
'
t o 00
(C
COC) (C CO(0
N-
' ?
C) 0) 0 '- ?
'--'-'--'-----'----'-
- ?
C)
C) 'C (C (C) (C (C (C N- C)
?
C)C'JN
0 -
?
0
CD Z
C C) N -
N- 0 'C CC .- ?
U)
LO (n-co
CO 'C . CL) ?
C-
U) ?
'C,
CO
('4 'CD 0
?
'l
to to
j
-C) ?
Il)— 0CC C) CD U)'C-'C CUC)(C C') ''C
'C C)N U) C)
,
T (0 C')"C
C)
CD
C, CO
?
C,
'C CO (C P-.
N N CO
C) C) C) C)O '
?
C\J
, C')
C) C) C') CO IT
C)-C) CO
?
C
IV--'---••---
N
-
c-a. C') C) C
?
C) N N CO
U) 0 C' C) cC C)
?
LO CO ('i C l )
C) -'C cC)
CO
-C),
C)
CO
Z
C) CU CO C'). C) CD- C)) CO
'C C) CO 'C C'- .- CU
'C
.
C) CO: C--
LO co, 0
N
U) 'C 'C
C,
C)
NU)C)C,
CCO
UCOU)tt)-U,tC)M0N.C)C)OO.O ?
C'C'C'u)u)NC)Q)C),
c28
Ui
'
?
.-' ?
-
?
- ?
-'
?
'
'
?
'
0 ?
CC
?
CD ?
CO
IL)
_j
_J
,• ? ..- ?
• ? .. ?
C,
cc
0
-
?
IJJ
'C
C)
N .C' U) C)
c-'
CD
C) ?
C
CM CC) N C') ' CD
C) (C '- CO C) (C) N ('4
?
C)
Cl)
?
EC
Z
0
--
1-
UC'N.C)o4C)CC'D.
1' 0
'C ?
CC) -
N- ?
C') ?
'C 0 U) C)
?
C'C')0-C)aDo.-'Co(C)CC
CO - CD-.-
LU C')
C)
LI) ('4 CV'
CM
.!
?
C) ?
(C
'(C) ?
L'
?
C) ?
-
?
. ?
—
II) - ?
0)
Ui
CD
MO
C) CON- (DC) (CO
to
CM:-'1-
N C') (UCO N-
(Cr- C0
?
N- C) N- C) 'CO
IC .. .- N- 0
'C CC)
C) C', '
'C —
C) CO
C) C') LI)
C) LI) C'4 C) 'C (C) U)
C) 0)- N
to
0 C)0
C,
0 >
z
-
?
'
?
—
- ?
:-"
?
- ?
-
la
wO0<
fr
Ui
C)0.-'--C)—CCOC)r--C)O)--'-C)--C)C)C)'C--C,--C)C)o,
.-C%CC')'C
Itt ?
',(C').C)
C-
'C 0 O
,
N C") LID 'C CO LC)O C')
C) -. C) (C N-
co,C) C) co C') .-
CD N--CO 0)0.-N C)'C U) CON.
?
_ C'4C') It LI)IU) N- CO 0)0 ,- 01c')
©C)DCDp_P-ISP_NFSF.NFSP.U)C)C)C)CO
Co.
C)C)COU)C)C)C)C)'C
C) CO I C- CO CL O ,- CiC
' C)-
1
'C 10 UQ C--. CC 0) 0 .- <-4) 1')
'C
?
CD N O) 0) 0
. 'e N
-
(0 CO(0(DC-.C-. NN- r-
F'- N-CC(0
(0 ?
CO(
C)
C)
C')
0
C
CO
C,
V
Cd)
CO
C)
>.
CC
C
0
C,
0
Page 6 ?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30, 1993
'
I
?
3.1 Costs of Enrollment Increases - Inadequate Operating Funding
The University could have responded to the reduction in government
I ?
funding during the 1980
1
s
2
by effecting a substantial reduction in its size.
At Simon Fraser, total FTEs increased by 1341 (1256 undergraduate; 85
graduate) between 1986/87 and 1988/89, before there was any
enrollment-driven increase in our grant. Allowing enrollment to increase
I ?
with only tuition fees to support the increased costs would seem,
inevitably, to lead to reduced quality. Since the start of the Access
Program in 1989/90, the University has received grant increases for all
I
?
additional undergraduate FTEs. However, we have accommodated 265
graduate FTEs in excess of our Access funding.
I
The pressures of enrollment increases have been too intense, it appears,
for some of the University's departments to have developed effective
means of controlling enrollment at the program level and planning
I
program offerings to satisfy the demand for courses. A consequence of
this, according to the SCIMO survey, is that many students are taking
longer to finish their degrees than they wish.
I
The effects of accepting extra students can be seen in the increase in
undergraduate course sections taught by Sessional Instructors and Limited
I ?
Term faculty (from 25 percent in 1986/87 to over 35 percent in
1990/91). Also, until 1991/92 there was a sharp increase in tutorial
sizes. Now, because of a planned workload reduction, tutorials are
b ?
smaller than in 1986/87 although some other course types are larger.
Funding for administrative and academic support units at the University
I ?
has not increased at the same rate as for academic departments and
programs. Support positions in academic units have kept pace with
FTJ
students on a University-wide comparison, while support positions in
non-academic departments have declined 15% compared with total
I
undergraduate enrollment.
I ?
3.2 Costs of Enrollment Increases - Lack of Capital Expansion
We have suffered the effects of crowding in classrooms, offices, parking,
study space, and public spaces on campus. Reflecting the building freeze
I
of the 1980's and lags between new building approval and occupancy, the
University's space shortfall increased from 17 percent in 1986 to 36
percent this year.
I
When funding is provided for new buildings, the government usually does
not provide the University with adequate additional funding to operate
I
(heat, light, protect, and clean) the new facilities.
I
2 ?
About $39 million, in 1992/93 dollars, using a per student measure for funding comparison.
June 30. 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page
7
3.3 Costs of Enrollment Increases - The Unpredictable Nature of Enrollment
Our inability to monitor and predict enrollment change has meant that
substantial burdens have been placed on departments and instructional
staff in dealing with unanticipated swings in enrollment in their programs
and courses; these swings have usually involved more, not fewer, students
than were expected.
The University has been unable to develop new programs or extensions of
existing programs at the same pace as its enrollment has increased. This
has meant that increasing numbers of students have had to be taken into
all programs. Many of our undergraduate Arts programs are as large as
their counterparts at UBC, a university which has almost twice as many
under-graduate FTEs in total.
4.1 Benefits of Enrollment Increases - Impact on Revenue
The University received $16.2 million more in its government grant this
year than it would have without the Access Program. Tuition revenue
from enrollment added after 1988/89 amounted to another $5 million.
Together these were almost 15 percent of 1992/93 budgeted
expenditure.
We have been able to add a large number of new faculty positions which
would not have been possible without growth. In 1986/87 our faculty
complement was 482; in 1992/93 it was 638. New faculty have re-
invigorated departments and allowed us to move more quickly towards
our employment equity goals.
The funding flowing from larger enrollments has allowed the University to
respond more completely to the salary demands of its employee groups
than would otherwise have been possible, without reducing the number of
employees.
4.2 Benefits of Enrollment Increases - Capital Expansion
Enrollment increases have allowed us to convince government of the
necessity to construct new facilities. Buildings completed, under
construction, and in active planning between 1989 and 1992 total 32,000
square meters, an increase of over 30 percent in the University's total
space. The completion of projects included in our present five-year
capital plan would bring our space shortfall back to its mid-1980's level.
4.3 Benefits of Enrollment Increases - Responding to the Public and
Government
There could have been a very negative impact on public support for
universities if we had not been prepared to grow with demand. Many
would argue that an independently-determined "no growth" policy was
never an option for a public university which receives 80 percent of its
funding from the government. By responding to enrollment pressures, we
Page 8
?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30. 1993
I
'
have been seen to be socially responsible and have built much more public
support for our still-unmet funding needs than we would have done by
closing the doors.
5. Recent Enrollment Management Strategies
Since 1989, the Senate Committee on Enrollment Management and
I
Planning has been responsible for managing the University's enrollment.
SCEMP receives information on the increases in funded FTEs which the
Ministry is allotting to SFU; estimates of retention rates, average course
I
loads, and rates of acceptance of students offered admission. SCEMP
recommends to SCAP the target admissions to achieve the projected
enrollment for the University.
ISCEMP and the other bodies involved in the determination of enrollment
levels have been keenly interested in the total enrollment of the
I
University and in the allocation of newly admitted students between the
three main categories of admission: BC Grade 12 students, College
Transfer students, and students in the "Other" category (transfer students
I
from other universities, mature students, high school completion students
from other provinces, etc.). Enrollment is controlled in the Faculty of
Business Administration, the Faculty of Science, the Schools of Computing
I
Science, Criminology and Engineering Science, the Departments of
Communication and Economics, and the Professional Development
Program in the Faculty of Education but not elsewhere.
b6. Future Directions for Enrollment Management
While SCIMO has not reached agreement on the balance of the costs and
I ?
benefits of past expansion, we are agreed that it is time to move ahead and
?
focus on planning for future decisions.
I
The optimal size for Simon Fraser might be established by matching
estimates for each department with the overall enrollment for the
University. Departments should estimate the number of courses with
I
preferred enrollments which can be taught by existing and planned faculty
complements together with a controlled modest number of sessional and
limited term appointments. Then an estimate of the effects of major
I
?
?
future changes - adding a School: deleting an emphasis: adding a graduate
?
degree program - could be made. These estimates will require meshing
with University level enrollment projections.
?
Such ?
an integrated
I
planning model would provide an academic" plan for the enrollments of
the University, and would be a shift away from the present system which
sees the University accepting a total maximum enrollment, but not being
I
able to control the distribution of this enrollment.
Any plan would have to reflect the evolving plans of the Ministry for the
I
?
