Final Version
Faculty Involvement in Enrollment Management
at the University of Kentucky
Study Report of an Ad Hoc Committee of the University Senate Council
June 2, 2005
Committee Members:
Tony Baxter, Computer Science
Peter Berres, Health Sciences and Political Science
Liz Debski, Biology
Roy Moore, Journalism and Telecommunications
Larry Grabau, Chair, Plant and Soil Sciences
Commissioned by the University Senate Council, Ernie Yanarella, Chair
Table of Contents
Item
Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3
Committee Charge from Senate Council Chair Ernie Yanarella ...................................................... 4
Context for this Study ............................................................................................................................ 5
Our Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Recommendations and Justification..................................................................................................... 9
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 11
A. Former Provost Mike Nietzel’s December 2004 Address to the University Senate ...... 11
B. TASC Survey on Large Classroom Instruction................................................................ 12
C. Questions Posed to faculty in BOT Faculty Representative Michael
Kennedy’s January, 2005 Electronic Survey ............................................................. 21
D. Results of our Faculty Survey, March 2005 ...................................................................... 22
E. Questions for Faculty Governance Chairs ....................................................................... 31
F. Responses from Faculty Governance Chairs ................................................................... 33
G. Questions for Enrollment Managers ................................................................................ 37
H. Responses from Enrollment Managers ............................................................................ 38
2
Executive Summary
Context: Senate Council Chair Ernie Yanarella charged this committee to focus on faculty aspects of
enrollment management at the University of Kentucky. Over the past three years, the size of the first-year
class has increased by 30% with no increase in the number of instructional faculty. Successive surveys by
Former Provost Mike Nietzel, Teaching & Academic Support Center (TASC) Director Tad Pedigo, and
faculty Board of Trustees representative Michael Kennedy have established, in order, that our students are
generally satisfied with the quality of their academic experiences, that faculty have implemented
technological fixes in their large enrollment classrooms yet remain somewhat uneasy about instructional
outcomes, and that faculty are investing increased time and effort to maintain adequate instructional
outcomes.
Approach: We first interviewed Ernie Yanarella, Assistant Provost for Enrollment Management Don
Witt, Connie Ray, Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness, and Tad Pedigo,
and then proceeded to collect additional information from the three surveys mentioned above, phone
interviews with faculty governance chairs and enrollment managers at our aspirational benchmark
institutions, and to conduct a targeted faculty survey of our own.
Results: Faculty with increasing course enrollments reported that they have either sacrificed writing skills
or their professional and personal commitments in an effort to cope with their increased instructional
workloads. In addition, faculty were concerned about the loss of interpersonal contacts with their
students. As might be expected, faculty morale has declined under such conditions. While TASC may be
poised to do more to help faculty deal with such workloads effectively, only creative administrative
actions can address structural issues such as revised distribution of effort standards, recognition for
instruction of large enrollment courses, and ongoing assessments of the need for re-allocation of
enrollment-dependent resources. While most of our benchmarks have modest faculty involvement in
either policy or practice aspects of enrollment management, the few institutions with a tradition of such
involvement may have the capability of making better informed decisions and as well as stimulating
higher faculty morale. Other benchmark institutions are also dealing with the enrollment/budget crunch
faced by the University; one such Provost (Michael J. Hogan of the University of Iowa) has argued for a
reduction in first-year enrollments (from 4200 to 3800) in order to enhance the quality of undergraduate
instruction. An integrated model of enrollment management is being increasingly adopted by institutions
around the country; the recent appointment of Don Witt as our key enrollment manager is a solid step in
that direction. Our seven specific recommendations are shown below as well as on pages 9-10 of this
document, where they are accompanied by our justification for each.
Recommendations:
1) UK faculty, through the University Senate, should be directly involved in both strategic and tactical
aspects of enrollment management.
2) University-level guidelines should be developed for adjustments in faculty distribution of effort as
course enrollments increase.
3) Beyond distribution of effort adjustments for faculty with increased student enrollments, departments
and colleges should identify significant ways to recognize that additional effort.
4) Enhanced, targeted teaching assistant (TA) support should be provided to faculty teaching courses
with dramatically increased enrollments.
