SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
S
MEMORANDUM
S
b..........
SENAT.
.......
Sub j.ct....
.
CHANGE....INAL .
?
.
SCHEDULING
From.
..^^NATE
.
?
COMMITTEE
ON UNDERGRADUATE
STUDIES
Date..
?
.3,.4...........................
Action undertaken by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies at
its meeting of February 7, 1984 gives rise to the following notion:
MOTION:
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.84-21 , the proposals
i)
To provide for a two-day break (Saturday, Sunday) between end
of classes and the beginning of the exam period by shortening
the exam period to twelve days.
[This will eliminate the first day (usually Saturday) from the
exam period. Normally exams will end on Friday (day eleven of
the exam period two weeks after the end of classes)].
ii)
To increase the number of time slots per day for
exams
from
• ? three to four.
[This is required to produce a generally conflict free exam
schedule.
?
The proposed start times for exams are 0830, 1200,
1530, 1900].
Exams will be scheduled on Friday and Saturday evenings, if required.
[These items will provide 33 time slots for day exams (11 x 3)
and 11 time slots for evening exams.
?
This number of slots
is required to minimize timetable conflict problems].
iii)
That in-class final exams are not to be held before the
beginning of the examination period.
iv)
That take-home final examinations may be assigned before the start
of the examination period, at as early a date as is reasonable,
but their return cannot be required until the commencement-of the
examination period."
? -
General Background Information
For some time there has been concern on a-number of aspects relating to
•
?
the scheduling of final examinations. The topic was considered by SCUS in
Spring 1981 (SCUS 81-10) without resolution.
?
Meanwhile there continued to be?
increase in numbers of courses, in students registered in a given course, and
like impacts such as space for examining.
?
A repèrt was prepared by the Scheduling
Officer, discussed intensively in the Registrar's Office, and reviewed and discussed
....2
-2-
by SCUS. The report included a number of recommendations and raised some items
for debate and guidance. The basic intent was to replace some then current
regulations, policies and practices with some updated rules without attempt to
put all regulations into a single document, but rather to identify intent and
decision and to incorporate this meaningfully in the broad regulations.
?
The
?
Student Society provided input with major request for a break between the end
of classes and the commencement of final examinations.
The report with added' items was discussed by SCUS in July, 1983
(SCUS 83-26).
?
There was agreement at SCUS on the general thrust of the 'report
and on a number of specific items with decision to release, the material through
the Vice-President Academic to the Deans and Chairmen of Faculty Curriculum
Committees for Faculty comment (SCtJS 83-31A), with response coordination by
the Dean by early Fall 83-3.
?
That document included specific wording of the?
items as now proposed in the motion above.
Responses were received from Arts, Business Administration, Education,
Interdisciplinary Studies, Science, Engineering Science with divergence of views.
The proposals and responses were discussed by SCUS in Fall 83-3 (SCUS 83-31)
with approval of the motions as above but with decision to defer any implementation
procedure pending information on aspects of possible block scheduling processes
for examinations and the impacts.
Additional information was provided to SCUS in early Spring 84-1
(SCUS 84-6) with discussion on February 7, 1984.
?
There was acceptance that the
matter of block scheduling involves much more than final examinations and involves
basic scheduling of classes and that the scheduling information provided SCUS
should be sent to Faculties for comments.
There was acceptance that the matter of block scheduling involves much
more than final examinations, that it involves 'basic scheduling of classes,
that the scheduling information provided SCUS should be sent to Faculties
for comments before further discussion and that it be treated as a separate issue.
There was approval now of the motions as set forth above relative to
examinations. ?
No student would be expected to sit four examinations in a r,
the Registrar's Office will undertake all reasonable endeavours to keep at a
minimum the number of cases requiring three examinations on one day.
Subject to approval it is intended that changes be effective for
Summer 84-2.
(Note: Should any Senator wish to review further documentation, it is
available through Secretariat Services in the Office of the Registrar)
0
• '.