?
whole post-secondary system. The development of other institutions,
?
particularly the University of Northern British Columbia and the
'
?
?
University Colleges, appear to be the primary focus of the Ministry, but?
indications are that Ministry will require all institutions to provide more
June 30,
1993
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page
9
educational opportunities with fewer resources. Internally, there is no
obvious preference for increasing student enrollments, although within
particular Departments and Faculties specific program expansions are
desired. Expansions might be balanced with reductions in other areas.
Recommendation 1
Departments and Faculties should develop plans for the target size of units
and programs in conjunction with planning guidelines from the Senate
Committee on Enrollment Management and Planning
(SCEMP).
These
plans should be brought together in the University's plan for overall size.
SCEMP should coordinate this process and recommend target
enrollments for each unit.
Recommendation 2
Planned changes (increase or decrease) in the size of the University or its
departments and programs should be brought from
SCEMP
to the Senate
Committee on Academic Planning (SCAP), to Senate and to the Board of
Governors in October of each yearfor approval.
7.
?
Course Planning
The second component of enrollment planning is at the course level. The
most serious problem reported by students in the SCIMO Survey was their
inability to register in desired (required and elective) courses. The
following results summarize the situation:
83% of students reported they were getting the number of courses
they wished but only 42% were getting the specific courses they
wanted.
Over half (54%) said they were taking longer to complete their
degrees than expected, some blamed the course offering patterns of
the trimester system but most blamed full courses.
In addition, we are now able to determine from tracking registration
registrations
activity that
to
some
get the
students
number of
have
courses
to try
they
a
wish.
large number of course
?
I
Recommendation 3
?
1
Departments should plan course offerings six semesters in advance,
publish complete information on course offerings and instructors three
semesters in advance in the Registration Handbook, and adhere to the
University's policy of publishing course outlines six weeks in advance of
registration. ?
I
I
Page 10 ?
- Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30, 1993
I
'
?
Recommendation 4
Faculties and Departments should work with Analytical Studies and the
I ?
Registrar's Office to use improved information concerning expected
student demand for planning course offerings. As part of this, Faculties
and Departments should undertake a systematic examination of the
I
desirablefrequency of course offerings.
I
IV THE ROLE OF TEACHING IN THE UNIVERSITY
1. The Importance of Teaching In the University
Universities across the country are paying more attention to the quality of
I
teaching, spurred on by critical examinations of the university system
undertaken by the Commission of Inquiry on Canadian University
Education, and by provincial governments and the media. One of the
I
University's two important mandates is to teach. Universities need faculty
who are qualified to teach and who teach in an effective manner. Too
little emphasis has been placed in the past on the ability of faculty to teach;
knowledge of the discipline has been paramount and less attention has
I
been paid to skills in the transmission of knowledge.
b ?
2. The Interaction Between Teaching and Research
The connections between teaching and research by university faculty
members are the subject of much controversy. Some view the model of
I ?
the teacher-scholar as a frivolous luxury but for others the traditional
model of the teacher-scholar is a defining (for some,
th
e
I
?
characteristic of the academy.
Members of SCIMO believe that full time tenure-track faculty should be
involved in both teaching and research. The majority of undergraduate
I
courses at all levels should be taught by those who are actively engaged in
research. Active researchers are up-to-date in their fields and should be
involved in courses which emphasize problem-solving, research design.
I
research methods etc. Active researchers should also be active writers
who are able to evaluate and help improve undergraduate writing skills.
Also, active researchers are often in a position to illustrate the purposes
I
and importance of particular course content. Teaching is important to
research, too, because it encourages researchers to disseminate their
knowledge in an accessible manner. Finally, at the senior undergraduate
I ?
and graduate level, teaching can often provide a forum for discussion of
new ideas and the development of research projects.
In recognizing the importance of continuing faculty teaching at all levels,
it is noteworthy that the number of course sections taught by tenure-track
faculty at the 100 level has declined by
9.1%
over the five year period
1988/89
to
1992/93
[from
173
of 512 primary sections to
159
of 533
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page 11
3.
primary sections] while the number of faculty positions increased by 21%
from 499.5 to 604.5. Students at all levels benefit from contact with
faculty who share with students a broad view of the discipline and a sense
of the excitement and depth of their own work. This is important at the
lower levels, where the larger classes have many students who are still
exploring their disciplinary options.
A recent Ministry survey (MAETl' 1992) emphasizes that employers of
university graduates rank communication, organization, and problem-
solving abilities as the most important attributes of their employees.
These three areas are basic to good research, and university faculty are in
a unique position to teach such skills because of their participation in
research programs.
Recommendation 5
Students at all levels should
receive
instruction from tenure-track faculty.
The Evaluation of Teaching
A carefully designed and validated teacher evaluation system constitutes an
explicit statement of what the institution values with respect to teaching
and its commitment to improved teaching. Nothing would constitute a
stronger commitment to improved teaching than introduction of a
systematic, diagnostic set of measures for evaluating teaching.
Universities evaluate teaching for two reasons:
a ?
to provide teachers with feedback intended to enhance their
teaching; and
b. ?
to provide data for various peer review processes.
Evaluating the quality of teaching is complicated because there is no
widely accepted method of evaluating teaching, contention concerning
the measurement of the quality of teaching, and little agreement on how
to deal with poor teaching.
- ?
-
Most (80%) of the students who responded to the SCIMO Survey had
completed course instructor evaluations. Almost
all
of those who had not
were students in their first semester at SFU. However, responses to
further questions indicated that students were skeptical about the uses to
which their ratings and comments were put. It seems possible that the
widespread reliance on student course and instructor evaluations in
faculty review processes is not known or appreciated by students. It is
also possible that they expect too much or, on the other hand, that the
institution does not make enough use of this source of opinion on teaching
performance.
Page 12 ?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30, 1993
Teaching evaluation methods and instruments
There are many models for evaluating teaching, including self-evaluation
(e.g., watching a tape of one's lecture), internal student evaluations (e.g.,
mid-semester and end-of-semester questionnaires), external student
evaluations (e.g., "alternative" calendars), student exit tests (e.g.,
comprehension, writing and numeracy exams prior to graduation), and
peer evaluation (e.g. tenure committee attendance at lectures). According
to authorities, the most difficult phenomenon to measure is
teacher/student interaction; classroom observation is time-consuming and
requires careful training. Videotaping for teacher-guided self-analysis, in
conjunction with student ratings, may be the best approach.
Simon Fraser University's preferred tool in teaching evaluation is the
student questionnaire. Like most universities, we seem to have accepted
that good teaching consists of what students approve (or seem to approve)
of according to judgements rendered on a survey form.
There are many different questionnaires in use and many varieties of
questionnaire administration. Few, if any, of these have been subjected to
any kind of technical validation. This should precede our continued
reliance on these tools. One way of validating such student judgments
would be to compare them with data from various other sources to see if
there is consistency in judgments between administrators, colleagues, and
students. For example, a good evaluation form filled out by students
should contain questions on course content and coverage. The same topic
could be evaluated by the Departmental Tenure Committees through
examination of course outlines, reading lists etc. The opinions of students
and colleagues could be compared. If opinions overlapped to a
considerable extent, greater reliance could be placed on this aspect of the
student rating. Similarly, one expects some consistency from year to year
(much educational research confirms this stability); comparing student
ratings in the same course in different years should reveal some
consistency of judgment; if this were the case these ratings would gain in
credibility.
Evaluation of teaching would be improved by less reliance on a single form
of assessment. If the course outlines developed by a particular professor
were subjected to scrutiny and rating by a peer working in the same field
(in somewhat the same way as publications are reviewed), one could
compare this independent assessment with others from other sources
(i.e., students). Multiple measures of a complex activity such as teaching
are strongly recommended in the educational literature as a means of
increasing confidence in assessment outcomes.
Recommendation 6
Departmental Tenure Committees should develop an evaluation method
for assessing faculty members' teaching which includes review of course
content and coverage, course organization and requirements, and student
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page 13
4.
5.
opinion, both current and retrospective. Teaching portfolios would be
helpful in this approach to evaluating teaching.
Recommendation 7
The proposed Senate Committee on University Teaching (see
Recommendation 32) should develop a new standard teaching survey
instrument which could be suitably adapted for different disciplines.
This instrument should be used in evaluating the effectiveness of all
course instructors on a regular basis.
Teaching and Faculty Evaluation
Teaching and research are the dual pillars of the academy.
Recommendations on contract renewal, tenure and promotion should
include more evidence on the teaching performance of the faculty
member so that the teaching and research performance can both be
assessed, along with the service contribution of the faculty member.
Recommendation 8
The University should ensure that the balanced commitment to teaching
and research required of tenure-track faculty is properly reflected in the
evaluation of performance in contract renewal, tenure, promotion and in
the performance reviews for salary increases. Departmental Tenure
Committees, Deans and the University Tenure Committee should ensure
that appropriate weight in the evaluation is given to teaching and teaching-
related activities, such as graduate student supervision.
Recommendation 9
The University should consider the creation of a University Teaching
Professorship award to support teachingfocussed initiatives byfaculty with
outstanding records as teachers. This would be separate from and in
addition to the Excellence in Teaching Awards.
Enhancing the Quality of Teaching
In the SCIMO Survey most students (83%) responded that "all" or "most"
course instructors were generally interested in teaching. Almost as many
(75%) were "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with the overall quality of
teaching at Simon Fraser. Questions concerning the content of teaching
by course instructors (intellectual challenge, ability to explain,
responsiveness to questions, etc.) produced "very" or "somewhat"
satisfied responses from over 75% of respondents. While these results
are encouraging, they do indicate scope for improvement.
University faculty usually do not receive any training in teaching methods.
Ideally, teaching competence should be developed as part of graduate
Page 14 ?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30, 1993
I
'
education in formal courses and in the experience gained by being a
teaching assistant. SCIMO believes that tenure-track faculty at Simon
Fraser should be encouraged to improve their teaching skills by making
I
resources available to them (e.g. seminars, workshops etc.). Teaching
performance should be evaluated systematically and seriously, and good
teaching should be rewarded.