5) The use of upper division undergraduate peer consultants should be expanded to appropriate course
contexts.
6) An ongoing assessment of the need for enrollment-dependent resources should be conducted, and
should be used to adjust the allocation of such resources.
7) The Teaching & Academic Support Center (TASC) should continue to enhance its work to help faculty
provide high quality undergraduate teaching and learning environments.
8) The University should establish clear student learning goals for its general education mission.
3
Committee Charge from Senate Council Chair Ernie Yanarella
October 24, 2004
Senate Ad Hoc Enrollment Management Committee--Charge
Studies by the administration are now ongoing to determine the impact upon student attitudes and
performance of sizable increases in student admission at this University since 2001. I charge this
committee with the responsibility of investigating the faculty side of the enrollment management issue in
regard to the impact of higher freshman enrollments upon the quality of undergraduate education at the
University of Kentucky.
Your charge, as generated through discussions within the Senate Council this summer, is not to carry
out systematic data-gathering or to draw up surveys or solicit survey responses. Rather it is to provide to
the Senate Council and University Senate with a strategy or mechanisms for investigating faculty attitudes
and departmental sentiment about:
-- means of contributing to the discerning of upper limits to course enrollment for undergraduate teaching
in their department;
--experiences with assessing the quality of performance of students in their courses;
-- methods of ameliorating the negative impact of increased enrollments on quality teaching in their
courses;
-- resources that can or should be deployed to improve classroom teaching with increased enrollments;
and
--any other factors that should be taken into account in determining enrollment management in an era of
budgetary stagnancy, enrollment growth, and financial pressures on student tuition and fees.
I would be pleased if you could report the results of your committee work to the Senate Council by
March 15th so that it and the University Senate can determine the manner in which this strategy and/or
mechanisms could be instituted to influence the calculation of enrollment management targets in the
future and perhaps soften the negative consequences of higher enrollments as discerned by the faculty.
--Ernie Yanarella, Chair, Senate Council
4
Context for this Study
From fall 2001 to fall 2004, the size of the entering first-year class increased by 30% (from 3037
to 3961). That increase was driven by two major factors: 1) the expectation of the Council on
Postsecondary Education that the University of Kentucky would increase enrollments to help reach the
statewide goals of greater numbers of postsecondary degrees completed, and 2) the need of the University
to cover significant fiscal shortfalls due to declining state funding. Of course, sustaining such increases in
first-year enrollments involves significant adaptations in classroom instruction, student services, and
residence life. Further, as this higher level of first-year enrollment has been continued, sophomore,
junior, and senior class sizes are naturally increasing with time. It is therefore reasonable for University
administrators and faculty to look carefully into the impact of increased enrollment on the quality of
student instruction, an area of special interest to faculty involved with undergraduate students.
Former Provost Mike Nietzel led the way in this regard and reported to the University Senate in
his December 2004 address on the quality of student experiences in their University classes (Appendix
A). The Former Provost’s report directly compared student experiences in fall 2001 with fall 2004.
Student satisfaction with both courses and their instructors has either remained steady or increased over
that period. First-year students were generally positive about their instructor’s accessibility as well. In
addition, the Former Provost reported that class size had not changed significantly over the three years
studied. For example, 100 level classes had only increased in average size from 45 to 48 students, while
200 level classes had only increased in average size from 38 to 42 students. In addition, the Former
Provost cited the 2001 and 2003 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) which showed that
2003 first-year students rated their experience as good as or better than 2001 first-year students. Of
course, the fall 2004 students made their judgments based on what they experienced and not against any
other reference point, like what their experience would have been in the past in a smaller class with
different teaching approach and class requirements. In addition, it is quite possible that some students are
content to avoid extensive writing assignments or to “hide-out” in large lecture courses. Thus, one could
argue that student satisfaction is not a sufficient indicator of a high quality education.