?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY TO
CIImE,
y
r 3
MEMORANDUM ?
5
a
$
F3- 3/ 4
From ?
J.
M. MUNRO,
VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC.
DEANS OF FACULTIES
?
•
To ......
..
FALTY
CU
UNDERGRADUATE
...........ULUM
?
CHAIRMEN,
CURRIC
.
.......
COMMITTEES; PRESIDENT, STUDENT SOCIETY
(AS BELOW)
Subject PROPOSED CHANGES - FINAL EXAMINATION
SCHEDULING (UNDERGRADUATE).
Date......?.
JUL.1983. ?
.
I.
For some time there has been concern on a number of aspects relating
to the scheduling of final examinations. The topic was considered,
but incompletely, in
1981 (SCUS 81-10)
.
.
With increasing pressures
arising largely from growth a report was prepared by the Scheduling
Officer, discussed at length in the Registrar's Office, was provided
to SCUS for review, discussions and some further decisions (SCUS 83-26).
The report included a number of recommendations; it raised some items
for debate and guidance. SCUS addressed a number of issues.
A copy of the report is provided for general background information.
II.
There was agreement at SCUS on the general thrust of the report and on
a number of specific items. It was decided to release the material now
to the Deans and Chairmen of Faculty Curriculum Committees for Faculty
comment, with response coordination where required through the Dean's
office. Comment is requested by September 15th to permit final clearance
through SCUS to have the topic before Senate on October 2nd. That October
. ?
meeting of Senate approval would be required to introduce changes for
final exams for Fall 83-3 in December..
III.
Simply put, the basic intent is to replace some current regulations,
policies and practices with some updated improved rules. There has not
been attempt to put all regulations into a single document but rather to
identify basic changes to be made.
IV.
In order to focus the specific items for your consideration they are
listed below.
Proposed:-
i) To provide for a two-day break (Saturday, Sunday) between end
of classes and the beginning of the exam period by shortening
the exam period to twelve days.
(This will eliminate the first day (usually Saturday) from the
exam period. Normally exams will end on Friday .(day eleven of
the exam period two weeks after the end of classes)).
To increase the number of time slots per day for exams from
three to four.
(This is required to produce a generally conflict free exam
schedule. The proposed start times for exams are 0830, 1200,
. ?
. ?
1530,
1900).
Exams will, be scheduled on Friday and Saturday evenings.
(These items will provide 33 time slots for day exams (11 x 3)
and 11 time slots for evening exams. This number of slots
-2-
is required to minimize timetable conflict problems)
In-class final exams are not to be held before the beginning
of the examination period as, for example, in the last two
weeks of the semester.
(The final exam period is provided for finals; the other weeks
are provided for teaching).
iv) ?
Take-home examinations may be assigned beforethe start of the
examination period, at as early a date as is reasonable, but
their return cannot be required until the commencement of the
examination period.
/bg ? .
NOTE:- Please respond to me with copy to H.M. Evans, Secretary, SCUS.
For information:
J.W.G. Ivany, Acting President
G.
Suart, Vice-President, Administration
E. Scott, Executive Director, Finance
H.
Nagel, Director, Records & scheduling
H.M. Evans, Secretary of SCUS
D. Whiteley, Scheduling
Do
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
''T -
MEMORANDUM ?
)
CatJ S 5
. ?
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE
?
From
.....................................................
H. M. EVANS, SECRETARY
STUDIES
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE
..........................................................
?
.............................................
1tiiits
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES - FINAL
?
SEPTEMBER 20, 1983
Subiect.
?
EXAMIN7rIGN
SCHEDIJtIMG....................
D
ate
............................................
I. ?
Arts
Given the disadvantages to students of the proposed changes,
that the current mode of scheduling final examinations be retained.
-
?
Chairman did not feel that any changes were required.
2.
Business Administration
The majority of the committee felt that the status quo (current
examination format) should remain.
?