Recommendation 10
I ?
All faculty starting their academic careers should be required to
participate in general and discipline-spec
jflc
seminars and workshops on
teaching and teaching-related activities to be co-ordinated by the Centre
I ?
for University Teaching. These workshops and seminars should be given
each fall semester and the teaching assignmentsfor new faculty should be
scheduled to allow full participation in such a course.
I
Recommendation 11
I
All new faculty should be given a teaching assignment below the
department norm during their first year, but no new faculty member
I ?
should be assigned less than half the normal teaching assignment during
his/herfirst year.
b
6. Accountability in Instruction
Students are responsible for
a
large part of their success in their
I ?
educational pursuits. But course instructors are also responsible for the
effective delivery of instruction and should be held accountable for their
I ?
work in this area.
Recommendation 12
I ?
At the first meeting of the class, instructional staff should provide course
outlines which, at a minimum, describe the course objectives, the types of
teaching strategies to be employed and the expectations for student
I
activities and assignments.
The learning experience at university should enhance the literacy,
I ?
numeracy and communication skills of students. Instructors should
consider a variety of methods for assessing students' performance and
should take an active role in providing feedback on the content and the
I ?
style of students' work. As class sizes increase, instructional staff may be
inclined to change evaluation and assessment techniques in an effort to
control their workload. Alternate pedagogies should be considered in the
I ?
context of the learning objectives for the course and in recognition of the
variety of students' learning styles in an attempt to enhance the overall
academic development of students.
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page 15
3
Recommendation 13
Instructional
staff
should
reinforce
the learning experience for students
by such means as assigning an appropriate amount of written work, group
assignments and presentations, and providing adequate feedback to the
students. The use of multiple choice testing should not be relied on as
the sole method of evaluation in courses where written assignments would
enhance the instructor's ability to gauge the student's understanding of
the subject.
THE ORGANIZATION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
Issues of Course Size
A number of University reports in recent years have made reference to
size and growth. Challenge 2001, encouraged "moderate growth"
(p.
10)
in the core disciplines of the Humanities and Social Sciences with more
rapid growth in other fields. The Task Force on University Size (1988)
recommended a target University population of 11,500 undergraduates
(head count). The University's 92-3 undergraduate head count was
15,239.
The University's total size influences average course size. This is a central
issue, especially for an institution like Simon Fraser which has
experienced rapid growth while making wide use of a tutorial system that
relies on small classes. In its early meetings, SCIMO discussed what was
meant by an "efficient" system of instruction. We grappled with this
without reaching a consensus. Nonetheless, class size must be an
important component of any consideration of the efficiency and
effectiveness of a system of instruction.
Class sizes at Simon Fraser are widely distributed, as shown in Chart 3 and
Tables 3 to 6. This distribution is skewed towards small course sections;
the modal section size is between 15 and 19 students and only about 7%
of sections have enrollments of 100 students or more. These numbers
invite an investigation of their future feasibility. For example, can the
University continue to offer as many as 51 course sections (not including
directed studies and reading courses) with undergraduate enrollments of
4 students or fewer, as it did in 1992/93? Certainly, a justification must
be presented for classes of this size, and, perhaps, for all classes of under
20 students at the undergraduate level. Other issues have been raised
regarding small and limited-enrollment courses, including the frequency
of offering and criteria for determining their viability.
SCIMO's Survey asked students to indicate how effective they found
various types of scheduled learning environments.
3
The "very" and
"somewhat" responses were as follows:
Due to the wording of Question 9, we are not sure that all students answering this question
have experienced all the different types of learning environments specified.
V
1.
Page 16
?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30, 1993
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
I
o
U)
I
T
?
?
o
1q,
0 ?
o
co
I!) ?
?
o
C)
0
??
o
tOCi
??
o
C'J
0
??
o
IL)
-
?
o
0
?
o
U)
o
Suo140e3
10
O
00c
66 -
00
661. - 091.
6t' I. - 001.
66 - 08
6L - 09
C')
69-St
,
?
.!
Cl)
C.
0
t7iv-sc
(/)
Ve -
VZ -
61. - SI.
t'I.- 01.
6-S
0)
0)
—J
0)
U)
0
C)
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page 17
0
')QCO
0 ?
.— .—
q
ct CM C')
C')
(00)
??
0(00)N-C')C')(0CDCDCMU)CD(0,-
0.-U)(0C')CM0)CDL0(')CM
?
co
CO
1 ?
C) ?
r- — r
?
co
co
co
V
C.)
C
0)
co
co
Co.0
CO
Co
C
OW
V0
0
ca
—
N-
ca
D)
N-
0
o
C.)
Cl)
co
CF
0
CD
0
0)
>0
—•VW
0)
0
0)
0)
0
—.
0)0Co
co
co)
CO
Cl)
CoO
0
0
V
Co
CO
CO
N-
,—
0
a
V
=
CO
CO
0
oW
C/)
Co
0)
0)
0
CM
0
Co
C
0
0
0)
0)0 N-CD CM 00)0)0).-
CM CO CO — CO 0 LI) ?
CM
(0
CM CM
CD
CM
C')
.— CM —
C
M
CD
U)
?
_iJ
<C')
0)CD00U)CD0U)CD0N-c')
0) L o
n
N-
CM
CD
0
LI)
0)
0
C')
?
.-
I-
-
co
CDU)C')CD0CM.-
0
CD
C')N-t,-CV)
0J
N
CMCM U) (0
CD CD ?
CM
CMC)CMC')—
N- ?
0CMN..-CM0)0,-
0N-CON-N-N-CDOCMU),-,-
1 ?
i-
I
0)
U)
N-
CM
I
0)
0
CO
fl —
C') ?
N-
N-
CD N- - -
0)
Co
0)
E01 ?
0-0CM,-.-.
21 ?
CM
CM
0)
CM
0) 0) 0)
• C/)j .
0) - — CM C'
?
LO
N-
0) '— —
CM
8
q •
?
, ?
, ?
.s... ?
C)
CD
?
?
CM
10 0 LI) 0 LI) LI)
U)
0 0 0 0 0 Al
?
3 16
-CMCMC')C0CD0LI)0
CM
—
(0
N-
CM
0)
CD
C')
CD CM
0) C')
C')
C')
N-
C')
U)
C') CM
U)
CM
LI) —
0) ?
LI) ?
I
0 N- — 0)
CD
0
0
I CMJCD00)LI)
C') t LI) C') C') .-
CJ
?
,-
010
.— C')
00
C')
?
LI)
U)
U)
0)
C') C')
U)
CM
C') ?
CM .—
0 —
—
CM '•
?
fl
01
U)
N- 0 0
?
U)
CD
U)
U)
N-
CM
0)
Co
0)
E
01
C'C')U)U)0)N-CM.-0CD-
CMC').-CM
CM
0)
0) 0) 0)
?
0)
?
0) 0 0)
?
0) 0)
CJ . 0) ,— .— CM C')
q
T
U)
N-
0) — .—
CM ?
(V)
, ?
•.,.,,,,i, ?
C')
CM
w
0 U) 0
U) U) U)
0 0 0 0 0 Al
73 t5
.—
CM
CM C') ?
(0
CD
0
U)
0
cc
Il
'-—CM
CO
II
r1H
cc
0
0CMCMN-CMCMCDC')0-CD.,-
CMN-CM
C')C')
I.l
CM
I -
?
10
0)
0)
CD
0
N-
0
CD
0
N- .— —
0)
0
qt
CD
C')CMCMC')CM.-
I
CMI
I
0)1
0)
0)
0) 0)
o
•!
0)
0) 0)
0
0)
0)
0).-.-CMCLI)N-0)''—CM0
0
0)
r
S
I
I
0
LO
0
U)
U)
U)
0 0
0 0 0
Al l
=
Z t5
-
—
CM CM
CD CD
0
U)
0
<
cIWl
HU)I
U)
C')
N-
0)
N-
LI)
CM
0) C')
N- 0
0
0C')N-CMN-
C')'CMCM
—
?
0
I-
0
CM
CO
0
0)
ON-
CM
(0
0
C')
N-
?
?
0CDCMN-CMCMC')(0.-,--0
?
CM
C')C')
CM
C')C')C')
?
??
0)1
0J
01
?
?
U)
.-CMC0U)C')CM---
CM —
U)
?
LO .—
0
CM
C Co
CM
'-
CO
101
0CDCD-C')0
CM
.-COCM
C0
N-
I
— C')
CM
.—
CM
I
I CMI
I ?
(Dl
0
I ?
El
0
(0 ?
CO ?
C')
(0
CM
N- N-
CO
U)
N- U) CC)
N-
I
0
.—
.— CM
—
'
—
'
10)1
I cjI
Li
o
WI
NI
(7)0)0)
0) — .—
CM
C')
-
U) N-
0) —
.— CM
0
—
tI
iI
— .— CM
CM
C')
CO
CD
0
—
U)
—
0
CM
Al
Page 18 ?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30. 1993
seminar
95%
small (<100) lecture
94%
tutorial
77%
lab
75%
large (>100) lecture
68%
open lab
62%
Students were also asked how important group work and interaction with
other students was in
their
learning. Over 70% said it was "very" or
"somewhat" important although few students initiated such learning
environments themselves.
The accepted belief regarding small classes seems to be that they
represent a pedagogic ideal, but a budgetary liability. But the SCIMO
Student Survey found that students believed they learned better in
seminar and small lecture class settings than in large lectures. However,
they did not find seminars better than small lectures. Many studies have
failed to demonstrate that student achievement is worse in large classes
than in smaller sections of the same course
4
. According to one study at
Brigham Young University, increasing class size from 30 or so students up
to several hundred may not radically affect achievement. Similar findings
have emerged in other studies. Though class size has little effect on
achievement for competent students, it does have a negative effect on
students' attitudes. Also, very large class size can have a detrimental effect
on faculty morale and stress levels5.