Tad Pedigo, Director of the Teaching and Academic Support Center (TASC), and his staff put
together a January 2005 survey of the instructors of large enrollment courses. The sample which they
surveyed included instructors of courses for which enrollment exceeded 100 students; some of those
courses have grown substantially over the past three years, while others have not. Detailed results of that
survey are attached (Appendix B). The TASC survey focused on learning environment and classroom
management issues for large enrollment classes, as well as the types of assistance that instructors of large
enrollment courses might request from TASC. The respondents reported that some aspects of their
learning environments were compromised in large enrollment courses--for example, engaging in
instructor-student dialogue, and giving individual feedback or substantive comments on student work. In
addition, classroom management (taking attendance, handling make-up requests) and the time required for
grading student work also were significant issues for this group of instructors. It is clear from the
comments and available teacher-course evaluations that some faculty do exceptional jobs in large
enrollment courses, and are quite comfortable with their ability to be effective in this instructional setting.
Such successful faculty do have some concerns about the loss of personal contact with their students.
Finally, even faculty who are well-suited to direct large enrollment classes may often benefit from the
provision of resources to enhance their effectiveness.
The Former Provost’s study established that student satisfaction with instruction remains
reasonably high, and the TASC survey found that instructors of large enrollment courses are seeking
effective strategies to do a reasonable job with their students. However, neither of these studies directly
assessed the impact of increased student numbers on faculty workload or productivity in other aspects of
5
their jobs. Board of Trustees (BOT) Faculty Representative Michael Kennedy, acting on his own
initiative in January 2005, sent out an electronic survey to University Faculty to get a quick impression of
faculty sentiment on that very issue (see Appendix C). To the question: “Would you say that the students
you teach now get as much of what you want them to have (information, knowledge, skills, insight . . .) as
they did three years ago?”, 297 responses averaged 3.7, which on Professor Kennedy’s scale was slightly
less than “about the same.” On the other hand, to the question: “How much time and effort (considering
also the support, or lack of support you get), do you expend in teaching a class, compared with three years
ago?” 295 responses averaged 4.8, which on Kennedy’s scale was “a bit more.” Thus, it appears that
University faculty are investing more of their time to protect the learning environment of their students,
perhaps leaving less of their time for other important professional activities like scholarship and service.
In summary, our students seem to be happy with their learning environment at the University of
Kentucky, and faculty have, so far, worked harder to provide that positive learning environment. We
were particularly interested in the impact of additional effort toward high quality learning environments
on faculty time and productivity.
Our Approach
Upon careful review of our charge from Senate Council Chair Ernie Yanarella, we began our work
with interviews of Ernie himself, Don Witt, Assistant Provost for Enrollment Management, Connie Ray,
Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness, and Tad Pedigo, Director of the
Teaching and Academic Support Center (TASC). Insights from those interviews are reported below. We
also conducted phone interviews of two sets of individuals from our benchmark institutions: 1) faculty
governance chairs, and 2) enrollment managers. In addition, we also contacted enrollment managers from
several institutions which Don Witt identified as especially effective in managing their undergraduate
enrollments. Finally, we concluded our work with a faculty survey of our own; the questions we asked
and the responses we obtained are included as Appendix D. We identified teaching faculty for our survey
based on the methods used in Former Provost Mike Nietzel’s December 2004 address to the University
Senate. We used the same selection criteria used by the Former Provost’s staff, namely, faculty were
chosen as follows: 1) for 100-200 level classes, we surveyed faculty whose courses had a fall 2001
enrollment of at least 200, with an increase of at least 25% by fall 2004, and 2) for 300-500 level classes,
we surveyed faculty whose courses had a fall 2001 enrollment of at least 15, with an increase of at least
50% by fall 2004. In addition, we also sent out surveys to faculty teaching 100-200 level classes that had
fall 2001 enrollments between 15 and 199 students, with an increase of at least 50% by fall 2004.