Recommended that arrangements
be made to allow common final examinations for both day and evening
sections of multi-section courses.
3.
Education
.
?
?
In principle the changes proposed seem acceptable but a final
response is delayed until October 1.
4.
Interdisciplinary Studies
Th°e.commi.ttee feels that the proposed changes are reasonable;
the Dean agrees.
5. Science
The final exam schedule should be contained in the pre-registration
handbook (see also Palmer memo). ?
Adoption of a block system of scheduling
of lectures and exams may be necessary but it is not clear that it would be
necessary to increase the number of exam slots.
?
Provision should be
implemented to alleviate space problems by allowing more than one exam
to be written simultaneously in the same room (see the response).
6. Engineering Science
Three examinations on a single day not acceptable.
?
Examinations
in adjacent time slots are acceptable but not desirable.
?
Prefer no
possibility of examination conflict as there would not be permitted
classroom timetable conflicts.
?
This would require some constraint and
disciplIne in the matter of class and laboratory schedules (see response).
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
?
SCuS
?
3-3?
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE
.. ..... ST1JDI1 ?
...........
S b
d
PROPOSED CHANGES - FINAL EXAMINATION
U
O .
.
?
(C 1O
?
XótjMii
AND RESPONSES
EC
S
,
VANS
E
M.
II. M
RETARY,
From
.....................................................
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES
Date... ?
.....16, 198.
.
1.
Following discussion at the meeting of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Studies on July 26, 1983 on Paper SCUS 83-26 - Proposal on Changes -
Final Examinations, enquiry went forth from the Vice-President Academic to
the Deans of Faculties, Chairmen of the Faculty Curriculum Committees,
President of the Student Society, in memorandum dated 29 July, 1983,
-requesting response by September 15.
You are requested to bring forward your copy of Paper S.83-26.
A copy of the enquiry dated 29 July, 1983 is provided herewith.
2.
Written responses have not been received from all faculties.
?
Education
indicates intent to have this item discussed with response on October 1.
The Curriculum Committee of Science has approved certain recommendations
but it is not clear that these have yet been approved by the Faculty of
Science and they have not yet been received in writing.
?
It is clear that
there is not agreement on all items across the various faculties with
views ranging from "do not make changes", through "the changes proposed
seem reasonable", through "make more extensive changes including block
timetabling" (these are not exact quotations).
Copies of the responses which have been received are provided herewith.
0
S c
uf
REPORT ON SCHEDULING OF FINAL EXAMINATIONS
by: Diane.Whiteley
Supervisor of Scheduling
and Statistics
P.'
TABLE OF CO;ITEflTS
1.
Introduction
2.
The Present System for Scheduling Final Exams
2.1 Description of thePresent System
2.2 Advantages of the Present System
2.3 Disadvantages of the Present System
3.
Other Systems of Scheduling Exams
3.1 System used at the University of British Columbia
3.2 System used at the University of Victoria
3.3 The Timeslot System
3.4 System Used at the University of Guelph
4.
Other Considerations
4.1 The Cost of Setting up Additional Space for Exams
4.2 The Scheduling of Separate Exams for Day & Evening
Sections of a Course
5.
Recommendations
6.
Other Topics for Discussion
S
0
Page One
. ?
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report
is to
examine the options available in
scheduling final examinations.
In recent semesters it has become increasingly difficult to slot
all the final examinations
in
the time allotted for them. In fact, if
both the number of examination requests and the course enrolments con-
tinue to increase, changes will have to be made in the scheduling of
final examinations.
For example, in the Fall 1982 semester every timeslot for day exams
was used. This meant that exams began on the day after classes ended.
Students with exams on that day had no preparation time. For the first
time, exams were also scheduled on the last day of the exam period.
Ninety-six hours later, exam marks were due in the Registrar's Office.