This research leads to the conclusion that, when discussing the efficacy of
large classes, one is dealing more with faculty perceptions and workload
concerns than with student performance, though it is hard to think of
these as unrelated.
The recent Faculty of Science Quality of Teaching Task Force Report
(1992) has recommended a ceiling for large lectures of 200 students.
This recommendation stems from, observations made by members of the
Task Force of classes ranging up to 350 students in which "the noise level
was very high, discipline lacking, and professor-student interaction zero"
(p. 36). Earlier, the Task Force on the Quality of Service (1990) (TFQS)
recommended that "small group components of scheduled courses be
reduced to a maximum of 17 students". Under the University's current
collective agreement with the Teaching Support Staff Union average
tutorial size is now below this.
I
4
?
Williams, D.D. et al. (1984) "Class size and achievement among college students." Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA, April 23-27, 1984.
r
5
?
?
Goettler-Sopko. S. (1990). 'The effect of class size on reading achievement." Resources In
Education Database.
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page 19
The following criteria could be used to justify low enrollment courses.
1.
Essential resources are unavoidably limited (e.g., laboratory space,
equipment, studio space).
2.
In comparison with other courses in the discipline, extensive
interaction between student and instructor is:
a
?
essential to the realization of the course's objectives;
b. ?
necessary with all students in the class; and
C. ?
inherently time consuming.
3.
The course content is a required part of the program.
Note that this list does not include the possibility that class size should be
kept small for the sole reason that the designated instructor is considered
less effective with larger classes or prefers smaller sized classes.
Recommendation 14
Normally, no course section should be counted as part of a faculty
member's teaching responsibilities with the following enrollment:
100 and 200 level courses fewer than 15 students
300 and 400 level courses fewer than 10 students
graduate courses ?
fewer than 5 students
Analytical Studies should present SCAI' with a report on low enrollment
courses
annually.
2. Learning Environment
Studies regarding class size suggest that the University might be able to
maintain the cost-effective benefits of large classes if efforts were made to
enhance students' attitudes toward them and if they were augmented with
tutorials, seminars, laboratories and workshops that provided the kinds of
educational experiences which students value. To achieve the former, we
must recognize that students' attitudes toward large classes are correlated
with faculty attitudes and faculty adeptness at handling such classes.
There is no question that management problems are exacerbated in large
classes.
Research suggests that by helping faculty become more comfortable and
effective in large class settings, we can improve the attitudes of all
concerned 6
. At Simon Fraser, workshops on such topics as managing
social and physical control of the classroom, conducting class discussions
and responding to questions, using small group techniques in large
6
?
Herr, K.U. (1989) Improving teaching and learning In large classes: A practical manual.
Colorado State University.
Page 20 ?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30. 1993
'
1
??
classes, and using educational media effectively have been developed.
These workshops should be offered on an annual basis.
I
Recommendation 15
The University should provide the instructors
of large classes with
support in the form of workshops, appropriate administrative assistance
I
and workload recognition.
I
3. The
Tutorial
System
Learning In Tutorials
ISimon Fraser University's tutorial system is not unlike the mountain on
which our main campus sits. Some see the system as an essential feature
I
of the University. There are senior faculty who assert that they came to
Simon Fraser, in part, because of the potential they saw in the tutorial
system. It was viewed as an exciting innovation, a clear acknowledgement
I
that an important part of learning was experiential and interactive. The
very architecture of the University supports this methodology, with many
small group seminar rooms.
IOthers do not consider the tutorial system to be universally effective or,
certainly, sacrosanct. A recent Dean's Forum in the Faculty of Arts clearly
b
revealed both these perspectives. Some individuals expressed the opinion
that upper division classes should not be taught by a graduate student for
hail of the class time when a faculty member could do a superior job alone
in the course, while others disagreed, calling the tutorial a valuable
Ilearning experience for both undergraduates and Teaching Assistants.
There is general support for the educational value of small group settings7.
I
By viewing learning as an interactive process we elevate it from the level
of "spectator sport" and acknowledge that a great deal of what our
students will achieve when they leave university will be in a group context.
I
In a more general sense, then, successful tutorials provide the opportunity
to learn interpersonal skills and to take active responsibility for one's
learning.
IResearch evaluating the effectiveness of various small group instruction
methods in higher education does not generalize well to Simon Fraser's
I
situation. Our use of this instructional method is somewhat unique,
especially in terms of our heavy reliance on it in undergraduate education.
A number of studies report success with small group instruction in
I
remedial settings, as well as in ESL classes, or classes teaching writing
skills. As noted above, the SCIMO Student Survey reported that students
tend to report greater satisfaction with classes that afford an opportunity
for interaction with an instructor and other students.
, ?
7 ?
Dixson, M.D. (1991). "Group discussion and individual critical thinking processes: an
Interactive perspective'. Resources In Education Database.
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page 21
But is this what we are actually doing in our tutorials at Simon Fraser?
This appears to be one of those questions for which everyone has a
subjective answer, whereas little in the way of objective evidence exists.
What, exactly, is the range of activities in our tutorials? Experienced
observers suggest that our tutorial system is not being used to its full
potential. Few departments have the time or resources to adequately
train their TAs so as to maximize the effectiveness of tutorials. Often. TAs
choose the "default option," which is to lapse into the teaching model they
are most used to -- the lecture. As a result, many tutorials are not
qualitatively different from lectures. One exception is the open laboratory.
The Faculty of Science Quality of Teaching Task Force concluded that
open labs, in which students come to a central location on a drop-in basis,
are "relatively successful." As noted above, the respondents in the SCIMO
Survey rated open labs as the least effective learning environment, but this
conclusion might be based on students inadequate knowledge and
experience in the range of learning enrollments mentioned in the past.
SCIMO believes that departments should bring an open mind to questions
of preferred learning settings. Departments should give careful thought to
the match between the pedagogies used in tutorials and learning
objectives. Where larger course groupings are used, it seems important to
provide students with encouragement and opportunities for interactive
learning.
Teachin
g Assistants
Most of our small group teaching is in tutorials and most tutorials are
taught by Teaching Assistants. The SCIMO Survey results show that 69%
of students felt that "all" or "most" Teaching Assistants were generally
interested in teaching. Almost 80%
found
them responsive to questions
while 61% said that "all" or "most" were able to explain and 52% said
"all" or "most" challenged them intellectually.
It is obvious that we cannot expect our graduate students to come
equipped with the skills necessary to conduct effective tutorials.
Unfortunately, there are major logistical problems associated with
adequate training. First among these is that such training is time-
consuming. Our annual TA Day draws between 80 and 90 percent of our
new TAs. However, it consists at most of four one-hour sessions plus a
90-minute follow-up in January. Other universities run 3-5 day training
programs, usually in August. At one time, Simon Fraser offered a series of
sessions in the fall semester but they were discontinued for financial
reasons.
Another approach to TA training would be a graduate course in university
teaching such as is offered at the University of Victoria and elsewhere.
The Commission of Inquiry on Canadian University Education reported
that while universities collectively spend more than $93 million annually
in TA salaries, the amount earmarked for TA training was infinitesimal.
Simon Fraser University is no exception. The annual cost of TM is about
Page 22 ?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30. 1993
I
' ?
$6.3 million (1992/93) and the direct cost of the current TA training is
$40,000.
One important source of training for TAs is the instructors with whom
I
they are working. This training is only as good as the instructor's skills
and motivation. The University should encourage departments to provide
faculty members with guidance on working with TM through the effective
I
?
?
use of the Time Use Guidelines and the development of departmental ?
handbooks.
I
?
Many graduate students report difficulty balancing their roles as student
and TA. Graduate students have sometimes been asked to postpone
graduate research fellowships because the department was in desperate
I ?
need of TAs that semester. Given the pressure that many graduate
students feel to complete their program in a timely fashion, a lengthy
training program might be difficult to initiate.
I
In addition to adequate training, another issue is the use of international
students as TAs. Language and cultural differences between TAs and
I
students have made for some less-than-ideal tutorials. The TFQS
recommended that international graduate students be assessed in order
to evaluate their language abilities and their needs regarding introduction
I
to a new culture, and that they be given TA responsibilities that are
"congruent with their language abilities." Other universities, such as the
University of Colorado, run three-day orientations for their international
b
??
TM. At Simon Fraser, a program is now offered to facilitate international ?
students' acculturation and fluency in English.
I
SCIMO believes that the tutorial system has the potential to be an
extremely effective element of our pedagogy. Actions are required in
order for this potential to be realized.
I
Recommendation 16
The Centre for University Teaching should develop a program which
I
could be
adapted
to varying departmental needs to assist in the training of
TAs and for instructors in using TAs. Faculty members should be
encouraged to use tutorials more effectively and should actively
I
participate in the training of TAs.
Recommendation 17
I
New graduate students should not be appointed as teaching assistants in
their first semester at SFU. The first semester should be spent getting a
I ?
good start on their academic program, becoming familiar with the
University environment, training to be a TA, and learning about university
teaching.
I
P
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization ?
Page 23
Recommendation 18
The Faculty of Education should work with the Centre for University
Teaching to design a graduate course in university teaching.
Recommendation 19
The use of small group or individual learning settings other than the
standard tutorial should be expanded by Departments and Faculties.
Recommendation 20
Continuing Studies should be responsible for ensuring that a course is
available to provide special language and cultural trainingfor international
students.
4.
Instructional Technology
SCIMO heard informal presentations from a number of people who are
working in various units concerned with the use of technology in
instructional delivery at Simon Fraser. From these presentations, the
Committee was left with the impression that, while it is impossible to stay
on the leading edge of technology and stay even close to budgetary limits,
the University is not lagging behind its sister institutions in the quantity
and quality of hardware and expertise to be found in our audio-visual and
multi-media facilities across the University. Another general impression
is that these facilities operate in relative isolation from one another, thus
hindering the possibility for constructive collaboration. This section
provides a brief description of each facility together with discussion of the
potential for collaboration and increased use of facilities by instructors.