Results
1) UK Interviews
Ernie Yanarella emphasized his concern that increased undergraduate enrollments could have a
negative impact on student learning. He was also concerned about the impact of increased student
numbers on faculty time available for other professional activities. One committee member volunteered
that he has continued to use the same highly interactive teaching and learning strategies even though his
class size has tripled. As he said, he “has no life” outside his work due to the extraordinary demands of
maintaining a high level of student learning for his ever expanding audience. Don Witt encouraged us to
consider the institution-wide impact of three potential scenarios: a) reducing first-year enrollment by
10%, b) holding first-year enrollment steady at its newly high levels, and c) increasing student enrollment
by 10%. He expressed sincere concern about faculty, staff, and advisor morale under increasing
workloads. Finally, Don suggested that TASC might be called upon to do more to support faculty help
student learn as class sizes increase. Tad Pedigo agreed that student learning should be the primary
emphasis in classes of all sizes, and suggested that we work on ways to conserve faculty time for those
6
student interactions which will make the greatest impact on student learning. Tad emphasized how much
use of the Blackboard course management system has increased over recent years, and suggested that this
technology can serve a key role in helping faculty manage larger classes. He also talked about a number
of other strategies to help support faculty involved in large class instruction, including the intention of
TASC to establish Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) to help support such faculty as they learn
together what works in their large classes. Our discussion also concluded that there are some structural
interventions that remain beyond the scope of TASC; for example, providing additional teaching
assistants (TAs) for large classes or adjusting distribution of effort (DOE) as class sizes increase are
administrative decisions which TASC cannot implement. Finally, Connie Ray said that her office would
honor any reasonable data request that our committee could make in support of our work. She
emphasized that much of the information we wanted her office to provide would be included in Former
Provost Nietzel’s December 2004 address to the University Senate. There was some concern expressed
that some fraction of our incoming first-year students may not be well prepared to succeed in largeenrollment classes. The University is working on initiatives to help first-year students succeed,
particularly through the office of First-Year Director Jane Jensen.
2) Interviews of Faculty Governance Chairs from our Benchmark Institutions
We spent a good deal of time thinking through what sorts of questions we wanted to ask of faculty
governance chairs at our 19 benchmark institutions. Those questions are included as Appendix E. We
were able to interview 7 faculty governance chairs. In general, faculty seemed to play a modest role at
those institutions in terms of enrollment management decisions. Some institutions have a faculty
representative on a centralized enrollment management committee; in other cases, such groups are
constituted entirely of administrative personnel. In all cases, the decisions about first-year enrollments
and targets for undergraduate enrollments as a whole were made at the Provost level (or above). Faculty
governance bodies had relatively little input to the process, either in terms of policy-setting or policyimplementation. In short, faculty seem to be resigned to deal with the outcomes of administrative
decisions, rather than actively engaged in the process of enrollment management. More detailed
responses by faculty governance chairs are included as Appendix F.
3) Interviews of Enrollment Managers from Benchmark and Other Institutions
Questions posed to enrollment managers are shown in Appendix G. We were able to contact
enrollment managers at 17 of our 19 benchmark institutions, along with four enrollment managers from
institutions identified by Don Witt as particularly effective in enrollment management. For some
institutions, enrollment management is handled on a system-wide basis (for example, the University of
Wisconsin system). In such cases, the faculty have no input on size of first-year class, and may have little
input as to enrollment standards. In some states, guaranteed admissions for up to 50% of the high school
graduating class (Arizona, Iowa) complicates the ability of such institutions to control their enrollments
and quality of their first-year classes. The University of Virginia does all of its admissions of first-year
students on a holistic basis, reviewing the entire package of submitting materials before making an
admissions decision. Of course, that intensive effort requires a significant number of dedicated
admissions staff. For example, NC State has approximately 100 personnel working through its
Enrollment Management offices. Some benchmark enrollment managers obviously regarded faculty with
disdain; one remarked that he “put a couple of faculty on the enrollment management committee so that
they could learn something about the process.” In other cases, such as Ohio State, faculty are intimately
involved at both policy and implementation levels of enrollment management. Some benchmarks have
concerns about retention rates for first-year students; for example, the Illinois’ rates have fallen slightly
with increasing first-year enrollments. As has UK, Illinois has been faced with declining state budgets
and increasing first-year enrollments. They have increased class sizes for first-year students, and added
sections for sophomores. In several cases, enrollment managers have relied on deans of colleges to
communicate the interests of their faculty in terms of enrollments (Arizona, Purdue); hence, direct faculty
7
involvement in such decisions has been relatively modest. Interestingly, the Provost at the University of
Iowa has pushed for a reduction in the size of the first-year class (from 4200 to 3800) to enhance the
quality of instruction. In order to make up for lost revenue, he wants to push the percentage of nonresident admissions higher. When Iowa reached 4200 first-year students (about 200 over its anticipated
“carrying capacity,” it encountered a perceptible degree of strain in both space and staffing of first-year
courses. Several institutions are working to develop better schemes to manage enrollments of students to
specific colleges/majors; Purdue is especially aggressive in this regard. Their enrollment manager meets
with college deans to develop admission targets for each college and major; of course, those targets are
subject to review at the Provost’s level.
