Report on the Faculty Response to Alternate Class ... · Report on the Faculty Response to Alternate Class Timetables for the Office of the Provost (April 1st, 2012) with input from

Report on the Faculty Response to Alternate Class Timetables

for the Office of the Provost (April 1st, 2012)

with input from the Report on the Student Response to Alternate Class Timetables

for the Office of the Registrar (February 2011)

Prepared by the Office of Institutional Analysis & Planning September 2012

This page left intentionally blank.

Kwantlen Polytechnic University: Office of Institutional Analysis and Planning P a g e | i Report on the Faculty Response to Alternate Class Timetables for the Office of the Provost (April 1

st, 2012) September 2012

Table of Contents

Table of Contents Overview of Surveys ..................................................................................................................................... ii

Faculty Survey ........................................................................................................................................... 1

Student Survey .......................................................................................................................................... 2

Graphic Overview of Responses to the Survey ............................................................................................. 3

A. Faculty Survey .................................................................................................................................. 3

B. Student Survey ................................................................................................................................. 7

Detailed Analysis of Faculty Responses by Timetable Options ..................................................................... 8

A. Analysis of Responses to the 2 hr x 2 Timetable ............................................................................. 8

B. Analysis of Responses to the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable ......................................................................... 15

C. Analysis of Responses to the 3 hr x 1 timetable ............................................................................ 21

D. Comparative Analysis of Responses from Faculty with Experience on All Three Timetables ....... 27

Analysis of Responses by Faculty with Input from Student Responses ...................................................... 32

A. Faculty of Academic and Career Advancement ............................................................................. 32

B. School of Business .......................................................................................................................... 33

C. Faculty of Social Sciences ............................................................................................................... 34

D. Faculty of Humanities .................................................................................................................... 36

E. Faculty of Community and Health Studies (CAHS) ........................................................................ 37

F. Division of Science, Mathematics and Applied Sciences ............................................................... 39

Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................................... 41

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 45

Appendix A: Summary of Verbatim Responses to the 2 hr x 2 Timetable ............................................ 45

Appendix B: Summary of Verbatim Responses to the 1.5 hr x 2 Timetable ......................................... 47

Appendix C: Summary of Verbatim Responses to the 3 hr x 1 Timetable ............................................ 49

Appendix D: Comparison of the Responses to the Different Timetables from the Faculty of Academic

and Career Advancement ................................................................................................. 51

Appendix E: Comparison of the Responses to the Different Timetables from the

School of Business ............................................................................................................. 55

Appendix F: Comparison of the Responses to the Different Timetables from the Faculty of

Social Sciences .................................................................................................................. 59

Appendix G: Comparison of the Responses to the Different Timetables from the Faculty of

Humanities ........................................................................................................................ 63

Appendix H: Comparison of the Responses to the Different Timetables from the Division of Science,

Mathematics and Applied Sciences .................................................................................. 67

Kwantlen Polytechnic University: Office of Institutional Analysis and Planning P a g e | ii Report on the Faculty Response to Alternate Class Timetables for the Office of the Provost (April 1



Kwantlen Polytechnic University: Office of Institutional Analysis and Planning P a g e | 1 Report on the Faculty Response to Alternate Class Timetables for the Office of the Provost (April 1


Overview of Surveys

Academic and Career

Advancement 13%

Business 27%

Community and Health Studies

7%

Design 3%

Humanities 10%

Science, Math and Applied

Sciences 6%

Social Sciences

14%

Trades and Technology

1% Horticulture

1%

Other/ Undeclared

18%

Profile of Respondents by Faculty

Overview of Surveys

Faculty Survey

The Office of Institutional Analysis

and Planning conducted a survey in April 2012 on behalf of the Provost’s office to gather the opinions of teaching faculty about alternate class timetables. A total of 704 teaching faculty1 were invited to participate in this online survey, of which 296 or 42% responded. Figure 1 shows that the largest number of respondents came from the School of Business (27%), followed by the Faculty of Social Sciences (14%) and the Faculty of Academic and Career Advancement (13%). A large number of respondents did not indicate their Faculty affiliation (18%). Although included in the overall analyses, the responses from this group are excluded from the analyses organized by Faculty. Also excluded from the Faculty analyses are responses from three Faculties with the smallest number of respondents (Design, Trades and Technology, and Horticulture). Table 1 shows the distribution of the teaching faculty for Spring 2012 and the response rates by Faculty. From Table 1 it can be seen that the distribution of the actual respondents is a fair representation of the distribution of the target respondents. The survey asked the respondents whether, in the past three years, they had any teaching experience with each of three class timetables: 2 hour x 2, 1.5 hour x 2, and 3 hour x 1. For each positive response, the respondents were then asked to rate the effectiveness of the class timetable on aspects of teaching and learning and assess its flexibility and functionality on given situations. After the item-rating questions for each timetable option, respondents were asked to provide additional comments with regard to the timetable’s strengths, weaknesses and other observations about that option.

1 Librarians, counselors and Trades and Technology Faculty members (except CADD, Drafting, and Public Safety Communications instructors)

were not included.

Figure 1: Profile of Respondents by Faculty

Kwantlen Polytechnic University: Institutional Analysis & Planning P a g e | 2 Report on the Faculty Response to Alternate Class Timetables for the Office of the Provost (April 1


Overview of Surveys

Business 38%


6%

Design 3%

Humanities 5%

Science & Horticulture

8% Social Sciences

35% Trades and Technology

1%

Other/ Undeclared

4%

Profile of Student Respondents to the Office of the Registrar Survey

Table 1: Faculty Distribution of Target Respondents, Actual Respondents and Response Rates

Faculty

Spring 2012 Distribution of

Teaching Faculty Distribution of Respondents

Response Rate by Faculty

Faculty of Academic and Career Advancement 87 (12%) 37 (13%) 37 (43%)

School of Business 156 (22%) 82 (27%) 82 (53%)

Faculty of Community and Health Studies 80 (11%) 20 (7%) 20 (25%)

Faculty of Design 41 (6%) 9 (3%) 9 (22%)

School of Horticulture 17 (2%) 3 (1%) 3 (18%)

Faculty of Humanities 107 (15%) 30 (10%) 30 (28%)

Faculty of Science, Mathematics and Applied Sciences 49 (7%) 18 (6%) 18 (37%)

Faculty of Social Sciences 126 (18%) 41 (14%) 41 (33%)

Faculty of Trades and Technology 41 (6%) 2 (1%) 2 (5%)

Undeclared 54 (18%) 54

Total 704 (100%) 296 (100%) 296 (42%)

Student Survey

On February 21st, 2011, the Office of the Registrar Survey (student survey) was launched, inviting 12,296 students in academic programs to participate in this online survey. During the one week period that the survey was open, a total of 2,265 students responded, giving a gross response rate of 18%. Figure 2 shows the profile of respondents to the student survey by Faculty. The survey asked the students several questions about their preferences in relation to semester length, class timetable, and reactions to the phrase “pre-university.” The full results are available on the IAP website: http://www.kwantlen.ca/__shared/assets/OReg_Survey_Feb_201123536.pdf. Of particular interest in this report are the results related to students’ class timetable preferences.

Figure 2: Profile of Student Respondents to the Office of the Registrar Survey

http://www.kwantlen.ca/__shared/assets/OReg_Survey_Feb_201123536.pdf



Graphic Overview of Responses to the Survey

65%

44%

69%

35% 56% 31%

2 hr X 2 1.5 hr X 2 3 hr X 1

Responses to the Question: Do you have experience teaching on a _ x _ timetable?

NO

YES


A. Faculty Survey

This section presents the summarized responses to each of the main questions about the effectiveness of the different timetables on several aspects of teaching and learning as well as their assessment of the flexibility and functionality of these timetables in various academic situations. The graphs generated by the responses to each of the timetable options are juxtaposed on every question for easier comparison.

Figure 3 presents the number of respondents who have experienced teaching on the timetables given. Note that a respondent may have experienced teaching on one, two or all timetables considered in this survey. It can be seen from the graph that compared to the other timetables, the 3 hr x 1 is the most widely experienced timetable by the respondents. An inspection of the succeeding graphs show that out of the eight teaching and learning dimensions the faculty considered, respondents were more in agreement regarding the effectiveness of the 2 hr x 2 option or the 3 hr x 1 option. Respondents to the 1.5 x 2 option seem to be in less agreement that this timetable option works effectively on many aspects of teaching and learning. For the 2 hr x 2 and 3 hr x 1 timetable options, the bar graphs almost always show a stepladder pattern where the “Very well/Well” option received the highest number of responses, followed by “Neutral,” with “Poorly/Very poorly” getting the lowest number of responses. This pattern is not observed for responses to the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable option where in many cases, the “Poorly/Very poorly” responses outnumber the “neutral” and even the “Very well/Well” responses.

Figure 3: Responses to the Question: Do you have experience teaching on a _x_ timetable?




How effectively does each option enable you to . . .

86% 81%

73% 68%

8% 13% 17%

21%

6% 6% 8% 11%

50% 51% 44%

67%

18% 19% 18% 16%

32% 30% 34%

17%

3% 1%

84% 84% 76%

57%

9% 12% 16%

20%

6% 3% 7%

22%

1% 1% 1% 1%

Very well/ Well Neutral Poorly/ Very poorly Not Applicable

2 hr. x 2 option 1.5 hr x 2 option 3 hr. x 1 option

Cover course materials effectively in lectures

Maintain student participation in

workshops, activities, etc.

Engage students directly with questions

& in discussions

Maintain student interest and

attentiveness during class time





The succeeding set of graphs summarizes the respondents’ assessment of each timetable’s flexibility and functionality on various situations. The graphs give a clear indication that those who have experienced the 3 hr x 1 timetable are in greater agreement that this provides greater flexibility and functionality for faculty scheduling committee meetings, projects and research activities. It is also considered to be better suited for assigning faculty to specific courses across the matrix and to courses over multiple campuses, and for making use of specially equipped classrooms and labs. Interestingly, the 2 hr x 1 timetable which appeared as the most favourable in the preceding graphs appears least favourable in the succeeding ones, reaping the highest number of “Neutral” and “Poorly/Very poorly” responses and the lowest number of “Very well/Well” responses.

51% 46%

38%

29% 33%

25% 25% 30%

16%

29% 22%

31%

15% 10%

70% 79%

57% 58%

22% 16% 18%

22%

7% 5% 9% 8% 1%

16% 11%

56%

76%

60%

69%

23% 17% 19% 16%

21%

7% 8% 10% 1% 1%

13% 5%


2 hr. x 2 option 1.5 hr x 2 option 3 hr. x 1 option

Sustain student learning between

classes

Promote increased learning in courses that are primarily

theoretical

Achieve learning objectives directly

influenced by classroom experience

Make it possible to incorporate individual student research and

assignments




The following sections give a closer look at the responses to the survey on timetable options. Two analyses are presented: an analysis of the responses organized by timetables and an analysis of responses organized by the respondents’ Faculty affiliation. Although some timetables are seen as being better than others depending on the respondents’ Faculty or on the aspect of teaching and learning being considered, across timetables, the 3 hr x 1 option garnered the greatest agreement on its good flexibility and functionality on the situations given in the survey.