The Centre for Distance Education
offers a majority of its courses via print
materials, typically a textbook and a collection of readings. Some courses
have audio lecture tapes. In the near future, there could be video hookups
via satellite to allow for interaction between instructor and distance
students. This technology exists and has been used by the Open Learning
Agency. Another promising use of technology is computer-mediated
communication (CMC). In CMC, students and instructor interact via a
computer forum. This is especially beneficial for students who are
reticent to talk in a regular tutorial setting. It also allows students the
time to formulate their comments and edit them before presenting them
to the group.
Academic Computing Services
offers high-tech support in many areas of
instructional enhancement. Using scanners, optical character recognition
applications, laser disks and other video technology, instructors can
convert hard copy text and graphics to word processing files. The files
can be modified (for example, colour-enhanced) for storage on disk or
videotape to be shown in class as controlled by computer program or
manually by the instructor. Overhead transparencies can also be made
from hard copy. This system allows instructors to customize visual aids
Page 24 ?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30, 1993
'
I
with relative ease and to store information on computer disk or videotape.
Information stored on CD ROM or laser disk (which is, admittedly, more
complicated) can be accessed in any order the instructor desires.
I
EXCITE (Exemplary Centre for Interactive Technologies in Education)
deals with applications of technology to education. What sets EXCITE
I
apart is that it is in the business of developing software and media
presentations. Its work is varied and innovative, ranging from the
production of laser disks to educational multimedia displays in airports to
a widely-distributed magazine for teachers produced in collaboration with
1 ?
Canada Post.
The Centre for Educational Technology
in the Faculty of Education has
facilities which range from a self-help area for the production of teaching
aids, to microwave television communication with a local high school. It
also has an extensive inventory of equipment. This equipment and these
I
facilities are restricted to members of the Faculty of Education.
The Instructional Media Centre is
the largest educational technology unit
I
at the University with 26.5 complement staff and an annual operating
budget of $1.2 million. IMC's mandate covers media resources, graphic
services, photography and computer/film imaging, and audio/visual and
I
technical services on the Burnaby and Harbour Centre campuses. It
manages approximately 6,000 pieces of equipment and the video and
film
library contains some 8,000 titles, augmented by another 1,500 brought In
b
?
annually from other sources. IMC also handles the audiotaping of lectures
which are used by students 44,000 tunes annually.
I
All of the representatives who spoke to us share at least two
characteristics. First, they hold a firm belief in the potential contribution
technology can make to education. Second, they appeared to know less
I
than they might about one another. It is worth exploring some of the ways
that these different units could coordinate their efforts. Other universities
(UBC, for example) have recently made organized efforts to disseminate
knowledge of new instructional technologies and to co-ordinate their
I
adoption across the University.
I
Recommendation 21
SCIMO recommends that a task force be established to assess the
potential for improving and extending the use of educational technology in
I
?
thefollowing
a)
enhancing the learning process,
b)
taking advantages of technologyfor instructional efficiency;
I
C)
providingfinancial support for innovative educational
technology ventures;
d) facilitating communication and co-operation among
I
educational technology users.
In particular, the task force should be charged with investigating the
,
?
technical,flnancial and instructional possibilities and problems associated
with developing greater reliance on mixed-media methods of instruction.
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page 25
VI TEACHING ASSIGNMENTS
1. Measuring and Assigning Teaching
There are two important issues involved in the University's processes for
measuring and assigning teaching workload. These are equity, both across
departments and between individual faculty members, and efficiency of
the University's instructional system.
There is considerable misunderstanding inside and outside the University
concerning teaching responsibilities and the amount of time faculty in
different departments spend on undergraduate and graduate instruction.
For the most part this arises through a
lack of information concerning
what takes place
in different programs.
The aim of these recommendations is to ensure not only that there is
equity in the assignment of teaching responsibilities
but that faculty are
also provided with sufficient information to see that this is so.
SCIMO's recommendations in this area are based on the following
assumptions: that teaching is a fundamental component of the duties of
every faculty member, as is the development of a strong research program
and that aualltv and achievements in both areas contribute to the success
of faculty members.
Recommendation 22
Policy A 30.03 Faculty Workload, should be renamed Faculty Teaching
Responsibilities. Section 3 of the policy should be rewritten to allow for
the voluntary assumption of additional teaching as a preference
of
tenured
faculty members; additional teaching could replace some, but not all,
ea.pectation of
scholarly activity.
Recommendation 23
Departments and non-departmentalized Faculties should provide the
Senate Committee on Academic Planning each year with a report on the
teaching assignments for the year, demonstrating how the unit is
meeting the teaching assignment policy of the University. This report
should include an analysis of the levels of
teaching at the undergraduate
and graduate level by the separate instructional categories, the average
student and instructor contact hours, and the supervision of graduate
students. SCAP may recommend to the Vice-President, Academic that
different pedagogical styles be explored in areas
of
particular units.
Recommendation 24
Chairs shall continue to assign teaching responsibilities and should
determine whether more or fewer courses than the normal teaching
Page 26 ?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30.
1993
?
I
'
I
??
assignment should be taught by assessing the responsibilities each faculty
member has in thefollowing areas:
• ?
the size and nature
of cowses assigned;
•
?
the faculty member's research program;
• ?
the number
of
graduate students supervised, and the type of
supervision required;
I ?
• ?
the faculty member's willingness and ability to participate in
the administration of the department;
• ?
the teaching norms in similar departments at other Canadian
I
Universities.
Recommendation 25
I
Policy A 30.03 should be revised so that, where afaculty member has a
research grant or contract, a course buy-out may be arranged Wit is in the
I
best interest of both the University and the faculty member. Each course
buy-out should be set at 20% of the average faculty member's salary, and
no more than 25% of the normal teaching assignment may be bought out
I
in a two-year period.
In view of the recommendations on teaching assignments, and
I ?
recognizing the need for senior academic administrators to keep in touch
with classroom teaching:
b
Recommendation 26
Every senior academic administrator (Dean and above) should teach a
course at least once evay two years.
I
V!! ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEACHING PROGRAM
1. The Trimester System
I
Simon Fraser University is unique among Canadian universities in
operating throughout the year with
a
full trimester system. The
operation of this less traditional delivery system was an integral part of
I
?
?
Simon Fraser from its initial planning. The advantages of the trimester
system are flexibility and better utilization of facilities, but the trimester
I ?
system has higher operating costs.
Flexibility
I
?
?
Program
Entry:
Once admitted, the trimester system allows students to
enter their chosen University program during any of the three semesters.
I ?
Study combined with other responsibilities:
The trimester system allows
tremendous flexibility in timing of study, employment, time-out, research
' ?
and family responsibilities. The major societal shifts of the last two
decades have increased the demand for flexibility.
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page 27
Co-operative Education:
The trimester system is much better suited to
the Co-operative Education Program because students can schedule work
semesters throughout the year, not just in the summer. Employers are
able to provide job placements for Co-op students
all year long.
Flexible scheduling for faculty:
The semester is clearly advantageous to
faculty who can schedule teaching and research semesters in accordance
with the teaching needs of the departments and their own research
needs.
Utilization
Campus facilities are more fully used by year-round operation. At the
present time, more than 18% of the University's undergraduate teaching
takes place in the summer (summer semester, intersession and summer
session). This lessens the need for capital facilities (from instructional
space to parking), moreof which would be required if those students
were studying in the Fall and Spring semesters. However, there could be
still greater use of the summer semester.
Operating Costs
Academic Costs:
Teaching and other instructional costs make up a large
portion of the total operating costs of universities. Under the trimester
system these costs are increased because the same courses must be
offered more frequently to provide program continuity and summer
courses are smaller.
Administrative Costs:
The trimester system has higher administrative
costs. Most departments (Registrar's, Library, Bookstore, Academic
Departments and Faculties) must be continuously staffed at the same level
because there is no slack period. Some workload aspects for many of
these units are tripled because each starting semester has students who
must be registered, be advised, be given library instruction, buy textbooks,
pay fees, get parking places and so on. The Library, Student Counselling.
Cashiers and other departments which provide direct service to students
require additional staffing to provide for the additional hours of service
required for year round operation. As there is no natural vacation time,
extra staff are sometimes required to keep essential services in full
operation. The costs of maintenance also increase because of the need to
undertake repairs more frequently because of increased use.
Operating grants to Simon Fraser in the early years acknowledged the
higher costs of operating the trimester system. Recently, operating grants
have not included specific support for the costs of the trimester system.
However, the Government has recently received a report which
recommends that Simon Fraser should be given an additional grant (the
amount to be negotiated) to recognize the additional costs associated with
the trimester operation.
Page 28
?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30. 1993
I
I
?
Scheduling
Traditionally, the summer semester has been less attractive to students
I
because their chances of employment were greater during the summer.
Work patterns are changing but the rhythm of fall and spring attendance
persists. Summer core programming has not been adequate to encourage
I
students to spread their studies more evenly through the three semesters.
Any increase in summer core programming should avoid increasing the
use of sessional Instructors. Data available for the 90/91 year show that,
for instruction offered on the Burnaby campus, there was relatively little
I
?
?
difference by semester in the percentage of course sections taught by
regular faculty and others instructors.
I
Recommendation 27
Given the importance of student access and the cost of operating the
I ?
trimester system, Departments should give priority to the provision of
core programming in all three semesters.
I
2. Evening Courses
Simon Fraser has been operating with an extended-day timetable since
I
the early 1970's. Evening courses have been central to the University's
credit programming in Downtown Vancouver and in many other locations
away from Burnaby Mountain. Almost 40% of the respondents to the
b
SCIMO Survey said that they were currently taking an evening course but
only 13% of these were doing so because they needed evening courses.