The central theme from the institutions identified as innovative in enrollment management
(Oregon State University, University of Central Florida, Slippery Rock University, and Tulane
University) was that they practice an integrated approach to enrollment management. That approach puts
admissions, registrar, need- and merit-based aid, and student orientation and retention programs all under
the auspices of the centralized enrollment management office. At Tulane, several faculty, including the
vice-chair of their faculty governance body, take part in the strategic planning committee for enrollment
management.
More details on the responses of enrollment managers are included as Appendix H.
4) Results of our Faculty Survey
Our Faculty Survey appears as Appendix D. There were a total of 24 responses. When our data
were pooled across the three teaching cohorts with increasing class sizes, the following general trends
emerged:
1)
2)
3)
4)
resources are deemed inadequate
teaching loads are not fairly distributed within departments
such teaching has cost faculty, both personally and professionally
such faculty believe their student numbers exceed the maximum numbers for effective student
learning.
Around half of the responding faculty indicated that their increased teaching loads had reduced their
personal and research time allocations. Service activities had also suffered, but to a lesser degree.
Instructors of 300- to 500-level courses with at least 50% increases in enrollment further indicated
that the quality of their interactions with students had declined. This is particularly painful, since many
have assumed that once students reach the higher level courses, they are able to develop closer
connections with their faculty members. In addition, fewer writing assignments are made and fewer rewrites are permitted. On the other hand, some faculty at this level are committed to maintaining high
expectations for multiple writing assignments and effective oral argument logic, even if it comes at a
steep personal and professional price.
Instructors of 100- and 200-level courses with increasing enrollments strongly disagreed with a
statement suggesting they had been compensated in any way for teaching more students. This group of
instructors volunteered that they have increased their use of technology to deliver instruction; however,
some are uneasy about the quality of their students’ educational experience. In addition, as teaching loads
on selected faculty increase at the same time as high quality research commands increasing institutional
attention, there is a reasonable fear that a cohort of second-class citizens (teaching faculty) may be
created.
8
Recommendations and Justification
Upon completion of our work, we carefully reviewed the material available to us, both prior to and during
our term of service. The following recommendations are offered as a result of our collective review.
1) UK faculty, through the University Senate, should be directly involved in both strategic and tactical
aspects of enrollment management.
While many of our peer institutions have at best modest faculty input to enrollment management
decisions, both in terms of long-range policy planning and short-range implementation, selected examples
(such as The Ohio State University) have extensive involvement at both levels. Faculty at the University
of Kentucky have made both professional and personal sacrifices to maintain quality of instruction in
spite of increasing class sizes, and the administration appears interested in helping faculty to cope with
this increased load. Enhanced faculty input to enrollment management policy and practice could not only
enhance the enrollment results, it could also improve faculty morale. Specifically, input should be
actively sought from the faculty most affected by enrollment increases.
2) University-level guidelines should be developed for adjustments in faculty distribution of effort as
course enrollments increase.
Of course, colleges have the best vantage point when it comes to assessing the appropriate values for
distribution of effort for a given teaching load. On the other hand, university-level guidelines would
provide a well-reasoned backstop for college-level practice. As mentioned by respondents to our survey,
we currently risk the creation of a second-class faculty citizenry by expecting some of the faculty to carry
the brunt of the undergraduate teaching activity without granting them appropriate credit for that effort.
As circumstances now stand, a faculty member can go from teaching a course of 100 students to teaching
a course of 200 students without any change in her distribution of effort; that does not line up with the
reality of the effort involved. Further, because assessment of student learning in some courses may be
considerably more time-intensive than other courses, this aspect of faculty workload should also be
factored into DOE formulae.
3) Beyond distribution of effort adjustments for faculty with increased student enrollments, departments
and colleges should identify significant ways to recognize that additional effort.