Immediately after they are due, exam marks are loaded to a computer file
• and the evaluation programs are run. The evaluation programs are used
at the SUAB meeting on the following morning. When the results of the
SUAB review are known, the final exam mark statements are produced and
mailed to students. This allows about five days for final exam mark
statements to reach students before
in
person registration day. With
exams being held on the final day of the exam period, there is no
flexibility left. For example, if there are delays due to bad weather,
labor disputes, machine failure, the final exam mark statements will not
be produced and mailed on time.
Increasing course enrolments also have an impact on the allocation
of space for exams. The majority of exams require alternate seating,
and some exams require alternate seating
in
alternate rows. Since
there are only five classrooms that seat 200 or more, further increases
in enrolments will mean that other areas on campus will have to be set
up specifically for exams.
Page Two.
• This report will review the system used at Simon Fraser University
for scheduling final examinations, and discusssome of the problems,
advantages, and disadvantages of the present system. The report will
also outline some of the systems in use at other universities. Finally,
this report will make some recommendations for alleviating the problems
thathave developed in the scheduling of final examinations at S.F.U.
.
Page Three
2. THE PRESENT SYSTEM FOR SCHEDULING FINAL EXAMINATIONS
S
?
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE
__
PRESENT SYSTEM
Since Simon Fraser University
is on
the semester system, there
are three final exam periods per year,
in
April, August, and December.
Each exam period is approximately 13 days long and begins the day
after the last day of classes.
Each day there are three timeslots for exams at 0900, 1300, and
1900. The normal length for an exam is three hours. There are no
exams scheduled on Sunday or on Friday and Saturda' eveningS.
Exams for day courses are scheduled separately from exams for
evening courses. There are no evening exams for day courses, and no
day exams for evening courses.
Each semester, first a tentative and then a final version of the
5 ?
exam schedule is posted. During week five of the semester each depart-
ment sends a list of requested exams to the scheduling office. These
requests are used as input in producing-the exam schedule. The tentative
exam schedule is posted during week nine of the semester. The following
week requested changes are made to the schedule, if possible. The final
version of the exam schedule is posted during week eleven of the semester.
Exams are held during weeks fourteen and fifteen of the semester.
The final exams for day, evening, and correspondence courses are
scheduled in different ways.
?
.
Correspondence course exams are scheduled
.
during the second week of.
the exam period on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday evening.
There is no checking for student conflicts. The DISC office makes
arrangements for students with exam conflicts. At the request of the
DISC office some of the exams for correspondence courses may be schedul-
ed during the first week of the exam period.
Page Four
Exams for day courses are scheduled using the output from the
PR301, exam scheduler computer program.
The iputfor the exam scheduler program consists of a list of
all day courses for which exams have been requested, and the number of
timeslots available for exams. The output from the exam scheduler
program consists of:
- A conflict list for each course for which an exam was requested.
That is, for each course, the program produces a list ofall
other courses that would cause conflicts for students if the
exams for the two courses were held at the same time. (see
figure 2.1.1)
- A list of courses that could not be assigned to a timeslot with-
out causing conflicts. (These courses have to be assigned to a
timeslot using a manual procedure.)
- Three possible conflict-free exam schedules. Each schedule shows
which courses are assigned to each of the 26 timeslots (13 days x
2 timeslots/day = 26). The "optimum" exam schedule is the
schedule used.
- Along with the optimum exam schedule, the program produces an
alphabetical listing of all the courses, with the timeslot assign-
ment for each course. (see figure 2.1.2) The program also pro-
duces a list of the order of tirneslots that will minimize the
number of students having two exams
in
a row. (see figure 2.1.3)
Dates and times (0900 or 1300)are manually assigned to each time-
slot. Then classrooms are manually assigned for each exam.
.
1]
9
Page Five
Moving an exam from the assigned timeslot to any other (preferred)
timeslot is
a
manual procedure. (see figure 2.1.4) The conflict list
for the course. to be moved must be
-
compared
to the list of courses in
the preferred tirneslot. If there are no conflicts for students, the
exam for the course can be moved to the preferred timeslot, assuming
that suitable space is available.