The others were in evening courses because there was no day section or
I
because the day section was full.
Control and direction for course planning for undergraduate evening
I
students has been provided by Continuing Studies. When the University
began to offer evening courses in the early 1970's, many students who
took them were generally evening-only students. It appears that this has
changed. The majority of evening students are now also day students and
there seems to be less need for a clear distinction between the day
program and the evening program. The proportion of the total
enrollment which is evening only has declined: from 11% in 88-3 to 8%
in 90-3. The reasons for this could include a change in student needs or
the shift in the University's admissions priorities which resulted in fewer
mature student admissions. In 86/87, the "Other" admission category
which includes mature students accounted for 25.6% of the University's
new admissions; by 92/93 the target for "Other" admissions had fallen to
15.6% of the University's new admissions.
I
P
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization ?
Page 29
Recommendation 28
Continuing Studies, in consultation with Analytical Studies and
Departments and Faculties, should prepare a report assessing the needs
of evening-only students and the needs of the external community for
access to evening-only, and weekend study. A review of program needs
should be undertaken every three years. Where the demand exists,
Departments and Faculties should integrate evening program offerings
into their course planning.
3.
Advance Registration
Simon Fraser University currently operates on a trimester system in
which many of the administrative duties related to course planning,
registration and scheduling are repeated three times a year. For example,
in March most departments are finalizing their course offerings for the
fall semester. Available instructional resources are matched to specific
courses, sections, and estimated student demand. Requests for course
schedules are forwarded in April to the Registrar's office where
classrooms and times are attached. Then the course timetable and
registration guide are printed and mailed to all students who were
registered in any of the three previous semesters in June. Students start
to register by telephone for fall courses in July and classes start in
September. At the department level, another round of activity has started
in July, or earlier, by determining the spring semester's course menu, and
so on.
Much course planning at Simon Fraser is still largely a one-semester-at-a-
time process and considerably more time is spent administering the
registration and scheduling of instruction here than at traditional
universities. As a result, Simon Fraser has significantly higher
administrative costs because of the increased work of year-round
operation and the cyclical nature of registration.
We know that many of our students have work, family and community
commitments outside the University but are unable to obtain course
placement commitments for more than one semester in advance. This is
in contrast to the University of Victoria and the University of British
Columbia where students are able to teleregister simultaneously for fall
and spring session courses. Such a system at Simon Fraser would mean
that most students near graduation could secure course places for the
whole year in order to ensure graduation in a timely fashion. Other
students would be able to plan finances, work schedules and course
schedules one year in advance. Co-op students would be able to plan their
course and work semesters with much greater reliability. Most students
would register in July and August of each year and be able to concentrate
on other tasks without the interruption of registration for spring and
summer.
The SCIMO Survey asked how many students would prefer to register on
an annual instead of a semester basis. Only about half the respondents
Page 30
?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30. 1993
I
' ?
would prefer this, hardly strong support for such a change, but written
comments suggest that many students responding "no" did not realize
that various parts of the current registration system would be changed if
I
we had an annual registration system.
The objective of such a system would be to become more efficient in
processing, advising and registering students and to provide them with a
I
better service. Successful implementation of the telephone registration
system and recent moves towards decentralization of instructional
budgets to the Faculty level would assist in reaching this objective. The
' major change that would take place if such a system were adopted is that,
on the surface, Simon Fraser would begin to look and feel more like a
traditional university. Underneath the surface, we would retain and even
I
?
strengthen many of the benefits of the semester system, such as flexibility
for students and faculty.
I
Recommendation 29
The Registrar should undertake afeasibility study of an advance course
I ?
planning and registration system which would operate with a one-year
cycle.
vm
ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES
I ?
According to Challenge 2001, Simon Fraser University is committed to
financial, professional, scholarly, and teaching accountability through
several mechanisms that ensure integrity in these areas. The University's
I
accountability to its students has been the subject of much of this report.
The information from the SCIMO survey has been very helpful in
I ?
confirming and defining trends, attitudes, and concerns of the student
body. With the groundwork laid, follow-up surveys building on the work
of the SCIMO survey could be undertaken without a large scale
expenditure of time or resources. This would greatly expand the
I
information base of the University.
The external pressures affecting post-secondary institutions are growing.
I
Universities are expected to produce more results for the public with
reduced resources and increased enrollments. Employers want broadly
educated and specifically trained workers who can adapt and be flexible in
I
changing work environments. The scholarly disciplines expect that
Simon Fraser faculty will generate quality research results that can be
shared and will be an impetus to further research. Thus, our University
' must be accountable in a number of different domains. This means
agreeing on, and providing, information on accountability standards and
measures. These might include:
I
0 ?
periodic surveys of graduates and students leaving the institution.
P
June 30, 1993 Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization
?
Page 31
Post-graduation surveys are being carried out in a number of areas.
One office should be designated as responsible for coordinating and
receiving survey information.
periodic surveys of employers
regarding the effectiveness of the
post-secondary education for those employed and the needs of
employers for post-secondary education and professional
development;
public annual reporting of the University's activities.
The University's annual narrative report was discontinued some
years ago for financial reasons. However, the need to keep the public
informed on the developments and initiatives in the University has
not abated, and consideration should be given to reinstating the
report in a cost effective and useful format.
Recommendation 30
The University should assess the effectiveness of its programs by
surveying students in progress, students who have graduated, and
students who have left the institution without graduating, as well as
employers, to ensure that the University is fulfilling its mandate to
provide quality education which is the foundation for a highly skilled
population. The Office of Analytical Studies should be the coordinating
office for surveys
of
former students; units interested in surveying
students who have graduated should consult with Analytical Studies prior
to undertaking a survey, and survey results should be returned to that
offlc
Recommendation 31
The University should publish an annual narrative report to the people
and the government of British Columbia.
Recommendation 32
The mandate
of
SCIMO as an ad hoc committee should be taken up by a
new standing Senate Committee on University Teaching. This should
report to Senate through the Senate Committee on Academic Planning.
Page 32 ?
Report of the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization June 30,
1993
I
Appendix A
SENATE COMMJTIEE ON INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS
I
AND
ORGANIZATION
I
Membership
Vice-President, Academic
Chair
J. Munro
I
(or designate)
Four Faculty Members
Elected by Senate
P. Coleman
L. Palmer
G. Poole
G. Strate
I
One Graduate Student
Elected by Senate
K. Giffen
One Undergraduate Student
Elected by Senate
Z. Barabás
I
Two Members (at-large)
Appointed by the
J. Driver
President
K. Heinrich
I
Resource
Persons
Director, Analytical Studies
W. Wattamaniuk
I
Director, Academic Planning
Services
A. Watt
Terms of Reference
1.
To review the patterns of enrolment growth from 1987 to the present and into
the future, and to assess the costs and benefits of that growth.
2.
To evaluate current and alternate instructional methods, organization, and
incentives for instructional excellence and innovation to improve the
I
University's instructional quality and cost-effectiveness.
3.
The Committee will seek input from across the University in its
deliberations. In particular, Faculty Deans will be asked to report on the
I
situation facing their own units.
4.
The Committee will be a sub-committee of the Senate Committee on
I
Academic Planning. It will report to SCAP before September 15, 1992.
I ?
Membership and terms of reference approved by
Senate at its meeting of March 2, 1992.
P
1
I
?
Appendix B
I
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE
I
QUESTIONNAIRE
FALL OF 1992
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared by
Sue Moms, Analyst
Office of Analytical Studies
I
February, 1993
I
P
I
I
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
RESULTS FROM THE FALL 1992
?
STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.
INTRODUCTION
I
Increasing enrolments and increasing budgetary constraints are two prevalent circumstances at
Simon Fraser University. At the same time more and more. pressure is being placed on SF0 to be
accountable to its students and funding sources. As part of its mandate to examine the
I
University's instructional system and to make recommendations for improving its quality and
cost effectiveness, the Senate Committee on Instructional Methods and Organization (SCIMO)
at SFU decided to survey its primary patrons - the students - with respect to the quality of
I ?
SFU's instructional system.
II.
OBJECTIVE
I
?
?
In order to address the quality of SFU's instructional system, SCIMO developed a questionnaire
which attempted to examine five areas of concern: course availability, academic advice,
instructional methods, instructor and course effectiveness, and registration procedures.
I
III. METHODOLOGY
A stratified sample of 1,543 students was randomly selected to be surveyed in 20 undergraduate
b
??
classes. In total, 1042 questionnaires were completed and returned. The sample roughly
approximates the university student population with the exception of the Faculty of Arts and
the Faculty of Education which are underrepresented. A disproportionate number of first year
I
?
?
students was captured in the sample because relatively large classes were selected to facilitate
the distribution of surveys.
I
?
?
The following report presents a simple frequency analysis of the questionnaire. In many
instances, significant differences were found in responses according to Faculty, major area of
study, or year level of student.
I
?
?
Statistical significance at the .05 level (accurate 19 times out of 20, or 95% confidence in the
accuracy of the results) was required for all data analysis.
I
IV. RESULTS
Registration
I ?
• Students were equally distributed between wanting to register one semester in advance
(47.5%) or two semesters in advance (46.8%).
I
.
73.9% of students stated that it would be very or somewhat useful for them to know
their exam schedule at the time of registration.
1
P
1
Course Availability
• 82.7% of students reported that they got the number of courses they wanted this semester
• 57.6% of students stated that they did not get the specific courses they wanted this semester
• Slightly over half (54.2%) of students stated that it was taking them longer than expected to
complete their degree at SFU. The primary reason for the delay in program completion
identified by students was that courses are unavailable because the sections are full.
• 13.7% of students indicated that they were currently taking a Distance Education course from
SFU. The principal reason identified by students for their participation in Distance
Education courses was that they could not get in to "face-to-face" sections of the course.
• 38.9% of students reported that they were currently taking an evening course from SFLJ.