31% 27% 18%

29% 27% 28% 27% 30% 39% 36%

43%

23%

4% 10% 12%

19%

50% 48% 40%

35%

23% 20% 18%

30% 23% 23%

29%

17%

3% 9%

13% 18%

86%

75% 72% 62%

9% 12% 12% 19%

2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 11% 13% 17%


How well does each option provide flexibility and functionality in each of the following situations?

2 hr. x 2 option

1.5 hr x 2 option 3 hr. x 1 option

Faculty scheduling non-teaching,

accountable time activities

Assigning faculty to courses over multiple

campuses

Assigning faculty to specific courses across

the matrix

Making effective use of specially equipped

classrooms and labs




B. Student Survey

The graphs below present a summary of student responses to questions related to class timetables.

Learning theory indicates that different people learn best in classes of different lengths. Thinking about your experience in class (not labs), what length of class is best for your learning?

Based on your lifestyle, work, family demands and commuting needs, how many days would you prefer to be on campus for classes?

What weekly schedule would you prefer for each of your courses (excluding labs)?

3.3%

31.4%

6.1% 3.3%

24.3%

31.6%

Other 2 hours a day twicea week (4 hours

total)

4 hours a day once aweek (4 hours total)

1 hour a day threetimes a week (3

hours total)

1.5 hours a daytwice a week (3

hours total)

3 hours a day oncea week (3 hours

total)

2.9% 5.9%

31.1%

37.3%

21.6%

1.1%

Other 1 hour 1.5 hours 2 hours 3 hours 4 hours

3.5%

8.7%

24.8%

43.4%

14.6%

5%

Other Once aweek

Twice aweek

Threetimes aweek

More thanthree

times aweek

Nopreference



Detailed Analysis of Faculty Responses by Timetable Options


Each timetable is given a more detailed analysis to gain a better insight into how faculty views the timetables on which they said they have experienced teaching. Responses of those who have experienced one, two or all timetables are compared to each other. Figure 4 presents the grouping of respondents based on the timetables they have experienced. It can be seen that the biggest group of respondents are those in the center who had experience with all three timetable options. In addition to these comparisons, the textual responses to every timetable are also incorporated. This section ends with a special analysis of the responses gathered from the group who experienced all three timetables because they were in a position to compare the different timetables. Figure 4: Respondent Groupings Based on Timetables Experienced

A. Analysis of Responses to the 2 hr x 2 Timetable

Considering only responses of all those who experienced the 2 hr x 2 timetable, Table 2 presents the results of the first group of questions assessing the effectiveness of this timetable option on the different teaching and learning dimensions. From this table it can be seen that respondents are in agreement that the 2 hr x 2 option enabled them to Cover the course material effectively in lectures. They are also in agreement that this timetable is effective in the aspect Engage the students directly with questions and in discussions, although there were more neutral responses on that point. On all other points, the respondents seem to be quite varied in opinion, although the majority find this timetable effective. The aspect which received the highest number of unfavourable responses is Maintain student interest and attentiveness during class time followed by Promote increased learning in courses that are primarily theoretical which also received the lowest number of favourable responses.

Respondent groupings based on timetables experienced

2 hr x 2

3 hr x 1

1.5 hr x 2

30% (90)

16% (47)

18% (52)

1% (2)

13% (39)

6% (17)

7% (22)

Note: 27 faculty (9%) responded to the survey with other timetables.




Table 2: Perceived Effectiveness of the 2 hr x 2 Timetable and Learning Dimensions

How effectively does the 2 hr x 2 option enable you to . . .

Very well/ Well Neutral

Poorly/ Very poorly

Not applicable

Cover the course material effectively in lectures 86% 8% 6% 0% Engage students directly with questions and in discussions

81% 13% 6% 0%

Maintain student participation in workshops, activities, exercises, team projects, etc.

73% 17% 8% 0%

Maintain student interest and attentiveness during class time

68% 21% 11% 0%

Sustain student learning between classes 70% 22% 7% 1% Achieve course learning objectives directly influenced by the classroom experience

79% 16% 5% 0%

Promote increased learning in courses that are primarily theoretical

57% 18% 9% 16%

Make it possible to incorporate individual student research and assignments

58% 22% 8% 11%

Table 3: Perceived Flexibility and Functionality of the 2 hr x 2 Timetable on Given Situations

How well does the 2 hr x 2 option provide flexibility and functionality in each of the following situations?


Poorly/ Very poorly

Not applicable

Faculty scheduling non-teaching, accountable time activities: e.g. research, committee meetings, department/university projects

58% 21% 13% 8%

Assigning faculty to specific courses across the matrix 54% 25% 12% 8%

Assigning faculty to courses over multiple campuses 46% 25% 12% 17%

Making effective use of specially equipped classrooms and labs

54% 29% 17% 0%

Table 3 presents responses to the second group of questions assessing the flexibility and functionality of the 2 hr x 2 timetable on different academic situations. From this table a greater variation of responses can be seen. Although generally there are still more favourable responses, the numbers are not as high as those on the first group of questions. This indicates a greater disagreement among the respondents with regards to the flexibility and functionality of the 2 hr x 2 timetable. This is particularly evident on the item Making effective use of specially equipped classrooms and labs where the highest neutral and unfavourable responses are noted. The item which received the least number of favourable responses is Assigning faculty to courses over multiple campuses because quite a number of respondents did not find this item applicable. The succeeding graphs present a comparison of the responses of the different groups who experienced the 2 hr x 2 timetable. Respondents who said that they have experienced this timetable are divided into four groups based on what other timetables they have experienced. The responses represented on the graphs, however, reflect only responses to the 2 hr x 2 timetable.




The R’s on the following graphs refer to Respondents.


Cover the course material effectively in lectures

Engage students directly with questions and in discussions


100% 94%

68%

88%

0% 6%

16% 8%

0% 0%

16%

4%

Rs who experienced 2x2 only Rs who experienced both 2x2 &1.5 x 2

Rs who experienced both 2x2 &3x1

Rs who experienced alltimetables

92% 88%

66%

83%

8% 12%

18% 13%

0% 0%

16%

4%



Rs who experienced all timetables

83% 75%

66% 72%

13% 6%

13% 21%

4% 6%

21%

6% 0%

12%

0% 1%









Sustain student learning between classes

Achieve course learning objectives directly influenced by the classroom experience

92%

75%

63% 62%

4%

13% 16%

29%

4% 12%

18%

9%

0% 0% 3% 0%



Rs who experienced alltimetables

83% 81%

63% 67%

8%

19% 21% 27%

4% 0%

16%

6% 4% 0% 0% 0%




92% 94%

65%

79%

8% 6%

22% 17%

0% 0%

13%

4%










The respondents who had the chance to teach on other timetables along with the 2 hr x 2 timetable are in a position to compare the different timetables they have experienced. On the graphs, this is revealed in the pattern of agreement within each group about the effectiveness of this timetable on the different aspects of teaching and learning. On six of the eight aspects examined, those who did not experience any other timetable most favourably assessed its effectiveness. The responses of this group are very similar to the responses of the group of respondents who experienced both the 2 hr x 2 and the 1.5 hr x 2 timetables. In some cases, the responses of this second group are even more favourable compared to the first group, specifically on two areas: achieve course learning objectives directly influenced by the classroom experience and Make it possible to incorporate individual student research and assignments. This makes sense given the fact that the 2 hr x 2 gives instructors a longer time each session. Invariably, the effectiveness of this timetable is assessed more favourably by the first two groups compared to the other two groups who both had experience also with the 3 hr x 1 timetable. It is interesting that the third group who experienced both 2 hr x 2 and 3 hr x 1 gave the most unfavourable assessments of effectiveness to the 2 hr x 2 timetable, indicating a large perceived difference between these two timetables in terms of effectiveness in teaching and learning. The differences in the pattern of responding among the three groups are more clearly pronounced in the following graphs. The following graphs show the responses to the assessment of flexibility and functionality of the 2 hr x 2 timetable using the previously described grouping.

79% 73%

45% 54%

8% 13% 16%

21%

4% 13% 13% 10% 8%

0%

26%

15%




61%

75%

47%

60%

13% 12%

32%

21% 26%

12% 16%

9%

0% 0% 5%

10%










Assigning faculty to specific courses across the matrix

Assigning faculty to courses over multiple campuses


58%

25% 29%

25% 21%

38%

23% 28%

13%

38% 45% 43%

8% 0% 3% 0%




54%

19%

32%

19% 25%

31%

21%

31%

13%

44% 37% 40%

8% 6% 10% 10%




46%

19% 16% 11%

25%

38%

24% 27%

12%

31%

51% 50%

17% 12%

8% 11%




54%

38%

28% 20%

29% 31%

17%

35%

17% 19%

36%

24%

0%

12% 19% 20%








From the preceding graphs it is clear that all but the first group gave rather unfavourable assessments to the 2 hr x 2 timetable’s flexibility and functionality on the given situations. Although not as strongly as previously observed, respondents who experienced only this timetable gave mostly favourable assessments of its flexibility and functionality. In contrast, the third group who experienced both this timetable as well as the 3 hr x 1 timetable consistently gave very unfavourable assessments on all situations identified in the survey. Verbatim comments to this timetable substantiate the numerical results. When asked about the strengths, respondents reiterated the sufficiency of time for instruction, practice and content coverage. The sufficiency of time was also mentioned in relation to the faculty’s ability to introduce creative approaches in class and provide feedback to the students. The 2 hr x 2 timetable was also perceived to be advantageous for maintaining student focus and motivation. Absence or class cancellations were seen as having less impact on instruction. Several mentions were also made about the benefits of this timetable for first year classes and inexperienced students. A summary of the verbatim comments for this timetable is provided in Appendix A. Figure 5 presents the distribution of respondents by Faculty. By Faculty analysis is presented in the next section of this report. As in the general distribution of respondents, those who responded to the 2 hr x 2 timetable consist mostly of faculty from the School of Business. Figure 5: Distribution of Respondents to the 2 hr x 2 Timetable

Academic and Career Advancement

13%


2% Design

0%

Humanities 11%

Business 33%

Horticulture 1%

Science, Math and Applied Sciences

8%

Social Sciences 13%


0% Other/

Undeclared 19%

Distribution of Respondents to the 2 hr x 2 Timetable




B. Analysis of Responses to the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable

Table 4 presents the perceived effectiveness of the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable on the different teaching and learning dimensions. Please note that, as seen in Figure 4 (page 8), only two out of the 141 respondents who said that they experienced the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable did not claim to have experienced any other timetable. The responses to this timetable, therefore, reflect mainly responses from faculty who are in a position to compare this to one or two other timetable options. The succeeding table shows values which are obviously more moderate compared to values appearing on Table 2 for the 2 hr x 2 timetable. The aspect wherein respondents seem to be relatively in agreement is Maintain student interest and attentiveness during class time in which they almost equaled the 2 hr x 2 timetable in the percentage of respondents who found this effective. This finding is easy to understand given that this is the shortest period among the given timetable options and students’ attention span should still be steady when the session ends. Further, faculty teaching on this timetable might move at a relatively faster pace, sustaining the students’ attention better. This observation is also seen in the analysis of the comments where many respondents wrote positive comments related to maintaining student interest, focus motivation and attendance. The aspect to which more faculty gave a “Poorly/Very poorly” response is Maintain student participation in workshops, activities, exercises, team projects, etc. Again, it is easy to see how the brevity of the sessions can account for the faculty’s perceived inability to effectively maintain student participation in activities, if such could be incorporated at all. This finding is echoed in the comments where majority of the disadvantages given for this timetable revolves around not having enough time. Representative comments include “Not enough time for exams or quizzes,” “Insufficient time for instruction and activities”, and “Not enough time for practice in class.” Table 4: Perceived Effectiveness of the 1.5 hr x 2 Timetable on the Different Teaching and Learning Dimensions

How effectively does the 1.5 hr x 2 option enable you to . . .


