Linking Course Demand to
Classroom Utilization, Faculty
Productivity and Resource
Allocation
Binghamton University
Michael Dillon
Assistant Director
Institutional Research and Planning
Michelle Ponczek
Director
Space Analysis and Assignment
July 25, 2005
Outline
Project Overview
 Accommodating Growth
 Faculty Productivity
 Space Utilization
 Conclusion/Next Steps

July 25, 2005
Why analyze faculty productivity and classroom utilization?
Determine the capacity to provide a
quality education to students
Help inform decisions
 Do we ask faculty to teach more?
 Do we ask faculty to teach differently?
 Should the classroom stock be changed?
 Should scheduling policies be changed?
July 25, 2005
Model
Students
What courses do
students want/need?
Space
Where are we
teaching?
Course Demand
What are we
teaching?
Faculty
Who is teaching
what?
Course Supply
How are we
Teaching?
Revenue
Classroom
Utilization
July 25, 2005
Faculty
Productivity
Expenditures
Cost/Benefit
Analysis
Data Sources Needed




July 25, 2005
Space Inventory
Course Data
Faculty Information
Student Information
Accommodating Growth


July 25, 2005
BU, being a relatively small, highly
selective, public, research extensive
university, made a decision to
increase enrollment
At the same time, state support
decreased, reducing the number of
new faculty hired to support the
planned increase in students
Accommodating Changes in Course Demand
Change
Enrollment
Fill
Courses
Better
Space:
Increase Utilization
(% stations filled)
July 25, 2005
Faculty:
Increase Student/
Faculty Ratio
Change
Course
Size
Space:
Provide More Stations
Change
# of
Courses
Space:
Increase Utilization
(% hours filled)
Faculty:
Increase Sections/
Faculty
Add Faculty
Other factors influencing faculty and space needs

Changes in pedagogy





Changes in academic offerings




New programs
Undergraduate/graduate mix
Mandated courses (general education)
Changes in student preferences

July 25, 2005
Smaller vs. larger courses
Distance learning
# sub-sections associated with a course
Experiential learning
“Hot” majors
Changes in Course Supply and Demand
Percent Change from Fall 1999 to Fall 2004
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Heads *
-5%
Sections
Max Limits
Enrolled
Clrm Seats
*For Headcount
LD=Freshman/Sophomore
UD=Junior/Senior
-10%
Total
July 25, 2005
Lower Division *
Upper Division *
Graduate
Changes in Course Characteristics
Fa ll 1999
Ave ra ge
N umbe r of
Enrolle d
Pe r Se ction
Ave ra ge
Pe rce nt
Fille d Pe r
Se ction
July 25, 2005
Crs Le ve l
University Total
Lower Division
Upper Division
Graduate
Enrolle d
Se ctions
62,277
2,163
40,046
1,182
17,889
657
4,342
323
University Total
Lower Division
Upper Division
Graduate
Fa ll 1999
Max Limits
77,398
45,847
23,492
8,058
Enrolled
62,277
40,046
17,889
4,342
Fa ll 2004
Avg Cls
Size
28.8
33.9
27.2
13.4
% Fille d
80%
87%
76%
54%
Enrolle d
Se ctions
69,627
2,172
42,851
1,127
21,991
703
4,785
342
Avg Cls
Size
32.1
38.0
31.3
14.0
Cha nge
3.27
4.16
4.05
0.58
Fa ll 2004
Max Limits
81,505
46,755
26,742
8,008
% Fille d
85%
92%
82%
60%
5%
4%
6%
6%
Enrolled
69,627
42,851
21,991
4,785
Faculty Productivity