Instructional Methods
• The seminar format is most highly regarded, with 94.5% of students reporting that they
learn very or somewhat effectively in this learning environment.
• The large lecture environment is valued the least, with only 68.4% of students stating that
they learn very or somewhat effectively in this learning environment.
• Although students state that it is important to have the opportunity for group work or
interaction with fellow students in courses, group work does not appear to be fostered in the
classroom, nor is it initiated by students.
• 70.7% of students stated that it was very or somewhat important to have the
?
opportunity for group work or interaction with fellow students in courses.
• 13.8% of students stated that they often or always were required to work in group or
interact with fellow students on course assignments.
• 32.6% of students indicated that they often or always were required to work in groups
or interact with fellow students in tutorials or labs.
Instructor /Course Effectiveness
• Nearly three-quarters of students indicated that all or most of their course instructors at
?
SFU were effective in the various elements of instruction (identified in question 14).
• 75.4% of students stated that they were either very or somewhat satisfied with the
instruction they had received at SFU.
• Just over half of the students surveyed (51.9%) reported that all or most of their teaching
assistants they had were able to challenge them intellectually.
• 61.3% of students indicated that
all
or most of their teaching assistants were able to explain
topics clearly.
• 87.6% of students stated that their teaching assistants were responsive to questions.
I
• Approximately one-quarter of students (25.9%) indicated that their workload in SFU courses
was either not very or not at all manageable.
'
• 21.7% of students who had completed a teaching evaluation form at the end of a course
felt that their comments were either very or somewhat influential on the future teaching
performance of the course instructor.
I
• Similarly, 21.9% of students who had completed a teaching evaluation
?
form at the end
of a course felt that their comments were either very or somewhat influential on department
I
level
evaluations of course instructors.
Academic Advice
• 99% of students stated that they had used their SFU calendar for planning their academic
programs and selecting their courses
I
.
44.9% of students stated that they had sought academic advice from their Department or
Faculty
40.1% of students reported that they had sought academic advice from the Academic Advice
I
.
Centre
I
Student Comments
The most common concern raised by students was
the
decreasing availability of desired and
b
??
required courses. More specifically, students state that there is an insufficient number of
classes, especially at the upper levels or for required courses, available to them and therefore
they are being forced to decide whether to expend their energies on courses of no interest to them
I
?
?
or no use to their program or to pursue their education elsewhere. For those students who remain
at SFU, it is believed that their degree will take them longer than four years to complete
solely because they do not have access to the courses required to complete their degree. The
I
?
?
financial burdens placed on the student as a consequence, either immediately or in terms of the
reduced remission granted to them on their student loans, are becoming increasingly
unmanageable.
Overall,student disillusionment is pervasive and the level of frustration high. Nonetheless,
for the most part, the students who took part in the questionnaire welcomed the opportunity to
express their views and felt that their responses to the questionnaire will be seriously
considered by the Senate.
I
I
I
P
I
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
01.
?
Did you get the number of courses you wanted this semester?
Yes ?
855
?
82.7%
No
?
179 ?
17.3%
Total Responses ?
1034
?
100.0%
Missing Cases ?
8
01 a. ?
How many more courses did
?
you want to take?
1
62
25.6%
2
41
16.9%
3
7
2.9%
4
29
12.0%
5
28
11.6%
8
66
27.3%
9
8
3.3%
10
1
0.4%
Total Responses
242
100.0%
Missing Cases
800
?
02. ?
Did you get the SPECIFIC courses you wanted this semester?
Yes ?
438 ?
42.4%
No
?
595
?
57.6%
Total Responses ?
1033 ?
100.0%
Missing Cases ?
: ?
9
?
02a. ?
How many SPECIFIC courses
?
were you unable to get?
0
5
0.8%
1
180
29.2%
2
240
38.9%
3
105
17.0%
4
35
5.7%
5
6
1.0%
6
2
0.3%
7
1
0.2%
8
30
4.9%
9
11
1.8%
10+
2
0.3%
Total Responses
617
100.0%
Missing Cases
425
03. ?
Is it taking you longer than expected
to complete your degree at SFU?
Yes
559
54.2%
No
233
22.6%
Don't Know
240
23.3%
Total Responses
1032
100.0%
Missing Cases
10
Page 1
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
03a. ?
Why do you think it is taking you longer than expected to complete your degree at
SFU? (frequencies are not provided for the first part of this question as
respondents were asked to check ALL that applied)
the courses you wanted were full
?
354
the courses you wanted were not offered in the semester you wanted
?
321
the courses you wanted were offered at the same time
?
252
other ?
125
circled most important as:
the courses you wanted were full
174
46.8%
the courses you wanted were not offered in the semester you wanted
86
23.1%
the courses you wanted were offered at the same time
37
9.9%
other
75
20.2%
Total Responses
372
100.0%
Missing Cases
670
04. ?
Are you currently taking
a
Distance Education course from SFU?
Yes
? 141 ?
13.7%
No ? 891 ?
86.3%
Total Responses
?
1 032 ?
100.0%
Missing Cases ?
10
Q4a. Why are you taking a Distance Education Course? (frequencies are not provided
for the first part of this question as respondents were asked to check ALL that
applied)
Could not get into a face-to-face section of the course
? 75
prefer this method of study ?
32
home responsibilities ?
10
other
?
56
circled most important as:
Could not get into a face-to-face section of the course
? 67 ?
52.3%
prefer this method of study ?
19 ?
14.8%
home responsibilities
?
3 ?
2.3%
other ?
39 ?
30.5%
?
Total Responses ?
128 ?
100.0%
?
Missing Cases ?
914
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
p
I
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
5.
Are you currently taking an evening course from SFU?
Yes ?
401
?
38.9%
No
?
631 ?
61.1%
Total Responses ?
1032 ?
100.0%
Missing Cases
?
10
05a. ?
Why are you taking an evening course? (frequencies are not provided for the
first part of this question as respondents were asked to check ALL that applied)
the course is only offered in the evening
?
228
could not get in to a day-time section of the course
?
135
work during the day
?
29
prefer taking evening courses
?
33
other ?
57
circled most important as:
the course is only offered in the evening
?
184 ?
50.7%
could not get intoi a day-time section of the course
?
105 ?
28.9%
work during the day
?
15
?
4.1%
prefer taking evening courses
?
19 ?
5.2%
other ?
40 ?
11.0%
?
Total Responses ?
363 ?
100.0%
?
Missing Cases
?
679
6.
Which of the following sources do you use for planning you academic programs
and course selection? (frequencies are not provided for the first part of this
question as respondents were asked to check ALL that applied)
SFU calendar ?
990
Academic Advice Centre
?
418
Academic Departments/Faculties ?
468
Other ?
175
06a. ?
How useful did you find the information you received from the SFU calendar?
Very
309
31.2%
Somewhat
538
54.4%
Neutral
112
11.3%
Not Very
30
3.0%
Not at All
0
0.0%
Total Responses
989
100.0%
Missing Cases
53
Page 3
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
06b.
How useful did you find the information you received from the Academic
Advice Centre?
Very
80
19.1%
Somewhat
185
44.2%
Neutral
76
18.1%
Not Very
49
11.7%
Not at All
29
6.9%
Total Responses
419
100.0%
Missing Cases
623
06c.
How useful did you find the information you received from the Academic
Departments/Faculties?
Very
187
40.0%
Somewhat
189
40.5%
Neutral
65
13.9%
Not Very
18
3.9%
Not at All
8
1.7%
Total Responses
467
100.0%
Missing Cases
575
06d.
How useful did you find the information you received from the "Other"
source you specified?
Very
?
86
51.5%
Somewhat ?
62
37.1%
Neutral
?
15
9.0%
Not Very ? 3
1.8%
Not at All
? 1
0.6%
Total Responses
?
167
100.0%
Missing Cases ?
875
07. ?
In future, it may be
possible for you
to register in
courses for more
than
one semester in advance.
How many semesters
in advance would you prefer
to register?
one semester in advance
483 ?
47.5%
two semesters in advance
476 ?
46.8%
three semesters in advance
58 ?
5.7%
Total Responses
1017 ?
100.0%
Missing Cases
25
Page
4
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
08. ?
How USEFUL
would it be for you to know your exam schedule
at
the time
r
you register for a course?
Very ?
473
45.8%
Somewhat ?
290
28.1%
I
Neutral
?
160
15.5%
Not Very
?
73
7.1%
Not at All
?
36
3.5%
I
Total Responses
?
1032
100.0%
Missing Cases ?
10
09. ?
How
effectively do you
learn
in each of the following learning environments?
I
Large Lecture:
Very
87
9.3%
Somewhat
554
59.1%
Not Very
259
27.6%
I
Not at All
38
4.1%
Total Responses
938
100.0%
Irrelevant to my learning
74
I
Missing Cases
30
Small Lecture:
I
Very
348
37.7%
Somewhat
516
55.9%
I
I
Not
Not Veryat
All
52
7
5.6%
0.8%
Total Responses
923
100.0%
I
Irrelevant to my learning
77
Missing Cases
42
I
Seminar:
Very
492
64.1%
Somewhat
233
30.4%
I
Not Very
32
4.2%
Not at All
10
1.3%
Total Responses
767
100.0%
I
Irrelevant
to my learning
139
Missing Cases
136
I
I
P
Page 5
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
010.
Tutorial:
Very
344
34.9%
Somewhat
420
42.6%
Not Very
174
17.6%
Not at All
48
4.9%
Total Responses
986
100.00%
Irrelevant to my learning
23
Missing Cases
33
Lab:
Very
192
29.1%
Somewhat
306
46.4%
Not Very
136
20.6%
Not at All
26
3.9%
Total Responses
660
100.0%
Irrelevant to my learning
236
Missing Cases
146
Open Lab:
Very
160
23.8%
Somewhat
254
37.8%
Not Very
161
24.0%
Not at All
97
14.4%
Total Responses
672
100.0%
Irrelevant to my learning
233
Missing Cases
137
How IMPORTANT is it for you to have the opportunity for group work/interaction
with fellow students in your
courses?