Poorly/ Very poorly

Not applicable

Cover the course material effectively in lectures 50% 18% 32% 0%


51% 19% 30% 0%


44% 18% 34% 3%


67% 16% 17% 1%

Sustain student learning between classes 51% 33% 16% 0%


46% 25% 29% 0%


38% 25% 22% 15%


29% 30% 31% 10%

Table 5 presents the respondents’ assessment of the flexibility and functionality of the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable on the situations given. Among the four given situations, half of the respondents agree that this timetable exhibits good flexibility and functionality when it comes to Faculty scheduling non-teaching accountable-time activities. The remaining half is split between neutral and unfavourable responses.




Table 5: Perceived Flexibility and Functionality of the 1.5 hr x 2 Timetable on Given Situations

How well does the 1.5 hr x 2 option provide flexibility and functionality in each of the following situations?


Poorly/ Very poorly

Not applicable


50% 23% 23% 3%




35% 30% 17% 18%

The most unfavourable response can be observed on the aspect of Assigning faculty to courses over multiple campuses which received as much as 29% “Poorly/Very poorly” ratings. One respondent gave the comment “Travel between campuses” as a weakness to this timetable. Logistical issues also came up among comments as one of the weaknesses of this timetable. This is shown on the table with the lowest favourability rating given to the item Making effective use of specially equipped classrooms and labs. But this item also received a rather high (though not the highest) “Not applicable” response. Because there were only two respondents belonging to the “1.5 hr x 2 only” group, their responses are not included in the succeeding graphs which show the differences in the way the different groups assessed the effectiveness of this timetable on the different teaching and learning aspects. Nonetheless it is interesting to note that the responses of the two respondents were consistently either “Neutral” or “Poorly/Very poorly” to all the aspects given, except for Maintain student interest and attentiveness during class time on which one of them responded favourably.

How effectively does the 1.5 hr x 2 option enable you to . . .


64%

77%

43%

7% 5%

22% 29%

18%

35%

Rs who experienced both 1.5 x 2 & 2x2 Rs who experienced both 1.5x2 & 3x1 Rs who experienced all timetables








64% 68%

46%

0%

23% 20%

36%

9%

34%


50%

68%

38%

7% 14%

22% 29%

18%

38%

14%

0% 2%


79% 86%

61%

14% 9%

17%

7% 5%

22%

0% 0% 0%










64% 64%

40%

14% 18%

28% 21% 18%

32%


39%

59%

34%

15% 23% 26% 23%

14%

24% 23%

4% 0%


36%

55%

22% 29%

18%

34%

14%

23%

35%

21%

4% 9%



64% 68%

46%

21% 18%

37%

14% 14% 17%





It is quite interesting to note from the graphs above that, in contrast to the graphs for the 2 hr x 2 timetable, the group who gave the highest ratings for the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable is the group who also experienced teaching on the 3 hr x 1 timetable. Even though the 2 hr x 2 and the 1.5 hr x 2 timetables both have two sessions per week, the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable is rated most highly by the group who also experienced the 3 hr x 1 timetable. This proves to be a challenge to interpret: those who experienced both the 2 hr x 2 and the 3 hr x 1 timetables but not the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable seem to have rated the twice a week session rather unfavourably on the aspects of teaching and learning presented here. However, those who experienced both the 1.5 hr x 2 and the 3 hr x 1 timetables but not the 2 hr x 2 timetable have found the twice a week session rather favourable for teaching and learning. Perhaps the fact that both the 1.5 hr x 2 and the 3 hr x 1 timetables add up to three hours a week is a factor for this response behaviour. The responses of those who were comparing the 2 hr x 2 and the 3 hr x 1 timetables seem to be influenced negatively by the additional one hour a week classroom time of the 2 hr x 2 timetable. Whereas the last group (Rs who experienced all timetables) took a moderate stance in the assessment of the 2 hr x 2 timetable, the position they are taking here is unequivocally more disapproving. On all aspects, this group yielded the lowest number of respondents who found the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable effective (“Very well/Well” responses). Further, this group also almost consistently yielded the highest “Poorly/ Very poorly” rating for this timetable. The succeeding set of graphs compare the assessment of the three groups of the flexibility and functionality of the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable on specific situations. Again, the 1.5 hr x 2 only group was excluded from this comparison because there were only two members. It is worth mentioning, though, that on all situations given, neither of these two respondents ever gave a “Very well/Well” response.

How well does the 1.5 hr x 2 option provide flexibility and functionality in each of the following situations?


64%

52% 48%

14% 19%

25%

7%

29% 24%

14%

0% 2%









Except for the last situation, the group who experienced the two twice a week sessions apparently found this shorter session more flexible and functional. Although there were still more favourable responses from the group who experienced both the 1.5 hr x 2 and the 3 hr x 1 timetables, it is observable that they registered the highest number of disapprovals as well, greater than the proportion of disapprovers from the group who had experienced all timetables. This latter group, however, continued with the trend of having the fewest positive raters for the flexibility and functionality of the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable, particularly on the last situation Making effective use of specially equipped classrooms and labs. Among the comments given in relation to this point include “Other instructors do not leave on time.” Appendix B gives a more detailed summary of the verbatim responses for this timetable. The respondents to this timetable are mostly from the School of Business, as seen in Figure 6.

64%

52% 45%

21% 19% 21%

7%

24% 24%

7% 5% 10%


54% 48%

37%

8% 14%

21%

8%

33% 30% 31%

5% 13%


46%

55%

30% 23% 20%

32% 31%

20% 18%

0% 5%

20%






Figure 6: Distribution of Respondents to the 1.5 hr x 2 Timetable

C. Analysis of Responses to the 3 hr x 1 timetable

A large group of respondents did not signify having experienced any other timetable except the 3 hr x 1. As can be seen from Figure 4, this is the second largest group, next only to the group who has experienced all timetables. Table 6 presents the results of the first group of questions assessing the effectiveness of this timetable on the different teaching and learning dimensions. Table 6: Perceived Effectiveness of the 3 hr x 1 Timetable on the Different Teaching and Learning Dimensions



Poorly/ Very poorly Not applicable


84% 12% 3% 1%


76% 16% 7% 1%


57% 20% 22% 1%


76% 17% 7% 1%


60% 19% 8% 13%


69% 16% 10% 5%

Among the aspects of teaching and learning, the 3 hr x 1 timetable was generally perceived to be quite effective on two: Cover the course material effectively in lectures and Engage students directly with questions and in discussions. The two aspects with the least number of favourable rates and the most number of unfavourable rates are Sustain student learning between classes and Maintain student interest and attentiveness during class time. Perhaps the fact that each session is quite long could explain why more faculty perceive this timetable as effective in enabling them to cover course material and engage the students in discussions. However, the same reason could also explain why it is rated poorly on its effectiveness in maintaining student interest and attention. Compared to the other two timetables, this is the only timetable when the sessions are held once a week. This could probably account for the poor rating given to its effectiveness in sustaining student learning between sessions.


12% Community and Health Studies

1% Design

0% Humanities 17%

Business 38% Horticulture

1%


2%

Social Sciences 21%


0%

Other/ Undeclared

8%

Distribution of Respondents to the 1.5 hr x 2 Timetable




The most frequently-cited advantage in the comments section revolve around the fact that this timetable provides ample time for exams, practice and creative approaches to teaching, as well as incorporating a break. Other advantages cited include its convenience for students, especially those who work. This also comes highly recommended for upper level courses and courses which require depth of instruction. Some of the disadvantages named by the respondents include the negative impact of a holiday or absence in this once a week timetable. It is said to be negative for the students who may find that there is too much material to digest at one time. To quote one comment, “It is simply exhausting to be ‘on’ for three hours. I find it more draining despite the efficiency of it.” Table 7 presents the responses to the second group of questions assessing the flexibility and functionality of the 3 hr x 1 timetable on different academic situations. Most noteworthy about this table is the consistent very low percentage of respondents who gave an unfavourable rating to each situation. At 2% on all situations, this represents the lowest percentage of unfavourable rating across all timetables. Further, this is the only timetable that managed to consistently garner higher than 60% favourable responses to all the given situations. Clearly, those who have experienced this time table are unanimous in their positive appraisal of its flexibility and functionality. Table 7: Perceived Flexibility and Functionality of the 3 hr x 1 Timetable on Given Situations



Poorly/ Very poorly

Not applicable


86% 9% 2% 3%




62% 19% 2% 17%

Support for the positive assessment of the 3 hr x 1 timetable’s flexibility and functionality come from a fair number of comments saying that faculty has more time for other scholarly activities and committee participation: “Seems to fit well with other faculty responsibilities, reduces prep time, and in my experience it reduces commute times.” There are a number of comments which also say that this timetable is the same timetable used in other postsecondary institutions. A more detailed summary of the verbatim comments for the 3 hr x 1 timetable may be found in Appendix C. Because of the large number of respondents belonging to the group who did not indicate experiencing teaching on any other timetable but 3 hr x 1, it is interesting to see if there are any differences in the pattern of responding between them and those with experience on other timetables. The succeeding graphs provide such comparisons.