Such recognition could involve additional compensation. That compensation could take the form of
direct, recurring salary adjustments, stipends, travel allowances, book allowances, credit toward extended
sabbaticals, or release from other course or unit responsibilities. Given that a fair number of teaching
faculty believe that teaching loads are not fairly distributed within their units, granting them some
significant recognition may help to motivate them to continue to carry a higher level of teaching
responsibilities.
4) Enhanced, targeted teaching assistant (TA) support should be provided to faculty teaching courses
with dramatically increased enrollments.
Current examples include instructors with more than 300 students without any TA support; for that
number of students, course management alone can consume significant amounts of precious faculty time,
even if the faculty member is using the most advanced technological tools available. Hence, we
recommend that undergraduate courses with increasing enrollments be carefully and jointly evaluated by
the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education and the Dean of the Graduate School for additional
9
TA assignments. Further, such TAs should be directly assigned to the affected courses, rather than to
related colleges or departments.
5) The use of upper division undergraduate peer consultants should be expanded to appropriate course
contexts.
Some units (for example, computer science, chemistry, and the UK 101 program) have had success in
helping undergraduates learn through the use of peer consultants. While SACS would clearly prohibit the
use of upper division undergraduates as TAs, peer consultants have roles that are much less supervisory,
but also quite valuable. For a relatively modest investment, these students may be able to help with
instructional activities in other areas of the University beyond their current roles in helping with
programming issues, assisting in chemistry laboratories, and connecting with fellow students in UK 101
and through the Discovery Seminar Program. For example, a student may be able to help manage
attendance records and provide materials to students who have missed class sessions.
6) An ongoing assessment of the need for enrollment-dependent resources should be conducted, and
should be used to adjust the allocation of such resources.
Beyond provision of course-targeted TAs for courses with increased enrollments, other resource needs
should also be considered. Such adjustments should include increased numbers of instructional personnel
(faculty, lecturers), increased teaching space for more or larger sections, budget adjustments to provide
necessary support, and technological improvements in teaching spaces. This should be done on a
recurring basis to provide ongoing adjustments to the extent that they are possible. As an increasing
fraction of the UK budget depends on tuition revenue, instructional budgets should be adjusted
accordingly.
7) The Teaching & Academic Support Center (TASC) should continue to enhance its work to help faculty
provide high quality undergraduate teaching and learning environments.
As we observed in the TASC survey of large enrollment courses (part of the TASC LEC Initiative),
TASC has become increasingly involved in helping faculty deal with larger class sizes. The sense that we
got from our work was that faculty were under-utilizing TASC for instructional support. As some faculty
are already stressed beyond reasonable limits, they may be unwilling to seek out involvement with TASC
activities, unless they are convinced that TASC can help improve their situations. It appears that TASC
may need to become even more proactive in marketing its resources to the faculty audience.
8) The University should establishing clear student learning goals for its general education mission.
This would involve identifying the essential ingredients of general educational goals, and clarifying our
collective expectations on what skills we want our students to acquire in those courses. Which skills do
we deem paramount to our students’ success? Writing skills? Research skills? Presentational skills?
Critical thinking skills? Drawing cross-cultural connections? Creative thinking? Once we have
established those student learning goals, then we can more directly assess which courses need resources
(see above recommendations) to meet those goals. On a related issue, this may help us determine how to
proceed in the face of ongoing fiscal limitations. For example, when it became clear that an investment of
$600,000 would be required to make communications courses available to all of our students, we might
perhaps have decided that this investment should be made (rather than dropping the University-level
communications requirement).
10
Appendices
A. Former Provost Mike Nietzel’s December 2004 Address to the University Senate
[Please refer to attached PowerPoint file]
11
B. TASC Survey on Large Classroom Instruction
Large Enrollment Class Initiative
Pre-Forum Faculty Survey
This survey was sent via email to 130 faculty who teach classes of more than 100 or whose classes have
increased in size by 100% over the past 4 years. We received 46 responses (35% response rate).
Qualitative results presented here are edited for clarity.
1. What do you value in a learning environment that could be compromised or is difficult to achieve in a
large-enrollment class?