Evening course exams are scheduled during the first week of the
exam period on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday evening. The
exam for an evening course is scheduled on the same evening of the
week that the lecture is held. Usually, there are no conflicts for
students, since students do not ordinarily take more than one course in
an evening. If there is not enough classroom space in the first week,
some evening exams will be scheduled during the second week of the exam
period.
.
?
2.2 ADVANTAGES OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM
The present system of scheduling final exams has several advantages..
The exam schedule is a conflict-free schedule for students. When
selecting courses, students do not have to worry about choosing courses
with exams that conflict.
Also, the number of students with two exams in a row can be min-
imized.
Finally, with the exam schedule spread out over thirteen days,
there are fewer students writing exams each day. As a result, exams
have been held in regular classroom space. However, with increased
enrolments in courses and requests for alternate seating or alternate
seats
in
alternate rows, this may not be possible 'in the future.
0
Page Six
2.3 DISADVANTAGES OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM
The present system of scheduling exams also has
several dis-
advantages.
In order to construct a conflict-free exam schedule, student
enrolments in the courses must be known. Because of this, the exam
schedule cannot be published at the same time as the timetable for
the semester.
Another disadvantage is that day, evening, and correspondence
exams are each scheduled in.a different way. As a result, day exams
cannot be scheduled in the evening because there is no way to deter-
mine whether or not students
in
the day course have conflicts with
other evening exams.
Also, the exam period is long, approximately thirteen days. This
long exam period causes another problem during the summer semester.
The first week of the exam period for summer semester courses is held
whilesummer session courses are still having classes. This means
that a student could have an exam scheduled for a summer semester course
at the same time as a class meeting for a summer session course. The
long exam period also means that if there are delays due to bad weather,
labor disputes, or machine failure there is no flexibility left for
producing and mailing the final mark statements on time.
Finally, with the present system, students have no preparation
time before exams. The first day of exams is the day after the last
day of classes.
S
0
Page Seven
3. OTHER SYSTEMS OF SCHEDULING EXAMS
3,1 SYSTEM USED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
There are two terms per year at the University
of British
Columbia, one term ending in December and the other ending
in
April.
Many of the courses at U.B.C. end in December so there are more final
exams scheduled in December than in April.
The exam period in December is approximately nine days long and
begins on the Monday after classes end. However, the Saturday immed-
iately following the end of classes has been approved as an overflow
day for scheduling exams.
Exams are held Monday through Saturday inclusive with four time-
slots for exams per day at 0830, 1200, 1530, and 1900. Exams are
scheduled on Friday and Saturday evenings. This means that the total
number of timeslots for exams is 36 (9 days x 4 timeslots/day
?
36).
Exams can be 2, 2 1/2 or 3 hours
in
length, but most exams are
2 hours long. If a student has three exams
in
a day, that is not
considered a problem. If a student has four exams in a day, special
arrangements are made for the student.
Exams for day courses and exams for evening courses are scheduled
separately. At tirnes,a.t the instructor's request, one exam has been
scheduled for both the day and evening sections of a course. However,
the Registrar's Office has received complaints from students about this
practice.
In scheduling space for exams, the Registrar's Office at U.B.C.
uses only some of the buildings on campus. Alternate seating is
?
require-
ment for all exams, except for large exams where single seating is a
necessity. For large exams the armory is set up with 700 tables and
chairs. The cost of the set up is paid for jointly by the Registrar's
Office and the Physical Plant.
Page
light
A computer program, similar to the one used at S.F.U... produces
the exam schedule. However, the program.. assigns
a
timeslot and a date
for each exam. Only the locations for the exams are assigned manually.
Producing and mailing final mark statementson time is not a
problem at U.B.C. Even though many courses end in December, final marks.
are not mailed to the students until April.
3.2 SYSTEM USED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
At the University of Victoria there are two exam periods per year,
one in December and one in April.