84%

70%

95% 86%

11% 16%

5% 8% 2%

14%

0% 5% 2% 0% 0% 1%

Rs who experienced 3x1 only Rs who experienced both 3x1 &2x2

Rs who experienced both 3x1 &1.5 x 2


89%

76%

95%

83%

9% 16%

5% 14%

2% 8%

0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1%




84%

68%

86%

72%

16% 13% 14% 18%

0%

16%

0% 9%

0% 3% 0% 1%












77%

54%

67%

47%

7% 16%

24% 28%

16%

30%

9%

24%

0% 0% 0% 1%




80%

59% 67%

38%

9% 11%

29% 34%

11%

30%

5%

27%

0% 0% 0% 1%




87%

62%

86%

73%

11% 19%

14% 20%

2%

19%

0% 6%

0% 0% 0% 1%




67%

54%

80%

55%

9% 14%

20% 26%

4%

16%

0% 8%

20% 16%

0%

12%









Although all the graphs show that most responses are positive, two groups have a wider agreement of its favourability: those who experienced only the 3 hr x 1 timetable and those who experienced also the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable. It is interesting to note that the group who also experienced the 2 hr x 2 timetable consistently displayed the smallest percentage of positive responses, followed by those who experienced all the timetables. These two groups also displayed the highest percentage of unfavourable responses. This seems to indicate that acquaintance with the 2 hr x 2 timetable changed the perception of the effectiveness of the 3 hr x 1 timetable. It seems that respondents mentally comparing the 3 hr x 1 timetable with the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable found the former more effective, flexible and functional. The second set of graphs show that a complete consensus was achieved among this group that the 3 hr x 1 timetable provided good flexibility and functionality with regards to the situation, Faculty scheduling non-teaching, accountable time activities: e.g. research, committee meetings, department/university projects. Quite interesting is the noticeable drop of favourable responses among the first group when it comes to the situation Assigning faculty to courses over multiple campuses whereas other groups’ response behaviour remained the same. A high percentage of “Not applicable” was noted for that item, giving the impression that most faculty on this timetable may have a unique teaching arrangement.



80%

60%

81%

64%

7%

22% 14%

19% 11%

19%

5% 7% 2% 0% 0%

10%





87% 86%

100%

82%

4% 6% 0%

14%

4% 3% 0% 1% 4% 6% 0% 2%










73% 67%

90%

75%

11% 14% 5%

14% 16%

6% 5% 2% 0%

14%

0% 8%




53%

72%

90% 78%

11% 11% 5%

15%

4% 6% 5% 7%

31%

11%

0% 0%




76%

61% 70%

54%

11% 17%

25% 22%

2% 6% 5%

24%

11% 17%

0% 0%








As in the previous timetables, the largest Faculty to respond to this timetable is the School of Business. Figure 7 presents the distribution of respondents by Faculty to the 3 hr x 1 timetable. Figure 7: Distribution of Respondents to the 3 hr x 1 Timetable

The preceding graphs on this section have so far revealed that different respondent groups perceive the effectiveness of the different timetables depending on their experience with other timetables (or lack of it). Thus, to clarify which timetable is perceived most effective, flexible and/or functional, an analysis of the responses from the group who has experienced all three timetables is presented on the next section. D. Comparative Analysis of Responses from Faculty with Experience on All Three Timetables

The succeeding graphs summarize the responses of the biggest group based on the grouping shown in Figure 4. The members of this group have experienced teaching on all three timetables and as such have responded to the survey with mental comparisons. The bars are arranged in such a way that their responses to each of the timetables are beside each other for easier comparison. The graphs illustrate clearly that in almost all of the teaching and learning aspects mentioned, more faculty favour either the 2 hr x 2 timetable or the 3 hr x 1 timetable. On many aspects, these two timetables are shown to be neck and neck in the number of favourable responses. On two dimensions, however, the 3 hr x 1 timetable fell out of favour, giving way to the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable. These two dimensions are Maintain student interest and attentiveness during class time and Sustain student learning between classes. On these two aspects, the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable is assessed more favourably than the 3 hr x 1 timetable. However, the 2 hr x 2 timetable consistently maintained a very high level of positive assessments across all teaching and learning aspects. That the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable is assessed unfavourably on many of these dimensions is also evident in the number of negative responses it garnered. On six out of the eight aspects given, the middle bar stands out on the “Poorly/Very poorly” response percentages.

Academic and Career

Advancement 11%


7%

Design 1%

Humanities 12%

Business 39%

Horticulture 0%


2%

Social Sciences 19%


0%

Other/ Undeclared

9%

Distribution of Respondents to the 3 hr x 1 Timetable




67%

27%

6%

0%

79%

17%

4%

0%

54%

21%

10%

15%

60%

21%

9%

10%

46%

37%

17%

0%

40%

28%

32%

0%

34%

26%

24%

16%

22%

34%

35%

9%

38%

34%

27%

1%

73%

20%

6%

1%

55%

26%

8%

12%

64%

19%

7%

10%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Sust

ain

stu

den

t le

arn

ing

bet

we

encl

asse

s

Ach

ieve

co

urs

e le

arn

ing

ob

ject

ives

dir

ect

ly in

flu

ence

d b

y th

e c

lass

roo

mex

pe

rien

ceP

rom

ote

incr

eas

ed le

arn

ing

in c

ou

rses

that

are

pri

mar

ily t

heo

reti

cal

Mak

e it

po

ssib

le t

o in

corp

ora

tein

div

idu

al s

tud

ent

rese

arch

an

das

sign

men

ts

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1

Figure 8a: Comparison of Responses from Faculty with Experience on All Three timetables




88%

8%

4%

0%

83%

12%

5%

0%

72%

21%

6%

1%

62%

29%

9%

0%

43%

22%

35%

0%

46%

20%

34%

0%

38%

22%

38%

2%

61%

17%

22%

0%

86%

8%

5%

1%

83%

14%

2%

1%

72%

18%

9%

1%

47%

28%

24%

1%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Co

ver

the

co

urs

e m

ater

ial e

ffec

tive

ly in

lect

ure

sEn

gage

stu

den

ts d

irec

tly

wit

h q

ues

tio

ns

and

in d

iscu

ssio

ns

Mai

nta

in s

tud

ent

par

tici

pat

ion

in w

ork

sho

ps,

acti

viti

es, e

xerc

ises

, te

am p

roje

cts,

etc

.M

ain

tain

stu

den

t in

tere

st a

nd

att

enti

ven

ess

du

rin

g cl

ass

tim

e

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1

Figure 8b: Comparison of Responses from Faculty with Experience on All Three timetables




When assessments of flexibility and functionality are considered, there is no competition: the 3 hr x 1 timetable clearly and consistently shows the highest percentage of favourable responses, followed not very closely by the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable. Consistently, the 2 hr x 2 timetable garnered the most unfavourable responses on this group of questions.

25%

28%

43%

3%

19%

31%

40%

10%

11%

27%

50%

11%

21%

35%

24%

20%

48%

25%

24%

2%

45%

21%

24%

10%

37%

20%

30%

13%

30%

32%

18%

20%

82%

14%

1%

2%

75%

14%

2%

8%

78%

15%

7%

0%

54%

22%

24%

0%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Facu

lty

sch

edu

ling

no

n-t

each

ing,

acco

un

tab

le t

ime

acti

viti

es: e

.g.

rese

arch

, co

mm

itte

e m

eeti

ngs

,d

epar

tmen

t/u

niv

ersi

ty p

roje

cts

Ass

ign

ing

facu

lty

to s

pec

ific

co

urs

es

acro

ss t

he

mat

rix

Ass

ign

ing

facu

lty

to c

ou

rses

ove

rm

ult

iple

cam

pu

ses

Mak

ing

effe

ctiv

e u

se o

f sp

ecia

llyeq

uip

pe

d c

lass

roo

ms

and

lab

s

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1

Figure 8c: Comparison of Responses from Faculty with Experience on All Three timetables




The opinions of respondents from this group are clear: the 2 hr x 2 timetable is viewed as most efficient when it comes to teaching and learning but is viewed as most inflexible and difficult to work with when it comes to other academic situations in the faculty’s life. The timetable that is seen as most flexible and functional is the 3 hr x 1 timetable, and it is assessed as being quite effective too in teaching and learning – except when it comes to maintaining students’ attention in the classroom for the entire duration of the session and sustaining their learning in between sessions. To give a very crude way of assessing the relative approval rating of each timetable, “average percentages” of the “Very well/Well” responses are calculated. For teaching and learning effectiveness, the average percentage of the 2 hr x 2 timetable is 71%, the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable is 41% and the 3 hr x 1 timetable is 65%. For flexibility and functionality, the average approval ratings are: the 2 hr x 2 timetable is 19%, 1.5 hr x 2 timetable is 40%, and the 3 hr x 1 timetable is 72%. In other words, instructors give the 2 hr x 2 timetable an A when it comes to teaching and learning effectiveness but a categorical F when it comes to flexibility and functionality. The 1.5 hr x 2 timetable gets an F on both. The 3 hr x 1 timetable gets a B for teaching and learning effectiveness and a runaway A when it comes to flexibility and functionality. Results from the student survey are quite similar. From the summary graphs presented previously, students show a strong preference for either the 2 hr x 2 timetable (31.4%) or the 3 hr x 1 timetable (31.6%). The 1.5 hr x 2 timetable is their third preference.2 The distribution of faculty respondents belonging to this group according to their home Faculties is shown icn Figure 9. As in the total respondents, most respondents are from the School of Business, followed by the Faculty of Social Sciences. However, there are slightly more respondents from the Faculty of Humanities on this group whereas the third biggest group in the total population is the Faculty of Academic and Career Advancement. Figure 9: Distribution of Faculty Respondents Who Experienced All Three Timetables

.

2 Results of the Office of the Registrar Survey

Academic and Career

Advancement 10%


1% Humanities 16%

Business 44%

Sciences, Math and Applied

Sciences 1%

Social Sciences

21%

Other/ Undeclared

7%

Distribution of Faculty Respondents Who Experienced All Three Timetables



Analysis of Responses by Faculty with Input from Student Responses

16%

5%

5%

5%

24%

8%

24%

11%

2x2 only

1.5x2 only

2x2 and 1.5x2 only

3x1 only

2x2 and 3x1 only

1.5x2 and 3x1 only

all 3 TT options

other TTs

Academic and Career Advancement (n=37)


In order to see variations of responses among the different Faculties, the respondents were clustered into their home Faculties and their responses were examined. The results were juxtaposed with the responses on a survey conducted for the Office of the Registrar where part of that survey asked students about the length of time they think works best for their learning. Because there were too few respondents from the Faculty of Design, the School of Horticulture and the Faculty of Trades and Technology, these Faculties are not included in the analysis.

A. Faculty of Academic and Career Advancement

The graph on the right shows that most of the respondents from this Faculty come from two groups: those who experienced both the 2 hr x 2 and 3 hr x 1 timetables, and those who experienced all three timetables. Given the preceding analysis, knowledge of this distribution might help understand the outcome for this Faculty. The graphs on Appendix D give a comparative presentation of the favourability of the different timetable options to the Faculty of Academic and Career Advancement. From those graphs it can be seen that similar to the overall findings, the faculty respondents from the Academic and Career Administration Faculty show a preference for the 2 hr x 2 timetable as far as aspects of teaching and learning are concerned, followed by the 3 hr x 1 timetable. However, as far as flexibility and functionality of the timetable is concerned, the 3 hr x 1 timetable is seen as the best. The least favourite on the teaching and learning criterion is the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable and on the flexibility and functionality criterion is the 2 hr x 2 timetable.

The average percentages of each kind of response to the items are summarized in Table 8. From this list it can be seen that focusing only on “Very well/Well” responses for teaching and learning, the ranking is as follows: first is the 2 hr x 2 timetable, second is the 3 hr x 1 timetable and last is the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable. As for flexibility, the 3 hr x 1 timetable ranks first, followed by the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable with the 2 hr x 2 timetable ranking last.