Very
?
364
35.3%
Somewhat ?
364
35.3%
Neutral ?
180
17.5%
Not Very
?
69
6.7%
Not at All
?
53
5.1%
Total Responses ?
1030
100.0%
Missing Cases ?
12
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
I
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
011. ?
How often do your courses require you to work in groups or interact with
fellow students ON
ASSIGNMENTS?
Always
27
2.6%
Often
115
11.2%
Sometimes
313
30.4%
Rarely
390
37.8%
Never
186
18.0%
Total Responses
1031
100.00%
Missing Cases
11
012.
?
How often do your courses require you to work in groups or interact with
fellow students in
TA
conducted TUTORIALS or LABS?
Always
61
5.9%
Often
274
26.7%
Sometimes
399
38.9%
Rarely
221
21.5%
Never
72
7.0%
Total Responses
1027
100.0%
Missing Cases
15
013. ?
How often do YOU
INITIATE
working in
groups or
with fellow
students for
your course work or for study purposes?
Always
27
2.6%
Often
203
19.7%
Sometimes
348
33.8%
Rarely
308
29.9%
Never
143
13.9%
Total Responses
1029
100.0%
Missing Cases
13
014. ?
Of ALL the COURSE INSTRUCTOR you have had at SFU, how many were generally:
Interested in teaching:
All
114
Most
725
Not Many
152
None
5
Uncertain
32
Total Responses
1 028
Missing Cases
14
Page 7
I
11.1%
70.5%
14.8%
0.5%
3.1%
100.0%
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
Clear on work expected and grading standards:
All
119
11.6%
Most
668
65.3%
Not Many
217
21.2%
None
6
0.6%
Uncertain
13
1.3%
Total Responses
1023
100.0%
Missing Cases
19
Able to explain course topics clearly:
All
70
6.8%
Most
738
72.2%
Not Many
202
19.8%
None
3
0.3%
Uncertain
9
0.9%
Total Responses
1022
100.0%
Missing Cases
20
Well organized:
All
90
8.8%
Most
725
71.1%
Not Many
195
19.1%
None
1
0.1%
Uncertain
8
0.8%
Total Responses
1019
100.0%
Missing Cases
23
Able to challenge you intellectually:
All
163
16.0%
Most
629
61.7%
Not Many
195
19.1%
None
10
1.0%
Uncertain
23
2.3%
Total Responses
1020
100.0%
Missing Cases
22
Responsive to questions in class:
All
200
19.6%
Most
631
61.8%
Not Many
176
17.2%
None
1
0.1%
Uncertain
13
1.3%
Total Responses
1021
100.00%
Missing Cases
21
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
I
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
Available for meetings and consultation:
All
214
21.0%
Most
547
53.6%
Not Many
156
15.3%
None
5
0.5%
Uncertain
98
9.6%
Total Responses
1020
100.00%
Missing Cases
22
Fair in their treatment of students:
All
145
14.2%
Most
680
66.5%
Not Many
108
10.6%
None
10
1.0%
Uncertain
79
7.7%
Total Responses
1 022
100.0%
Missing Cases
20
Fair in their grading of student work:
All
92
9.0%
Most
703
68.9%
Not Many
143
14.0%
None
9
0.9%
Uncertain
74
7.2%
Total Responses
1021
100.0%
Missing Cases
21
015. ?
Of ALL the TEACHING ASSISTANTS you
have had at SFU, how many were
generally:
Interested
in
teaching:
All
119
11.7%
Most
580
57.1%
Not Many
267
26.3%
None
12
1.2%
Uncertain
37
3.6%
Total Responses
1015
100.0%
Missing Cases
27
Page 9
I
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
Able to explain topics clearly:
All
61
Most
560
Not Many
365
None
16
Uncertain
11
Total Responses
1013
Missing Cases
29
6.0%?
55.3%?
36.0%?
1.6% ?
1.1%
?
100.0%
Well organized:
All
Most
Not Many
None
Uncertain
Total Responses
Missing Cases
64
6.3%
545
54.0%
361
35.7%
20
2.0%
20
2.0%
1010 ?
100.0%
32
Able to challenge you intellectually:
All
62
6.2%
Most
461
45.8%
Not Many
412
40.9%
None
32
3.2%
Uncertain
40
4.0%
Total Responses
1007
100.0%
Missing Cases
35
Responsive to questions:
All
264
26.0%
Most
625
61.6%
Not Many
109
10.7%
None
7
0.7%
Uncertain
10
1.0%
Total Responses
1015
100.0%
Missing Cases
27
Competent in oral and written English:
All
177
17.7%
Most
557
55.7%
Not Many
238
23.8%
None
13
1.3%
Uncertain
15
1.5%
Total Responses
1000
100.00%
Missing Cases
42
Page 10
I
-
?
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
I
016. ?
In general how SATISFIED are
you with the
instruction you have received at SFU?
Very
157
15.5%
Somewhat
608
59.9%
I
Neutral
163
16.1%
Not Very
77
7.6%
Not at All
10
1.0%
I
Total
Responses
1015
100.00%
Missing Cases
27
17.
In the courses that you have taken at SFU how often did you take advantage
of the opportunity to meet with instructors?
I
•
?
?
AlwaysOften
??
252
66 ??
24.5%
6.4%
Sometimes ?
448 ?
43.5%
I
•
?
?
Never
Rarely
??
213
51
??
20.7%
5.0%
Total Responses
?
1030 ?
100.0%
I
Missing Cases
?
12
18.
How MANAGEABLE is the workload in your SFU courses?
Very ?
103 ?
10.0%
Somewhat
?
646
?
63.0%
Not Very ?
244
?
23.8%
II
??
Not
Undecided
at All
??
22
11 ??
2.1%
1.1%
Total Responses
?
1026 ?
100.0%
I
Missing Cases ?
16
018a. If
you generally find that the workload of
your courses is
too heavy, what are
I
?
?
the reasons? (frequencies are not provided for the first part of this question as
respondents
were asked to check ALL
that applied)
taking too many courses ?
63
?
I
too many course assignments
?
136
too much reading ? 200
I ?
too many quizzes and exams ?
58
other not related to courses
?
59
I ?
circled most important as:
taking too many courses ?
10
?
7.6%
too many course assignments ?
15
?
11.4%
I ?
too much reading
? 83 ?
62.9%
too many quizzes and exams ?
7 ?
5.3%
,
?
other not related to courses
?
17 ?
12.9%
Total Responses
?
132 ?
100.0%
Missing Cases ?
910
I
Page 11
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
019.
?
In how many courses did assignments contribute significantly to your learning?
020.
021
021a.
Q21
All
148
14.5%
Most
636
62.4%
Not Many
214
21.0%
None
12
1.2%
Uncertain
10
1.0%
Total Responses
1020
100.0%
Missing Cases
22
How
many of the lectures that you have attended at SFU were clear and
understandable?
All
42
4.1%
Most
801
78.7%
Not Many
152
14.9%
None
1
0.1%
Uncertain
22
2.2%
Total Responses
1018
100.0%
Missing Cases
24
Have you ever completed an instructor evaluation form at the end of
a
course?
Yes
835
81.9%
No
185
18.1%
Total Responses
1020
100.0%
Missing Cases
22
Generally speaking, how influential do you think your comments are on the
future teaching performance of the course instructor?
Very
14
1.7%
Somewhat
164
20.0%
Not Very
366
44.5%
Not at All
228
27.7%
Undecided
50
6.1%
Total Responses
822
100.0%
Missing Cases
220
Generally speaking, how influential do you think your comments are on
department level evaluations of course instructors?
Very
18
2.2%
Somewhat
161
19.8%
Not Very
359
44.1%
Not at All
215
26.4%
Undecided
61
7.5%
Total Responses
814
100.0%
Missing Cases
228
Page 12
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
r
022.
Open-ended question
023.
What is your gender?
Female ?
436 ?
43.0%
1
Male ?
579 ?
57.0%
Total Responses
?
1015
?
100.0%
Cases ?
27
I
Missing
024.
In what year were
you born?
(converted into actual
age)
I
17
4
?
0.4%
—
18
?
64 ?
6.3%
19 ?
178 ?
17.6%
1
20-24 ?
613 ?
60.6%
25-29
?
80 ?
7.9%
1
30-34 ?
27 ?
2.7%
35-39 ?
21 ?
2.1%
40-44 ?
19
?
1.9%
•
45+ ?
5 ?
0.5%
U
Total Responses ?
1011
?
100.00%
Missing Cases
?
31
025.
Were you admitted to SFU on the basis of credentials from:
High School
?
558 ?
55.9%
College or Institute
?
398
?
39.9%
I
Other
?
42 ?
4.2%
Total Responses
?
998 ?
100.00%
I
Missing Cases ?
44
026.
What is
your Major
or Intended Major?
(frequencies are not
provided as many of
the categories were statistically insignificant due to small case sizes)
027.
How many
SFU
courses are
you enrolled
in
this semester?
1
1 ?
15 ?
1.5%
•
2 ?
57 ?
5.6%
3 ?
224 ?
22.0%
I
4
?
520 ?
51.1%
5 ?
171
?
16.8%
6 ?
13 ?
1.3%
1
7+ ?
17 ?
1.7%
Total Responses
?
1017
?
100.00%
Missing Cases
?
25
P
Page 13
SCIMO - STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
028. ?
How many course credits had you completed at
SFU BEFORE
starting this
semester?
0-15
247
24.7%
16-30
180
18.0%
31-45
105
10.5%
46-60
134
13.4%
61-75
95
9.5%
76-90
94
9.4%
91-105
66
6.6%
106-120
61
6.1%
121+
16
1.6%
Total Responses
998
100.0%
Missing Cases
44
Page 14
Back to top