Results are presented as % of respondents choosing each response; e.g. 30% of respondents
highly value engaging in student-to-student dialogue.
Engaging in student to student dialogue
Engaging in instructor-student dialogue
Using essay questions or problems on exams
Using writing exercises or term papers
Small group activities
Using active learning techniques in class
Assessing attendance
Personal time with students
Giving individual feedback or substantive
comments on student work
Creating connections or relationships among
students
Creating connections between instructor and
students
Highly
Valued
30
78
46
55
23
33
26
37
Valued
Neutral
N/A
41
15
37
24
34
42
26
44
26
6
8
1
36
22
39
17
2
0
6
8
4
2
8
0
51
35
11
2
20
37
37
4
39
43
15
2
Other concerns
I need TA assistance with proctoring exams, passing out exams and score sheets confidentially, etc.
Classes over 175 take too much class time for administrative duties. I use a question of the day to assess
attendance, introduce the topic and create a need to know, and a prelude to an exam question. Other than
that, nothing works easily, but I still have to enter the daily question myself. A TA would help.
Addressing the academic diversity of the class.
A room where students can see and hear adequately.
Creating a nurturing, yet demanding learning environment.
Non-multiple-choice problem sets with real, detailed grading.
Preventing cheating.
Remembering students later.
Grading for larger classes is extremely time-consuming for using essays in exams, especially if you have
several classes.
Comments
I am also concerned with classroom management. There were times this semester when chitchat and side
talking were bothersome to other students and me. I always let them know where I stand on it, and have
12
had to discipline some students. I have since found out that other faculty don't care or do anything if there
is excessive talking in their large lectures (300+) so students think they can do it in my class too.
Another problem of large classroom education is the amount of ambient noise that is a part of the modern
student life: backpacks, cell phones, endless shuffling of papers and bodies. All of this extraneous noise
disrupts the flow of the lecture (for the student) and thus weakens the learning experience.
I've been teaching a large enrollment class for 7 years now, with a current enrollment of 250, and I've
always been able to put essay questions on exams. I've actually been pleasantly surprised by how much
personal contact I have had at office hours and before and after class with students in large classes, but
this really ends up depending on the student -- I do repeatedly announce in class that I welcome such
contact, and ask students to always give me their names when they talk to me, if I fail to ask.
Let's face it. Large classes mean a poorer learning environment for students. I simply have shifted to
multiple-choice exams and dropped all writing assignments.
There are things on the list that I think are important, but I don't worry about the large setting comprising
and for those I wasn't sure what to put.
Personally, as my class enrollment has grown (still under 50, but two classes that size per semester = 100)
I have effectively used more small group activities and team projects to offset the reduction in other
things I value, such as individual grading comments, paper assignments, and tests with essays and
problem solving and application questions.
This is a biased question designed to give a desired answer. Large lecture classes can provide for adequate
resolution of nearly all of these issues, if handled thoughtfully and carefully, and with adequate use of
available resources.
Your question #1 is confusing. I take it you are asking which of the following we value, and how much.
You are not asking, but are ASSUMING, that each of the things listed can be undermined in a large
lecture class. But what if I value one of the things a lot, but don't think it is undermined by a large lecture
format? The way you worded the question makes it difficult to see what should be answered in that case.
That's why I think you really are only asking which things of those in the list we value.
I still use essay exams exclusively in large classes because I feel that is the only valuable way to examine
students. It takes all my time and is draining.
2. What other concerns or frustrations do you have about large enrollment classes?
Results are presented as % of respondents choosing each response; e.g. 15% of respondents are
very frustrated by the difficulty in engaging students’ attention.
Difficulty in engaging students’ attention
(need to entertain them)
Rudeness or disruptive behavior
Difficulty in class administration
(make-up work requests, attendance taking,
etc.)
Very
frustrating
Frustrating
Mildly
annoying
Not a
problem
15
39
26
19
15
28
26
30
37
26
15
20
13
Inadequate help from teaching assistants
Time required for grading
Difficulty in reaching out to students with a
very wide variety of skills and preparation
Requirement to "teach to the tests"
Being compared to teachers who have other
sections of the same class
Need to cover material in a pre-requisite class
Creating effective multiple-choice tests
Larger possibility of personality conflicts
31
36
6
21
15
26
46
15
28
37
26
6
17
13
26
43
4
6
11
77
2
6
6
17
31
6
17
17
20
63
44
66
Other concerns:
Students not attending, then emailing with questions.