Unfortunately, no data for the Faculty of Academic and Career Advancement is available on the student survey by the Office of the Registrar. In general, however, that survey reveals that the length of class students think is best for their learning is between 1.5 and 2 hours, with a few more students favouring 2 hours than 1.5 hours.

Table 8: Average Percentages of the Responses to the Effectiveness of the Timetables on Aspects of Teaching and Learning, and Flexibility and Functionality from the Faculty of Academic and Career Advancement

Effectiveness on Teaching and Learning Dimensions Flexibility and Functionality

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1 2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1

Very well/Well 88% 34% 61% 42% 46% 62%

Neutral 8% 36% 15% 29% 25% 17%

Poorly/ Very poorly 4% 25% 20% 19% 14% 8%

Not applicable 5% 13% 11% 11% 15% 14%




1%

0%

5%

16%

21%

9%

49%

0%

2x2 only

1.5x2 only

2x2 and 1.5x2 only

3x1 only

2x2 and 3x1 only

1.5x2 and 3x1 only

all 3 TT options

other TTs

School of Business (n=82)

B. School of Business Respondents from the School of Business make up 27% of the total respondents to this survey. Of this group, almost half have experienced all three timetables and none has claimed to have experienced teaching on only the 1.5 hr x 1 timetable. A big group, however, has experienced only the 3 hr x 1 timetable. Appendix E gives the comparison graphs of the responses from the School of Business. Considering that the School of Business respondents is the biggest group to influence the overall results and even the results of the analysis of responses from the special group conducted in the previous section (those who experienced all timetables), the present results reveal a slightly different outcome compared to the overall results. From the graphs in Appendix E, a preference for the 3 hr x 1 timetable is evident. The 2 hr x 2 timetable comes as a distant second favourite when it comes to teaching and learning effectiveness. The 1.5 hr x 2 timetable is again the least favourite. Table 9 presents a summary. Table 9: Average Percentages of the Responses to the Effectiveness of the Timetables on Aspects of Teaching and Learning,

and Flexibility and Functionality from the School of Business



Very well/Well 59% 42% 73% 16% 38% 83%

Neutral 23% 21% 17% 24% 20% 7%

Poorly/ Very poorly

15% 34% 8% 50% 32% 9%

Not applicable 4% 3% 1% 10% 10% 0%

Even for the flexibility and functionality criterion, the 3 hr x 1 timetable also ranked first on their list. The 2 hr x 2 timetable is shown to be least favoured. Students from the School of Business also agree that the 3 hr x 1 timetable is best for their learning. Although in general, most of them prefer a 2–hour class over a 3–hour one, their timetable preference indicate that they prefer a 3 hr x 1 timetable more than a 2 hr x 2 timetable. The Business students’ responses to the Office of the Registrar survey are presented on the succeeding graphs. Figure 10: Responses from Business Students to "What length of class is best for your learning?"

2.6% 4.7%

33.7% 34.1%

24.4%

0.6%

Other1 hour1.5 hours2 hours3 hours4 hours

Responses from Business Students to "What length of class is best for your learning?" (n=860)




2%

0%

2%

20%

12%

17%

46%

0%

2x2 only

1.5x2 only

2x2 and 1.5x2 only

3x1 only

2x2 and 3x1 only

1.5x2 and 3x1 only

all 3 TT options

other TTs

Social Sciences (n=41)

Figure 11: Responses from Business Students to "What weekly schedule would you prefer for each of your courses?"

C. Faculty of Social Sciences

The profile of respondents from the Faculty of Social Sciences is similar to that of the School of Business where a large number responded to the survey with a mental comparison of the three timetable options. However, there is a slightly greater proportion of respondents who have experienced only the 3 hr x 1 timetable. None of the respondents claim to have been confined to solely teaching on the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable. The results are also similar to the School of Business in that the 3 hr x 1 timetable is favoured over the 2 hr x 2 timetable. Appendix F gives the comparison graphs of responses and Table 10 presents a summary of the average percentages for each criterion. Table 10: Average Percentages of the Responses to the Effectiveness of the Timetables on Aspects of Teaching and Learning,

and Flexibility and Functionality from the Faculty of Social Sciences



Very well/Well 70% 61% 72% 28% 45% 76%

Neutral 23% 26% 19% 32% 22% 12%


Not applicable 2% 2% 1% 3% 3% 9%

The 3 hr x 1 timetable shows a slight edge over the 2 hr x 2 timetable when it comes to garnering “Very well/Well” responses despite the fact that it also has slightly more “Poorly/Very poorly” responses on the first criterion (teaching and learning). As for the second criterion (flexibility and functionality), the 3 hr x 1 timetable is by far the most approved, with the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable coming in a distant second.

3.2%

26.7%

4.3% 3.0%

24.8%

37.9%

Other 2 hours a day twice aweek (4 hours total)



hours total)

1.5 hours a day twicea week (3 hours

total)


Responses from Business Students to "What weekly schedule would you prefer for each of your courses ?" (n=860)




The findings for Social Sciences faculty timetable preferences parallel the findings from the student survey: students from the Faculty of Social Sciences showed a slightly greater partiality to the 3 hr x 1 timetable followed by the 2 hr x 2 timetable albeit they also indicated a preference for 1.5–hour long classes. Figure 12: Responses from Social Sciences Students to "What length of class if best for your learning?"

Figure 13: Responses from Social Sciences Students to "What weekly schedule would you prefer for each of your courses?"

2.4% 6.9%

35.8% 31.9%

22.2%

0.4%


Responses from Social Sciences Students to "What length of class is best for your learning?" (n=784)

3.2%

29.9%

4.5% 3.2%

28.1% 31.2%



1 hour a day threetimes a week (3 hours

total)

1.5 hours a day twice aweek (3 hours total)


Responses from Social Sciences Students to "What weekly schedule would you prefer for each of your courses?" (n=780)




7%

0%

13%

13%

7%

13%

47%

0%

2x2 only

1.5x2 only

2x2 and 1.5x2 only

3x1 only

2x2 and 3x1 only

1.5x2 and 3x1 only

all 3 TT options

other TTs

Humanities (n=30)

D. Faculty of Humanities

The Faculty of Humanities is the third Faculty to exhibit a large number of respondents who are experienced on all three timetables. The profile is presented on the graph below. Table 11 presents the average of the percentages for each of the two criteria. Table 11 shows a closer resemblance to the overall scores where the 2 hr x 2 timetable garners the most positive appraisal of effectiveness, followed by the 3 hr x 1 timetable, and the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable having the most negative appraisal with a very high percentage of “Poorly/Very poorly” responses. The second criterion is more consistent across the Faculties analyzed so far: the 3 hr x 1 timetable has the greatest approval figures, followed by 1.5 hr x 2 timetable. The 2 hr x 2 timetable has the greatest disapproval figures. Appendix G gives the comparison graph of the responses.

Table 11: Average Percentages of the Responses to the Effectiveness of the Timetables on Aspects of Teaching and Learning, and Flexibility and Functionality from the Faculty of Humanities



Very well/Well 75% 51% 72% 19% 55% 76%

Neutral 15% 17% 16% 24% 23% 17%


Not applicable 3% 3% 1% 18% 17% 0%

Figure 14: Responses from Humanities Students to "What length of class is best for your learning?"

Students from the Faculty of Humanities agree with their instructors that the 2 hr x 2 timetable is best for their learning. The majority of students who responded to the survey showed a preference for 2–hour classes as well as a preference for the 2 hr x 2 timetable. The succeeding graphs present the responses of students from the Faculty of Humanities.

3.8 1.9

23.1

51.0

17.3

2.9


Responses from Humanities Students to "What length of class is best for your learning?" (n=104)




5%

0%

0%

60%

5%

0%

5%

25%

2x2 only

1.5x2 only

2x2 and 1.5x2 only

3x1 only

2x2 and 3x1 only

1.5x2 and 3x1 only

all 3 TT options

other TTs

Community and Health Studies (n=20)

Figure 15: Responses from Humanities Students to "What weekly schedule would you prefer for each of your courses?"

E. Faculty of Community and Health Studies (CAHS)

There are only 20 respondents from the Faculty of Community and Health Studies. As can be seen from their distribution, five of the 20 evaluated other, instructor defined timetables. There were only one respondent each for the 2 hr x 2 timetable, both the 2 hr x 2 and 3 hr x 1 timetables, and all timetables (total respondents for the 2 hr x 2 timetable is three and for 1.5 hr x 2 timetable is one). The respondents from this Faculty mostly experienced only the 3 hr x 1 timetable. Because of this configuration of participants, only the respondents’ evaluation of the 3 hr x 1 timetable is considered here. Table 12 on the next page presents the responses to the survey by the 14 who have experienced the 3 hr x 1 timetable. From this table it can be seen that most faculty have a very positive assessment of this timetable. The lowest positive response is on the aspect Promote increased learning in courses that are primarily theoretical (64%) because there were relatively more “Not applicable” responses (21%). This may be because many of the courses in the Faculty of Community and Health Studies are applied or practical. Table 13 presents the same respondents’ assessment of the 3 hr x 1 timetable’s flexibility and functionality. From this table it can be seen that although it is viewed as quite effective in scheduling other faculty non-teaching activities, it received a very low positive rating on Assigning faculty to courses over multiple campuses. This may be because a good number of instructors in the Faculty of Community and Health Studies are clinical practitioners and do not regularly meet with the students on campus.

2.9%

42.3%

9.6%

1.0%

23.1% 21.2%




hours total)


total)


Responses from Humanities Students to "What weekly schedule would you prefer for each of your courses?" (n=104)




4.2 3.5

16.7

46.5

27.1

1.4


Responses from CAHS Students to "What length of class is best for your learning?" (n=144)

Table 12: Responses of the Faculty from the Community and Health Studies Faculty on the Perceived Effectiveness of the 3 hr x 1 Timetable on the Different Teaching and Learning Dimensions



Poorly/ Very poorly Not applicable


93% 7% 0% 0%


93% 7% 0% 0%


85% 8% 8% 0%


86% 14% 0% 0%


64% 7% 7% 21%


86% 7% 7% 0%

Table 13: Responses of the Faculty from the Community and Health Studies Faculty on the Perceived Flexibility and

Functionality of the 3 hr x 1 Timetable on Given Situations

How well does the 3 hr x 1 option provide flexibility and functionality in each of the following situations? Very well/ Well Neutral

Poorly/ Very poorly

Not applicable


86% 7% 7% 0%



Making effective use of specially equipped classrooms and labs 71% 14% 14% 0%

Figure 16: Responses from CAHS Students to "What length of class is best for your learning?"




56%

0%

6%

0%

22%

0%

6%

11%

2x2 only

1.5x2 only

2x2 and 1.5x2 only

3x1 only

2x2 and 3x1 only

1.5x2 and 3x1 only

all 3 TT options

other TTs

Science, Mathematics and Applied Sciences (n=18)

Figure 17: Responses from CAHS Students to "What weekly schedule would you prefer for each of your courses?"