The exam period in December is approximately 12 days long and begins
on the Monday after classes end. Students always have a two day break
between the end of classes and the beginning of the exam period.
-- ?
.
?
Exams are held Monday through Saturday inclusive with three time
?
slots for exams per day, one
in
the morning, one
in
the afternoon, and
one
in
the evening. Exams are scheduled on Friday and Saturday evenings.
The total number of timeslots for exams
is 36
(12 days x 3 timeslots/day
= 36).
Exams are either 2 or 3 hours long.. If a student has three exams
in a row, the departments make special arrangements for the student.
Exams for evening courses are always scheduled
in
the evening.
Exams for day courses may be scheduled either during the day
or in
the
evening Courses with both day and evening sections often have a common
exam which is held in the
.
evening. There have been
no
complaints from
'students about this practice.
? .
?
.
?
.
Because there are not enough large rooms at the University of
Victoria, alternate seating is not possible for all exams. The gym is
- ?
set up with 529 seats for holding exams. The cost of set up is paid
Page Nine
• ?
by the Registrar's Office.
Two computer programs are used to produce the exam schedule.
The first program produces a conflict matrix. The second or "timetable
generator" program produces a conflict-free exam schedule. The "time-
table generator" program minimizes the number of students with 2 and
3 exams in a row. It also includes the feature that selected exams
can be pre-scheduled before the program is run. For example, all the
exams for evening courses can be placed in evening timeslots befOre
the "timetable generator" program is run.
Since the courses do not end in December, no final mark statements
are mailed to students until April.
3.3 THE TIMESLOT SYSTEM
.
?
?
With the Timeslot System of scheduling exams, there is a direct
correspondence between the time that the course is scheduled during
the semester, and the exam time. For example, all classes that meet at
0830 on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday have examinations at the same, time.
This does not mean that the exam time will be at0830 on Monday, but
only that exams for those courses will be held at the same time. For
classes that meet for two or more consecutive hours, the time of the
first hour of the class meeting determines the time of the final exam.
The timeslot system for scheduling exams cannot be used unless the
entire timetable of classes is organized
in
a structured block system.
For example, in a block timetable system, courses may be scheduled on
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 1030 for one hour or on Tue6day and
Thursday at 1230 for two hours. However, a course could not be scheduled
on Monday at 1030 for one hour and on Thursday at 1230 for two hours.
• At present, a block timetable system is not used at S.F.U.
Page Ten
?
-
The timeslot system for scheduling exams cannot be used unless the
timetable of classes is changed to the block system.
The Timeslot System of scheduling exams has no relationship to
course enrolment. One advantage of this, is that the exam schedule
can be published at the same time as the timetable of classes. Another
advantage is that the exam period is shortened. A shorter exam period
means that more time could be set aside as preparation time for students.
Also, more time would be available for submitting, processing and
publishing grades.
The current system of scheduling exams at S.F.U. produces a conflict-
free exam schedule for students. A disadvantage of the Timeslot System
is that students would have to be careful to register for courses that
did not have final exams at the same time. Also, the shortenedexam
period would mean that more exams would be given in each exam tirneslot.
The shorter exam period would increase the probability that students
would have 2, 3, ormore exams in a row. The shorter exam period would
result
in
an increased number of students writing exams each day. This
would result
in
a- greater demand for space. Additional space would have
to be set up for exams, and the cost of setting up the space would have
to be.considered.
3.4 SYSTEM USED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
The University of Guelph, like Simon Fraser University, is on a tri-
mester system. As a result, a similar problem exists at the University of
Guelphin producing.and mailing the final mark statements before the start
of the next semester.
The exam period at the University of Guelph is normally 8 days long,
but only 5 days for the spring semester. Exams begin on the Monday after
classes end.
n
Page Thirteen
0
* ?