July 25, 2005
How much are faculty teaching?
Who’s teaching what to whom and has it
changed over time?
Is the mix of who’s teaching what to whom
in line with our policy decisions?
Faculty Workload by Rank
Fa ll 1999
Course
Le ve l
FT E
Pe r FT E
Total
Lower
Upper
Grad
656
656
656
656
187,565
115,793
57,182
14,591
286
176
87
22
Total
Lower
Upper
Grad
161
161
161
161
34,960
20,831
10,489
3,640
217
129
65
23
Total
Lower
Upper
Grad
149
149
149
149
31,492
16,244
10,337
4,911
211
109
69
33
Total
Lower
Upper
Grad
101
101
101
101
19,238
7,653
8,731
2,854
191
76
87
28
Total
Lower
Upper
Grad
74
74
74
74
21,988
11,865
8,939
1,184
296
160
120
16
Total
Lower
Upper
Grad
81
81
81
81
49,981
36,547
11,586
1,848
616
450
143
23
Total
Lower
Upper
Grad
90
90
90
90
29,906
22,653
7,100
153
332
252
79
2
July 25, 2005
Fa ll 2004
N umbe r
of
Se ctions
Pe r
FT E
FT E
Pe r FT E
U nive rsity T ota l
677 211,289
312
677 124,009
183
677
70,994
105
677
16,287
24
Profe ssors
282
1.8
165
36,326
220
96
0.6
165
19,714
119
94
0.6
165
12,912
78
92
0.6
165
3,700
22
Associa te s
293
2.0
147
40,670
277
75
0.5
147
22,031
150
118
0.8
147
14,143
96
100
0.7
147
4,496
31
Assista nts
175
1.7
119
26,913
225
48
0.5
119
10,010
84
68
0.7
119
12,365
104
58
0.6
119
4,538
38
N on-T e nure d T ra ck (Othe r R e gula r)
213
2.9
72
29,671
413
80
1.1
72
15,244
212
110
1.5
72
13,424
187
23
0.3
72
1,003
14
Supple me nta l
669
8.2
79
43,887
555
488
6.0
79
30,040
380
137
1.7
79
11,468
145
45
0.5
79
2,380
30
T e a ching Assista nts
531
5.9
95
33,822
358
395
4.4
95
26,970
285
130
1.4
95
6,681
71
6
0.1
95
170
2
2,163
1,182
657
323
3.3
1.8
1.0
0.5
% Cha nge
N umbe r
of
Se ctions
Pe r
FT E
Se ctions
pe r FT E
FT E
2,172
1,127
703
342
3.2
1.7
1.0
0.5
3%
3%
3%
3%
9%
4%
20%
8%
-3%
-8%
4%
2%
287
65
127
94
1.7
0.4
0.8
0.6
3%
3%
3%
3%
1%
-8%
20%
-1%
-1%
-34%
32%
0%
314
86
136
92
2.1
0.6
0.9
0.6
-1%
-1%
-1%
-1%
31%
37%
39%
-7%
8%
15%
17%
-7%
225
48
95
83
1.9
0.4
0.8
0.7
18%
18%
18%
18%
18%
10%
20%
34%
8%
-17%
17%
19%
241
113
109
19
3.4
1.6
1.5
0.3
-3%
-3%
-3%
-3%
39%
33%
55%
-13%
17%
45%
2%
-12%
501
330
124
47
6.3
4.2
1.6
0.6
-3%
-3%
-3%
-3%
-10%
-16%
2%
32%
-23%
-31%
-7%
8%
605
486
113
6
6.4
5.1
1.2
0.1
5%
5%
5%
5%
8%
13%
-10%
6%
9%
17%
-17%
7%
Classroom Utilization





July 25, 2005
What types of space are we using for
instruction & how has that changed over
time?
Do we have the right mix of classroom
sizes?
How well are we using rooms?
How well are we filling stations?
What are causes of scheduling
inefficiencies?
What types of space are we using for instruction &
how has that changed over time?
Fa ll 2004
Conta ct
W e e kly
Conta ct N umbe r
%
H rs pe r
Stude nt
Stude nt
of
H rs pe r
Sta tion R ooms Sta tions Conta ct H rs Sta tion Cha nge
U nive rsity T ota l
10.3%
23.7
211,648
8,918
269
21.5
187,975
Ge ne ra l Purpose Le cture H a lls
22.5%
35.4
88,835
2,512
20
28.9
72,515
Ge ne ra l Purpose Cla ssrooms
-4.2%
27.7
79,963
2,889
86
28.9
76,705
Cla ss La bs
14.8%
13.4
22,884
1,706
85
11.7
19,937
D e pa rtme nta l Cla ssrooms
-5.9%
13.7
3,137
229
8
14.6
3,435
Compute r Pods
-21.1%
15.7
2,318
148
6
19.8
2,620
Othe r D e pa rtme nta l Spa ce
28.4%
5.6
4,071
724
43
4.4
3,053
Othe r
31.1%
9.7
6,877
710
21
7.4
5,925
Fa ll 1999
W e e kly
N umbe r
Stude nt
Stude nt
of
R ooms Sta tions Conta ct H rs
267
8,739
20
2,512
78
2,654
86
1,706
10
236
6
132
43
697
24
802
July 25, 2005
Do we have the right mix of classrooms?
Prime T ime (20.5 hrs)
Cla ssroom
Size
1 to 25
26 to 35
36 to 49
50 to 65
66 to 84
85 to 116
117 to 176
177 to 241
242+
July 25, 2005
25
38
12
13
7
4
3
3
1
513
779
246
267
144
82
62
62
21
604
275
231
57
64
44
48
47
20
118%
35%
94%
22%
44%
54%
79%
77%
96%
How well are we using rooms?
How well are we filling seats?
July 25, 2005
What are causes of scheduling inefficiencies?