Although a 2–hour class is preferred by the students from the Faculty of Community and Health Studies, the graphs show that the timetable they prefer the most is the 3 hr x 1 timetable. This fits well with the faculty’s level of comfort with the 3 hr x 1 timetable. F. Division of Science, Mathematics and Applied Sciences

More than half of the respondents (16) from the Sciences Faculty experienced only the 2 hr x 2 timetable; five have experience teaching on the 3 hr x 1 timetable; only two have actually experienced the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable. Given the profile shown on the succeeding graph, responses for the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable are excluded from the analysis. The detailed comparison graphs are available in Appendix H. Table 14 shows the average percentages of each of the responses on the different dimensions of the two criteria. From this table it can be seen that the Sciences faculty like their 2 hr x 2 timetable over the 3 hr x 1 timetable when it comes to teaching and learning. They prefer the 2 hr x 2 timetable as well when it comes to functionality and flexibility but the proportion is not as great on this second criterion as it is on the first. Even those who experienced the 3 hr x 1 timetable did not rate it as highly on this second criterion the way all other respondents from other Faculties did. Table 14: Average Percentages of the Responses to the Effectiveness of the Timetables on Aspects of Teaching and Learning, Flexibility and Functionality from the Division of Science, Mathematics and Applied Sciences


2 hr x 2 3 hr x 1 2 hr x 2 3 hr x 1

Very well/Well 90% 30% 56% 25%

Neutral 5% 33% 30% 55%

Poorly/Very poorly 6% 35% 9% 15%

Not applicable 0% 3% 5% 5%

3.5%

32.6%

9.0%

3.5%

10.4%

41.0%




hours total)


total)


Responses from CAHS Students to "What weekly schedule would you prefer for each of your courses?" (n=144)




Figure 18: Responses from Science and Horticulture Students to "What length of class is best for your learning?"

Figure 19: Responses from Science and Horticulture Students to "What weekly schedule would you prefer for each of your courses?"

The data from the Office of the Registrar survey is a combination of students from the School of Horticulture and the Division of Science, Mathematics and Applied Sciences. As mentioned previously, because of the few faculty respondents from the School of Horticulture, analysis of responses for the Faculty was not conducted. However, the faculty who did respond to the survey gave very positive ratings to the 2 hr x 2 timetable for teaching and learning and very negative ratings of flexibility and functionality to the same. Student’s responses as shown on the preceding graphs indicate a preference for 2–hour classes which is consonant with faculty preference. However, presented with a choice of timetables, they showed a slightly greater partiality for the 3 hr x 1 timetable.

1.5% 7.7%

25.8%

58.8%

5.7% 5.0%

Other 1 hour 1.5 hours 2 hours 3 hours 4 hours

Responses from Science and Horticulture Students to "What length of class is best for your learning?"

(n=194)

3.2%

29.9%

4.5% 3.2%

28.1% 31.2%




hours total)


total)


Responses from Science and Horticulture Students to "What weekly schedule would you prefer for each of your courses?" (n=194)



Summary of Findings

Summary of Findings

Respondent distribution by Faculty is close to the actual distribution of faculty for Spring 2012.

Most of the respondents experienced teaching on the 3 hr x 1 timetable. The 1.5 hr x 2 timetable has not been experienced by more than half of the respondents.

A third of the respondents experienced all three timetables.

Patterns of faculty responses reveal that experience with one or two other timetables influence the way faculty respond to the survey. Given this, an analysis of the responses from only the group who experienced all three timetables were also conducted.

Below is a summary table of the responses to the item–rating questions on teaching–learning aspects, identifying the timetable which garnered the greatest agreement of effectiveness and ineffectiveness. The percentages for all the respondents to each timetable as well as respondents who have experienced all three timetables are presented.


ALL Respondents: Greatest

agreement of effectiveness


agreement of ineffectiveness

EXPERIENCED ON ALL 3 TTs: Greatest




Cover the course material effectively in lectures 2 hr x 2 (86%) 1.5 hr x 2 (32%) 2 hr x 2 (88%) 1.5 hr x 2 (35%)

Engage students directly with questions and in discussions 3 hr x 1 (84%) 1.5 hr x 2 (30%)

2 hr x 2 & 3 hr x 1 (83%)

1.5 hr x 2 (34%)


3 hr x 1 (76%) 1.5 hr x 2 (34%) 2 hr x 2 & 3 hr x 1

(72%) 1.5 hr x 2 (38%)

Maintain student interest and attentiveness during class time 2 hr x 2 (68%) 3 hr x 1 (22%) 2 hr x 2 (62%) 3 hr x 1 (24%)

Sustain student learning between classes 2 hr x 2 (70%) 3 hr x 1 (21%) 2 hr x 2 (67%) 3 hr x 1 (27%)


2 hr x 2 (79%) 1.5 hr x 2 (29%) 2 hr x 2 (79%) 1.5 hr x 2 (32%)

Promote increased learning in courses that are primarily theoretical 3 hr x 1 (60%) 1.5 hr x 2 (22%) 3 hr x 1 (55%) 1.5 hr x 2 (24%)


3 hr x 1 (69%) 1.5 hr x 2 (31%) 3 hr x 1 (64%) 1.5 hr x 2 (35%)

When assessing the different aspects of teaching and learning, overall findings and findings from only the “Experienced on all three timetables” group are very similar.

The next table is a summary of the responses to the item–rating questions related to assessments of flexibility and functionality of the timetables to various academic situations. The percentages for all the respondents to each timetable as well as respondents who have experienced all three timetables are presented.



Summary of Findings

How well does each option provide flexibility and functionality in each

of the following situations?










3 hr x 1 (86%) 1.5 hr x 2 (23%) 3 hr x 1 (82%) 2 hr x 2 (43%)


3 hr x 1 (75%) 1.5 hr x 2 (23%) 3 hr x 1 (75%) 2 hr x 2 (40%)


3 hr x 1 (72%) 1.5 hr x 2 (29%) 3 hr x 1 (78%) 2 hr x 2 (50%)


3 hr x 1 (62%) 1.5 hr x 2 &

2 hr x 2 (17%) 3 hr x 1 (54%) 2 hr x 2 (24%)

Overall results view the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable most unfavourably on all four situations that require flexibility and functionality whereas the 2 hr x 2 timetable is viewed most unfavourably by the “Experienced on all three timetables” group.

Responses of students to the Office of the Registrar survey reveal that although most students prefer 2–hour long classes considerably more than 3–hour long classes, when presented with the different timetable options, there were slightly more students who indicated a preference for the 3 hr x 1 timetable.

Among those who assessed the 2 hr x 2 timetable’s effectiveness in aspects of teaching and learning, the greatest agreement of effectiveness is on Cover the course material effectively in lectures (86%). The greatest agreement of Ineffectiveness is on Maintain student interest and attentiveness during class time (11%).

Among those who assessed the 2 hr x 2 timetable’s flexibility and functionality, the greatest percentage of positive responses is Faculty scheduling non-teaching, accountable time activities: e.g. research, committee meetings, department/university projects (58%) whereas the greatest percentage of negative responses is Making effective use of specially equipped classrooms and labs (17%).

Among those who assessed the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable’s effectiveness in aspects of teaching and learning, the greatest agreement of effectiveness is Maintain student interest and attentiveness during class time (67%) whereas the greatest agreement of ineffectiveness is Maintain student participation in workshops, activities, exercises, team projects, etc. (34%).

Among those who assessed the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable’s flexibility and functionality, the greatest percentage of positive responses is Faculty scheduling non-teaching, accountable time activities: e.g. research, committee meetings, department/university projects (50%) whereas the greatest percentage of negative responses is Assigning faculty to courses over multiple campuses (29%).

Among those who assessed the 3 hr x 1 timetable’s effectiveness in aspects of teaching and learning, the greatest agreement of effectiveness is on Cover the course material effectively in lectures and Engage students directly with questions and in discussions (both 84%) whereas the greatest agreement of Ineffectiveness is on Maintain student interest and attentiveness during class time (22%).

Among those who assessed the 3 hr x 1 timetable’s flexibility and functionality, the greatest percentage of positive responses is Faculty scheduling non-teaching, accountable time activities: e.g. research, committee meetings, department/university projects (86%) whereas all four items received equal percentages of negative responses (2%).



Summary of Findings

The group who experienced only the 2 hr x 2 timetable shows the greatest percentage of favourable responses to this timetable among all other groups who experienced this timetable. The group who experienced only the 3 hr x 1 timetable shows the greatest percentage of favourable responses to the 3 hr x 1 timetable among all other groups who experienced the 3 hr x 1 timetable. The lack of respondents who experienced only the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable may explain the very low percentage of favourable responses to this timetable.

Those who experienced both the 2 hr x 2 and the 3 hr x 1 timetables but not the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable seem to have rated the twice a week session rather unfavourably on the aspects of teaching and learning presented here. However, those who experienced both the 1.5 hr x 2 and the 3 hr x 1 timetables but not the 2 hr x 2 timetable have found the twice a week session rather favourable for teaching and learning. Perhaps the fact that both the 1.5 hr x 2 and the 3 hr x 1 timetables add up to three hours a week is a factor for this response behaviour. The responses of those who were comparing the 2 hr x 2 and the 3 hr x 1 timetable seem to be influenced negatively by the additional one hour a week classroom time of the 2 hr x 2 timetable.

Groups who experienced both twice a week timetables found the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable more flexible and functional.

Although the 3 hr x 1 timetable is found to be most flexible and functional, experience with a 2 hr x 1 timetable moderates the perception of the 3 hr x 1 timetable’s flexibility and functionality.

Respondents from the Division of Sciences, Mathematics and Applied Sciences experienced mostly the 2 hr x 2 timetable and almost none experienced the 1.5 hr x 2 timetable.

The table below summarizes the survey findings from each Faculty

FACULTY

Teaching & Learning Flexibility & Functionality Student’s preferred timetable

Most effective timetable

Least effective timetable

Most effective timetable

Least effective timetable


2 hr x 2 1.5 x 2 3 hr x 1 2 hr x 2 –

Business 3 hr x 1 1.5 x 2 3 hr x 1 2 hr x 2 3 hr x 1 Social Sciences 3 hr x 1 1.5 x 2 3 hr x 1 2 hr x 2 3 hr x 1 Humanities 2 hr x 2 1.5 x 2 3 hr x 1 2 hr x 2 2 hr x 2

Science, Mathematics and Applied Sciences

(the 1.5 hr x 2 was not included in the analysis)

3 hr x 1 2 hr x 2 2 hr x 2


(only the 3 hr x 1 was analyzed) 3 hr x 1

Design, Trades and Technology and Horticulture

These Faculties were not included in the analyses because of the low number of respondents.