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
- To provide for a 2 day break between
beginning of the exam period by shortening
This will eliminate the first day (usually
Although 12 days will be allowed for
end on Friday (day 11 of the exam period),
classes. This will also allow an extra da
the end of classes and the
the exam period to 12 days.,
Saturday) from the exam period.
exams .
, normally, exams-will
2 weeks after the end of
y of flexibility in producing
and mailing the final mark statements.
?
. ?
.
- ?
To increase the number of timeslots per day for exams from 3 to 4.
This will be necessary in order to continue to produce a generally con-,
flict-free exam schedule. Also, exams will be scheduled on Friday
and Saturday evenings. This will allow 33 timeslots for day exams (11
x 3 timeslots/day = 33). It will allow 11 timeslots for evening exams.
The proposed start times for exams are 0830, 1200, 1530, and 1900.
0
?
-
?
To allow an hour break between the 4 exams timeslots.per day,
while still allowing 3 hour exams to be scheduled on request.
At present approximately 67% of the exams are 3 hours long and
33% are 2 hours or less. Some changes will have to be made to the final
exam scheduler program before this recommendtion can be accomplished.
(SEE APPENDICES B AND C)
?
.
- ?
To provide additional space for large exams. Suggestions for
space that could be set up for exams include the gym, the south con-
course of the Academic Quadrangle, the north concourse of the Academic
Quadrangle, and the Mall Cafeteria.
If funds are not available for the set up and control of the add-
itional space, to consider other solutions to the space problem. One
solution would be to schedule two exams that require alternate seats in.,
alternate rows in the same room at the same time. Then students from
different courses would be sitting next to each other.
?
.
?
.
11
Page Fourteen
6. OTHER TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
For the following topics no specific reconinendátions have been
?
S
made. Discussions involving the concerned areas of the university
community would be. useful.
- ?
The question of whether or not only one exam should be scheduled
for the day and evening sections of a course.
0
Page Eleven
.
??
Exams are held Monday through Saturday inclusive with four time-
slots per day at 0830, 1130, 1430, and 1930. Exams are scheduled on
Friday and Saturday evenings. This means that the total number of time-
slots for exams is 32 (8 days x 4 timeslots/day = 32):
The length of exams is 2 hours maximum, by university regulation.
The University of Guelph is on an "extended day" system. As a result
there is no distinction between day and evening exams. One exam is scheduled
for all sections of a
course
and that exam maybe in either a day or an
evening timeslot. Recently, because of complaints from students, provision
has been made for separate exams for evening students when a special
request is made.
In scheduling space for exams, the Registrar's Office at the University
of Guelph pays for the set up of the gym which holds 900 tables and chairs.
.At the University of Guelph, final mark statements are produced and
mailed in time for students to receive them before the start of the next
semester.
Page Twelve
4. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 THE COST OF SETTING UP ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR EXAMS
In May, 1982 Walter Wattamaniuk did a feasibility study (see
Appendix A) on the cost of setting up the East and West Gynmasia for
writing exams. The study concluded that it would cost S.F.U. approximate-
ly $15,000. in capital for the tarpaulins (to cover the gym floors) and
approximately $1500. per semester for Physical Plant labor. (costs as of
May, 1982).:
At this time there are no funds in the Registrar's Office budget to
pay for this type of set up.
4.2 THE SCHEDULING OF SEPARATE EXAMS FOR DAY AND EVENING SECTIONS OF A COURSE
With the persent system of scheduling exams, there are separate exams
for the day and evening sections of a course. The Registrar's Office has
been receiving an increasing number of requests from departments to schedule
the exams together for the day and evening sections of a course.
There are advantages to scheduling exams for day and evening sections
together. Only one exam has to be prepared, resulting in increased security
and increased fairness to the students.
One disadvantage would be the need to provide space for larger groups
of students when all the sections of a course were combined for the exam.
A question to be considered is whether Simon Fraser University will
require evening only students to write exams whenever they are scheduled
- day or evening. Also, will day only students be required to write exams
in the evening as well as the day.
S
W.
0