July 25, 2005
Underutilization of particular rooms
Lack of classrooms of a particular
size
Overbooking small courses into
large classrooms
Technology available in classrooms
Underutilization of Particular Rooms
Utilization of GP Classrooms
Building
SCILIB
LEC-HL
UUNION
UUNION
LEC-HL
SC-II
SC-II
LIBARY
LIBARY
LEC-HL
NARCTR
Room
0311
0312
0201
0221
0314
G038
G039
1408
1406
0306
0205
Stations tier
17 BT
15 BT
29 BT
76 BT
13 BT
17 LR
17 LR
29 BT
29 BT
15 BT
22 BT
ACAD-A
IRQTUS
LIBARY
FINART
G008
0309
1404
0212
131
26
29
81
MM
BT
BT
BT
F02
10
16
11
6
15
18
23
19
17
17
29
15
13
15
10
Weekly Hours Used
S03
F03 S04
F04
19
18
6
4
13
8
15
15
4
18
17
22
15
15
20
17
20
17
13
14
18
21
10
20
18
17
15
15
18
17
8
27
18
8
16
31
23
20
18
16
19
23
20
3
15
17
21
26
23
21
23
13
18
25
15
17
25
19
22
31
Avg
11
13
14
15
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
Avg
11
12
14
15
14
15
17
16
17
17
16
Prime
Avg
4
4
10
11
6
8
7
9
7
5
6
19
19
19
19
19
17
17
18
8
8
8
11
Before6
SC-II
LEC-HL
LEC-HL
SC-II
0145
0308
0310
0144
71
15
15
70
LR
BT
BT
LR
17
25
28
30
19
12
11
16
22
26
30
16
23
18
12
19
17
18
19
21
19
19
20
21
18
15
13
20
9
7
4
10
ACAD-A
LEC-HL
G007
LH09
65
97
MM
LR
23
13
15
19
21
22
28
23
17
27
21
21
19
20
9
13
SC-II
0143
69
LR
25
18
13
22
26
21
18
10
July 25, 2005
Reason
Size - too small
Size - too small
Used by Admissions for large chunks of time - new student presentations
It's a great size, but many times, faculty w ant 75 seats. That allow s for 25
(equal # of seats)for discussion sections. No GREAL faculty w ill teach in
this building. There are also a few other departments that say it's not good
for their teaching becau
The same reason listed for S2-145
There are some disabled faculty w ho must use this room. Other problem,
no boards.
Prefer LH-07 if given a choice. This only laptop LH, not full MM
This stumps me. The only thing I know is the room is the room is
cramped. It's w ide, and the chairs are really pushed close together in
order to have the row s back far enough to see the entire board..
Overbooking Small Courses into Large Classrooms
Ma x
Limit Course
Day
35 ANTH280G M W
BLD G
LEC-HL
R OOM
LH09
T ie r
LR
97
E nroll.
7
SC-II
0140
LR
70
13
45 EE462
MWF
ACAD-A
G021
MM
54
14
50 COLI331F
TR
ACAD-A
ACAD-A
G023
G023
MM
MM
54
54
11
15
35 FIN520
MW
48 HDEV480X T
SCILIB
0210
MM
53
15
40 JUST284T
MW
SCILIB
SCILIB
SCILIB
0302
0302
0302
MM
MM
MM
46
46
46
14
12
14
46 ANTH375
35 CS532
35 MIS523
MWF
MWF
TR
Blue indicates Enrollment is less than 75% of seats
Red indicates Max Limit is less than 75% of seats
July 25, 2005
H rs
2.8
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.0
5.8
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.8
8.5
Lack of Classrooms of a Particular Size