Summary of Findings




Appendix A: Summary of Verbatim Responses to the 2 hr x 2 Timetable

APPENDICES


STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES COMMENTS

SUFFICIENT TIME (84)

Longer student contact for instruction, practice and creative approaches

Enough time for content coverage

Can provide more timely feedback to students

Enough time for exams or quizzes

Lots of meetings/classes provide better continuity

Not too long at a time schedule

TIME ISSUES: TOO LONG/TOO SHORT (41)

Breaks disrupt flow/difficult to pace

Too much time/too long

Too short; less time for activities; difficult to cover materials

Difficult to plan class

STUDENT–RELATED (33)

Maintains student interest, focus, motivation and attendance

Advantageous for weaker students/more help can be extended

Advantageous for first year classes or inexperienced students

Helps student retention of material

Promotes better classroom environment

Absence from a class is not catastrophic

more time to meet with students outside of class


Difficult holding student attention

Increased student absenteeism/leaving early

Difficult for students' schedule (esp. those who work)

Students don't like it

Students have too much to digest at one time

Students do not take ownership of learning

Students can do other things outside of class


Creates time management difficulty for both teachers and students

Students' preference for another schedule

Not good for working students

Creates difficulty in students' retention of material

OTHER INSTRUCTION–RELATED (30)

Allows for break

Positive-pace

Easier to plan class

Provides depth of instruction

2 hr x 2 good for first year students/intro courses

Better curriculum coverage

2 hr x 2 better for exams

Better for instructor flexibility

Works well with Moodle

Works well with lectures


8:00 a.m. classes are problematic

Too short for activities





SCHEDULING ISSUES (37)

Difficult to schedule faculty/ timetabling

Awkward distribution of classes throughout the week/ inconsistent

MISCELLANEOUS (28)

Better for some course types

Best option

The more contact time with students, the better

Improves faculty availability

Good for students' skill acquisition and learning

Less stressful

Same matrix as other universities

MISCELLANEOUS (47)

Disadvantage – travel between campuses

Less time for faculty to do research, committee mtgs, depart/university projects

General negative comment (e.g. terrible)

Tiring for faculty and students

Competitive disadvantage for Kwantlen

Fewer classes within the day

Creates scheduling problems

Not in favor of 2 hr x 2

Extra classroom hours impact on instructors' other tasks

No time for research, etc.

MISCELLANEOUS (30)

Preference for another timetable

Compared to other universities

No difference

Matrix should depend on course

Hard to compare

I really like it

Prefers 2 hr x 2

Not in favour of 1.5 hr x 2

“No weaknesses” (18)



Appendix B: Summary of Verbatim Responses to the 1.5 hr x 2 Timetable




Maintains student interest, focus, motivation and attendance

good for first year classes or inexperienced students

Helps student retention of material

Better for students' schedule

better for weaker students/ more help can be extended

If they miss a class, students miss only one session not one week

Good for students' schedules

More time to meet with students outside of class


increased student stress levels; absenteeism

Negative student response

Disadvantageous/less time for weaker students

Difficult holding student attention

Difficult for students' schedule (especially those who work)

Not effective for students’ time management

Reduced student grades

INSTRUCTION–RELATED (4)

More equitable in terms of teaching time

Learning outcomes are comparable

Textbooks dovetail with 1.5 hr x 2 perfectly

INSTRUCTION AND EXAM–RELATED (91)

Negative–material coverage

Not enough time for exams or quizzes

Insufficient time for instruction and activities

Time too short for exams

Not enough time for practice in class

Not recommended for skills–based courses


better for instruction, practice and creative approaches

Easier to plan class

More classes can fit in a day

Lots of meetings/classes provide better continuity


Better early morning start time

promotes better classroom environment





LOGISTICAL ISSUES (11)

Disadvantage: travel between campuses

Logistical difficulty (e.g. other instructors do not leave on time)

Difficult to schedule

INSTRUCTOR–RELATED (6)

It is important for instructors to adjust

Difficult to plan

Difficult for faculty to do research, etc.

Longer time spent in car than in teaching

No weaknesses” (8)

MISCELLANEOUS POSITIVE COMMENTS (49)

Relatively better

Same as 2 hr x 2

General – positive (e.g. I’m happier with the new matrix)

Students/learners seem to like the new matrix

Prefers 1.5 hr x 2

General positive (e.g. better timetable)

Similar to 2 hr x 2

Positive: commute between campuses

Allows for other faculty pursuits

Easy to schedule/greater consistency

Compared to other universities...

MISCELLANEOUS NEGATIVE COMMENTS (16)

General negative (e.g., “get rid of them", “terrible”)

Relatively worse

Faculty has to adjust

MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS: NEITHER POSITIVE NOR NEGATIVE (18)

Prefers/suggests another matrix

Technology makes up for time lost to the switch/needs to be developed

Appropriate matrix depends on course

Still adjusting to the switch

Compared with other universities...

Depends on kind of student



Appendix C: Summary of Verbatim Responses to the 3 hr x 1 Timetable




Better student attendance, engagement

Good for students' schedules (especially those who work)

Positive feedback from students/students prefer this

Convenient for students

Provide more timely feedback to students

More time to meet with students outside of class

Better for some student types

Provides the most consistent and flexibility for both students and faculty

Students who are working appreciate the three-hour class once per week

It improves attendance


Negative for student retention, attention or engagement

Student absence/holiday has a great impact

Tiring for students

Not appropriate for first year students

Less frequent contact with students

Students have too much to digest at one time

This matrix doesn't give the students enough time to grow as students: commitment, extra help, observation of good study behaviour, etc.

TIME/SCHEDULE–RELATED (62)

Sufficient student contact for instruction, practice and creative approaches

Easy to schedule

Time enough for exams or quizzes

Allows for break

TIME/ SCHEDULE–RELATED (48)

Negative: classes too far apart

Too much time/too long

Requires breaks

Time not appropriate for learning or skills building

MATERIAL COVERAGE: POSITIVE (8)

In terms of covering the material, giving a variety in educational experiences and assignments, and getting my work done, this is the best option. There are a few courses for which, perhaps, the 2 hr x 1.5 would be at least as good, but overall this is best.

MATERIAL COVERAGE: NEGATIVE (11)

Students have less opportunity to work with the material in a group setting in class

Less time to work with students – leaving them to learn materials on their own





OTHER INSTRUCTION-RELATED (53)

Provides depth of instruction

Easier to plan or synchronize class/provides flexibility

Good for upper level courses


Works well with Moodle

Positive-material coverage

OTHER INSTRUCTION-RELATED (4)

Without the 4th hour and the opportunity to meet twice a week, the chance for the students to reflect and connect in a social is lost


Faculty has more time for other scholarly activities and committee participation

Convenient for instructors

“Seems to fit well with other faculty responsibilities, reduces prep time, and in my experience it reduces commute times.”


Instructor absence/holiday has a great impact

Tiring for faculty

Decreases faculty availability

Difficult to plan class

Less time for faculty to do research, committee mtgs, depart/university projects

“It is simply exhausting to be "on" for 3 hours. I find it more draining despite the efficiency of it. It is harder to learn students' names because a week goes by without seeing them each time.”

“No weaknesses” (20)

LOGISTICS (5)

3 hr x 1 is better for students, instructors, and space utilization

LOGISTICS (2)

“Two consecutive 3–hour block classes are assigned to two different classrooms…the 10-minute break between two different classes is not enough to get set for the next class.”

LOGISTICAL ISSUES (3)

Simultaneous classroom requests

MISCELLANEOUS POSITIVE COMMENTS (53)

Advantage for commuting

Same time frame used in other postsecondary institutions

Generally/relatively positive

Best option/most preferred

MISCELLANEOUS NEGATIVE COMMENTS (12)

Not a good idea

None

Students didn't seem committed to KPU and didn't participate in student life

Students leave after break

MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS: NEITHER POSITIVE NOR NEGATIVE (19)

Better suited for some courses/levels/students

Another matrix is preferable

Kwantlen compares positively (or at par) with other institutions

Requires more careful planning

Depends on the time: late evening classes are much less effective than earlier ones



Appendix D: Comparison of the Responses to the Different Timetables from the Faculty of Academic and Career Advancement


100%

0%

0%

96%

4%

0%

92%

8%

0%

92%

8%

0%

25%

19%

56%

25%

50%

25%

33%

40%

27%

69%

31%

0%

65%

13%

22%

78%

17%

4%

65%

13%

22%

61%

4%

35%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Co

ver

the

co

urs

e m

ater

ial

effe

ctiv

ely

in le

ctu

res

Enga

ge s

tud

en

ts d

ire

ctly

wit

hq

ues

tio

ns

and

in d

iscu

ssio

ns

Mai

nta

in s

tud

en

t p

arti

cip

atio

n in

wo

rksh

op

s, a

ctiv

itie

s, e

xerc

ise

s,te

am p

roje

cts,

etc

.M

ain

tain

stu

de

nt

inte

rest

an

dat

ten

tive

nes

s d

uri

ng

clas

s ti

me

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1




92%

8%

0%

96%

4%

0%

52%

20%

28%

0%

85%

8%

4%

4%

38%

56%

6%

25%

31%

44%

27%

33%

13%

27%

31%

25%

31%

13%

52%

9%

39%

57%

26%

17%

48%

17%

4%

30%

61%

17%

17%

4%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Sust

ain

stu

de

nt

lear

nin

gb

etw

een

cla

sse

s

Ach

ieve

co

urs

e le

arn

ing

ob

ject

ives

dir

ectl

y in

flu

ence

db

y th

e cl

assr

oo

m e

xpe

rien

ceP

rom

ote

incr

ease

d le

arn

ing

in c

ou

rses

that

are

pri

mar

ily t

heo

reti

cal

Mak

e it

po

ssib

le t

o in

corp

ora

tein

div

idu

al s

tud

en

t re

sear

ch a

nd

assi

gnm

en

ts

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1




56%

24%

12%

8%

40%

32%

8%

20%

37%

29%

17%

17%

33%

29%

38%

0%

60%

33%

7%

0%

47%

27%

13%

13%

43%

14%

21%

21%

33%

27%

13%

27%

82%

14%

4%

0%

59%

18%

5%

18%

64%

18%

18%

0%

41%

18%

5%

36%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Facu

lty

sch

edu

ling

no

n-t

each

ing,

acco

un

tab

le t

ime

acti

viti

es: e

.g. r

ese

arch

,co

mm

itte

e m

eeti

ngs

,d

ep

artm

ent/

un

iver

sity

pro

ject

sA

ssig

nin

g fa

cult

y to

sp

ecif

ic c

ou

rses

acro

ss t

he

mat

rix

Ass

ign

ing

facu

lty

to c

ou

rses

ove

r m

ult

iple

cam

pu

ses

Mak

ing

effe

ctiv

e u

se o

f sp

ecia

llyeq

uip

ped

cla

ssro

om

s an

d la

bs

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1







Appendix E: Comparison of the Responses to the Different Timetables from the School of Business


73%

12%

15%

70%

17%

14%

58%

22%

18%

2%

53%

30%

15%

2%

48%

14%

38%

48%

12%

40%

39%

16%

43%

2%

58%

16%

26%

0%

91%

9%

0%

86%

13%

1%

82%

16%

3%

0%

55%

21%

24%

0%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Co

ver

the

co

urs

e m

ater

ial

effe

ctiv

ely

in le

ctu

res

Enga

ge s

tud

en

ts d

irec

tly

wit

hq

ues

tio

ns

and

in d

iscu

ssio

ns

Mai

nta

in s

tud

en

t p

arti

cip

atio

n in

wo

rksh

op

s, a

ctiv

itie

s, e

xerc

ise

s, t

eam

pro

ject

s, e

tc.

