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

---