BLD G
LEC-HL
LEC-HL
LEC-HL
LEC-HL
LEC-HL
LEC-HL
LEC-HL
LEC-HL
R OOM
LH01
LH01
LH01
LH01
LH01
LH01
LH01
LH01
457
457
457
457
457
457
457
457
E nroll.
330
341
243
320
173
312
254
261
LEC-HL
LEC-HL
LH14
LH14
241
241
149
109
Ma x
Limit
351
348
413
443
180
316
300
278
Course
CHEM111
MATH130
MATH221
MATH221
NURS321
PHYS121
PLSC111
WTSN111
D AY
MW
MWF
MWF
MWF
TR
MWF
TR
MW
Be gin
T ime
1640
1200
830
1420
1315
1310
1005
1530
150 ENG330A
240 PSYC228
MW
MWF
1420
1530
1520
1630
TR
F
M
MW
1315
1420
0830
1310
1440
1520
0930
1410
LEC-HL LH02
239
109
151 BIOL105
LEC-HL LH02
239
135
130 BIOL314
LEC-HL LH02
239
114
144 CHEM335
LEC-HL LH02
239
119
125 ENG228
Blue indicates Enrollment is less than 75% of seats
Red indicates Max Limit is less than 75% of seats
July 25, 2005
E nd
T ime
1810
1300
0930
1520
1440
1410
1130
1630
H rs
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.0
22.7
2.0
3.0
5.0
2.8
1.0
1.0
2.0
Technology Available in Classrooms
Average Hours in Classrooms by Tier
Fall 2004
60
50
40
30
20
10
A 1-25 (25)
B 26-35 (38)
C 36-49 (12)
*Number in parentheses indicates number of rooms
July 25, 2005
D 50-65 (13)
E 66-84 (7)
Stations Filled
75% or above
F 85-116 (4)
Below 75%
G 117-176 (3)
H 177-241 (3)
Multi (1)
Laptop (0)
Basic (0)
Multi (3)
Laptop (0)
Basic (0)
Multi (3)
Laptop (0)
Basic (0)
Multi (3)
Laptop (1)
Basic (0)
Multi (0)
Laptop (4)
Basic (3)
Multi (9)
Laptop (1)
Basic (3)
Multi (7)
Laptop (4)
Basic (1)
Multi (1)
Laptop (14)
Basic (23)
Multi (0)
Laptop (13)
Basic (12)
0
I 242+ (1)
Predicting Max Limit/Enrollment Mismatches
Percent Filled
Course
MATH561
MATH565
PSYC594
NURS516
NURS516
NURS554
PSYC490J
GEOL441
GEOL441
NURS324
MATH461
ECON501
EE516
BIOL570
HARP104
ECON500
NURS332
EE505
EE551
MGMT500
July 25, 2005
Max Limit Last Time
30
10%
30
13%
30
40%
30
10%
30
10%
30
37%
30
20%
30
13%
30
13%
30
20%
30
47%
30
63%
30
73%
30
69%
30
45%
30
70%
30
37%
30
100%
30
92%
30
50%
Two
Times
Ago
7%
10%
27%
30%
30%
23%
23%
20%
20%
47%
47%
100%
103%
65%
35%
97%
53%
60%
40%
100%
Likelihood
Below 75% of
Limit
98%
98%
97%
94%
94%
94%
91%
84%
84%
80%
76%
73%
72%
71%
70%
66%
65%
63%
63%
61%
Enrolled
1
3
12
6
6
6
6
2
2
16
23
26
24
16
31
22
20
12
21
29
% Filled
3%
10%
40%
20%
20%
20%
20%
7%
7%
53%
77%
87%
80%
53%
103%
73%
67%
40%
70%
97%
Predicted
Correctly
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Conclusion/Next Steps
High classroom utilization and faculty
productivity are not ends in
themselves. The underlying goal is
to ensure our resources are used
in the most effective way to
provide a quality, educational
experience to our students.
July 25, 2005
Contact Information
Michael Dillon
dillon@binghamton.edu
Michelle Ponczek
mponczek@binghamton.edu
607-777-2365
July 25, 2005