Mai

nta

in s

tud

en

t in

tere

st a

nd

atte

nti

ven

ess

du

rin

g cl

ass

tim

e2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1




58%

28%

13%

65%

22%

13%

50%

20%

13%

17%

42%

32%

15%

12%

46%

30%

24%

41%

27%

33%

33%

24%

31%

12%

20%

28%

40%

12%

55%

28%

17%

80%

16%

4%

64%

20%

5%

11%

70%

14%

9%

7%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Sust

ain

stu

de

nt

lear

nin

gb

etw

een

cla

sse

s

Ach

ieve

co

urs

e le

arn

ing

ob

ject

ives

dir

ectl

y in

flu

ence

db

y th

e cl

assr

oo

m e

xpe

rien

ceP

rom

ote

incr

ease

d le

arn

ing

in c

ou

rses

that

are

pri

mar

ily t

heo

reti

cal

Mak

e it

po

ssib

le t

o in

corp

ora

te in

div

idu

alst

ud

ent

rese

arch

an

d a

ssig

nm

ents

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1




20%

27%

50%

3%

20%

23%

50%

7%

8%

22%

62%

8%

15%

25%

38%

22%

47%

18%

32%

2%

45%

12%

35%

8%

31%

18%

39%

12%

29%

31%

22%

18%

92%

4%

3%

1%

86%

5%

9%

0%

85%

5%

9%

0%

70%

14%

16%

0%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Facu

lty

sch

edu

ling

no

n-t

each

ing,

acco

un

tab

le t

ime

acti

viti

es: e

.g.

rese

arch

, co

mm

itte

e m

eeti

ngs

,d

ep

artm

ent/

un

iver

sity

pro

ject

sA

ssig

nin

g fa

cult

y to

sp

ecif

icco

urs

es a

cro

ss t

he

mat

rix

Ass

ign

ing

facu

lty

to c

ou

rses

ove

rm

ult

iple

cam

pu

ses

Mak

ing

effe

ctiv

e u

se o

f sp

ecia

llyeq

uip

ped

cla

ssro

om

s an

d la

bs

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1







Appendix F: Comparison of the Responses to the Different Timetables from the Faculty of Social Sciences


85%

11%

4%

77%

19%

4%

73%

23%

4%

0%

69%

23%

8%

70%

19%

11%

63%

30%

7%

56%

18%

22%

4%

85%

11%

4%

88%

7%

5%

85%

13%

2%

72%

20%

8%

0%

53%

35%

12%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Co

ver

the

co

urs

e m

ater

ial

effe

ctiv

ely

in le

ctu

res

Enga

ge s

tud

en

ts d

irec

tly

wit

hq

ues

tio

ns

and

in d

iscu

ssio

ns

Mai

nta

in s

tud

en

t p

arti

cip

atio

n in

wo

rksh

op

s,ac

tivi

ties

, exe

rcis

es, t

eam

pro

ject

s, e

tc.

Mai

nta

in s

tud

en

t in

tere

st a

nd

atte

nti

ven

ess

du

rin

g cl

ass

tim

e2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1




65%

27%

8%

73%

23%

4%

61%

31%

4%

4%

58%

27%

8%

8%

59%

33%

7%

59%

26%

15%

59%

26%

7%

7%

37%

41%

18%

4%

55%

30%

15%

80%

15%

5%

69%

15%

10%

5%

75%

15%

5%

5%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Sust

ain

stu

de

nt

lear

nin

gb

etw

een

cla

sse

s

Ach

ieve

co

urs

e le

arn

ing

ob

ject

ives

dir

ectl

y in

flu

ence

db

y th

e cl

assr

oo

m e

xpe

rien

ceP

rom

ote

incr

ease

d le

arn

ing

in c

ou

rses

that

are

pri

mar

ily t

heo

reti

cal

Mak

e it

po

ssib

le t

o in

corp

ora

te in

div

idu

alst

ud

ent

rese

arch

an

d a

ssig

nm

ents

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1




35%

19%

46%

0%

31%

35%

35%

0%

15%

39%

46%

0%

31%

35%

23%

11%

48%

18%

33%

0%

48%

26%

26%

0%

48%

15%

37%

0%

36%

28%

24%

12%

88%

8%

2%

2%

75%

8%

7%

10%

78%

12%

12%

8%

64%

18%

3%

15%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Facu

lty

sch

edu

ling

no

n-t

each

ing,

acco

un

tab

le t

ime

acti

viti

es: e

.g. r

ese

arch

,co

mm

itte

e m

eeti

ngs

,d

ep

artm

ent/

un

iver

sity

pro

ject

sA

ssig

nin

g fa

cult

y to

sp

ecif

ic c

ou

rses

acro

ss t

he

mat

rix

Ass

ign

ing

facu

lty

to c

ou

rses

ove

r m

ult

iple

cam

pu

ses

Mak

ing

effe

ctiv

e u

se o

f sp

ecia

llyeq

uip

ped

cla

ssro

om

s an

d la

bs

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1







Appendix G: Comparison of the Responses to the Different Timetables from the Faculty of Humanities


73%

18%

9%

86%

14%

0%

59%

14%

14%

14%

82%

14%

4%

0%

64%

18%

18%

54%

18%

27%

36%

27%

23%

14%

38%

24%

29%

9%

54%

21%

25%

78%

17%

4%

58%

21%

13%

8%

68%

23%

9%

0%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Sust

ain

stu

de

nt

lear

nin

gb

etw

een

cla

sse

s

Ach

ieve

co

urs

e le

arn

ing

ob

ject

ives

dir

ectl

y in

flu

ence

d b

yth

e cl

assr

oo

m e

xper

ien

ceP

rom

ote

incr

ease

d le

arn

ing

in c

ou

rses

th

atar

e p

rim

arily

th

eore

tica

lM

ake

it p

oss

ible

to

inco

rpo

rate

ind

ivid

ual

stu

den

t re

sear

ch a

nd

ass

ign

me

nts

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1




91%

9%

0%

86%

14%

0%

68%

18%

5%

9%

55%

18%

27%

55%

18%

27%

55%

9%

36%

50%

5%

41%

4%

54%

14%

32%

92%

4%

4%

88%

8%

4%

78%

13%

9%

0%

62%

17%

21%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Co

ver

the

co

urs

e m

ater

ial

effe

ctiv

ely

in le

ctu

res

Enga

ge s

tud

en

ts d

irec

tly

wit

hq

ues

tio

ns

and

in d

iscu

ssio

ns

Mai

nta

in s

tud

en

t p

arti

cip

atio

n in

wo

rksh

op

s,ac

tivi

ties

, exe

rcis

es, t

eam

pro

ject

s, e

tc.

Mai

nta

in s

tud

en

t in

tere

st a

nd

atte

nti

ven

ess

du

rin

g cl

ass

tim

e

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1




18%

23%

55%

4%

18%

18%

46%

18%

18%

14%

36%

32%

23%

41%

18%

18%

59%

32%

5%

4%

59%

18%

5%

18%

50%

18%

9%

23%

50%

23%

4%

23%

79%

17%

4%

0%

79%

13%

8%

0%

83%

13%

4%

0%

63%

25%

12%

0%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Facu

lty

sch

edu

ling

no

n-t

eac

hin

g,ac

cou

nta

ble

tim

e a

ctiv

itie

s: e

.g.

rese

arch

, co

mm

itte

e m

ee

tin

gs,

de

par

tmen

t/u

niv

ers

ity

pro

ject

sA

ssig

nin

g fa

cult

y to

sp

ecif

ic c

ou

rses

acro

ss t

he

mat

rix

Ass

ign

ing

facu

lty

to c

ou

rses

ove

rm

ult

iple

cam

pu

ses

Mak

ing

effe

ctiv

e u

se o

f sp

ecia

llyeq

uip

ped

cla

ssro

om

s an

d la

bs

2 hr x 2 1.5 hr x 2 3 hr x 1







Appendix H: Comparison of the Responses to the Different Timetables from the Division of Science, Mathematics and Applied Sciences


75%

19%

6%

100%

0%

0%

88%

6%

6%

67%

7%

27%

20%

20%

60%

40%

0%

60%

20%

40%

40%

0%

60%

40%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Sust

ain

stu

de

nt

lear

nin

g b

etw

een

clas

ses

Ach

ieve

co

urs

e le

arn

ing

ob

ject

ives

dir

ectl

y in

flu

ence

d b

y th

e cl

assr

oo

mex

per

ien

ceP

rom

ote

incr

ease

d le

arn

ing

in c

ou

rses

that

are

pri

mar

ily t

heo

reti

cal

Mak

e it

po

ssib

le t

o in

corp

ora

tein

div

idu

al s

tud

en

t re

sear

ch a

nd

assi

gnm

en

ts2 hr x 2 3 hr x 1




100%

0%

0%

100%

0%

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

88%

6%

6%

20%

40%

40%

40%

20%

40%

20%

20%

40%

20%

20%

20%

60%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Co

ver

the

co

urs

e m

ater

ial

effe

ctiv

ely

in le

ctu

res

Enga

ge s

tud

en

ts d

irec

tly

wit

hq

ues

tio

ns

and

in d

iscu

ssio

ns

Mai

nta

in s

tud

en

t p

arti

cip

atio

n in

wo

rksh

op

s,ac

tivi

ties

, exe

rcis

es, t

eam

pro

ject

s, e

tc.

Mai

nta

in s

tud

en

t in

tere

st a

nd

atte

nti

ven

ess

du

rin

g cl

ass

tim

e

2 hr x 2 3 hr x 1




63%

25%

6%

6%

56%

25%

6%

13%

44%

38%

12%

6%

73%

20%

7%

40%

40%

0%

20%

20%

60%

0%

20%

20%

40%

20%

20%

20%

80%

0%

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

NA

Very well/Well

Neutral

Poorly/Very poorly

Facu

lty

sch

edu

ling

no

n-t

each

ing,

acco

un

tab

le t

ime

acti

viti

es: e

.g. r

ese

arch

,co

mm

itte

e m

eeti

ngs

,d

ep

artm

ent/

un

iver

sity

pro

ject

sA

ssig

nin

g fa

cult

y to

sp

ecif

ic c

ou

rses

acr

oss

the

mat

rix

Ass

ign

ing

facu

lty

to c

ou

rses

ove

r m

ult

iple

cam

pu

ses

Mak

ing

effe

ctiv

e u

se o

f sp

ecia

llyeq

uip

ped

cla

ssro

om

s an

d la

bs

2 hr x 2 3 hr x 1

Documents

Report on the Faculty Response to Alternate Class ... · Report on the Faculty Response to Alternate Class Timetables for the Office of the Provost (April 1st, 2012) with input from