"Dumbing down the course."
Essentially meaningless "electronic homework" assignments.
Prevention of cheating.
Time involved with special needs students.
Being "as entertaining as the other section’s professor" at the expense of quality teaching.
Comments:
I'm frustrated that (1) UK is getting more money and my salary remains stagnant. (2) State funding cuts
should not affect Arts and Sciences at all since the tuition money raised by large classes more than covers
our budget. (3) A&S has a surplus of more than $10 million a year and faculty salaries here are much
lower than anywhere else (4) A&S is continually hit the hardest in terms of extra work for faculty and our
salaries stagnate.
Frustration with the amount of time involved to give individual exams for special needs students if you
have many.
As I will not use multiple-choice tests for History, I am constantly grading essay exams and short (4-6
page) analytical papers.
I never give multiple-choice exams because I'm so bad at making up wrong answers -- the right answer is
always either obvious or too difficult to differentiate. So I use other "objective" methods. They need to be
hand-corrected, but it can be done very quickly. Fill-ins and one-word answers work very well for me.
My concerns are focused on my time. I know how to teach a smaller class effectively. I'm not going worry
about how to effectively teach a larger class simply because the administration has saddled me with it.
Any solution must be time-neutral for me.
The Teaching Assistant situation in our Department is poor. We need leadership from our chair on
identifying, placing and training qualified TAs. We do not have doctoral students so it is a real
disadvantage that all our TAs are master's level. They do very little for the amount of money spent by the
department. It is a poor return on the department's investment. Most are international and have no
teaching skills when they come to the US, so we spend a large amount of time teaching them the skills
needed to effectively help us with our classes. I think an improvement of the TA program could have a
MAJOR overall positive outcome to our larger class situation, but as faculty we have little to no voice in
this problem (at least in my department). The issue of keeping students' attention and having to entertain
rather than teach is a major problem and more prevalent than just teaching a large class. It is prevalent no
14
matter what the class size is at the undergraduate level. It seems that each year, students want to be taught
less, have to work less and be entertained more. The current Teacher Evaluation program does not
distinguish good teaching. Many students today are poor judges when filling out Teacher Evaluations
because their values are skewed. Time required to grade upper level courses where you value students
expressing their thoughts in papers and essays is very stressful. As a tenure-track faculty, I find it
impacting my research time.
To the contrary. Large lecture classes can be extremely efficient at dispersing knowledge, enthusiasm and
understanding.
The problem with teaching assistants is the lack of teaching assistants.
3. What classroom equipment and facilities do you believe are useful in a large-enrollment class?
Results are presented as % of respondents choosing each response; e.g. 68% of respondents find a
digital projector essential.
Digital projector
Overhead projector
DVD / VCR player
Computer at podium
Wireless or high-speed internet access in
classroom
Wireless microphone
Wireless mouse
Audience response system (handheld
"clickers")
Erasable whiteboard
On-site AV staff support
Adjustable lighting
20
38
42
15
Not
useful
0
6
4
0
Never
tried
11
9
6
11
40
31
8
20
48
34
24
27
6
11
20
27
6
31
18
43
15
40
59
36
40
34
18
6
2
29
13
4
Essential
Useful
68
45
46
73
Other helpful features
Flexibility of equipment positioning – ability to move projector, lectern, etc.
Doc cam
Multiple screens so I can use more than one projector
ELMO
Movable lecterns in ALL lecture halls for those of us who move around the room and engage students as
we teach
A compact seating arrangement such that one can still see the faces of the students in the last row.
Comments
My only concerns with equipment are other faculty who mess up settings or hide the remotes so that I
can't find them for my class. Onsite AV help has been essential.
I prefer to use the smart classrooms for all lectures.
A lot of the lecture halls on campus have a very static design, leaving the instructor no choice but to either
barricade him/herself behind some big counter or AV stand or gerrymander some alternative to get closer
15
to the students.
It would be nice if we could have classrooms with working AV systems. I don't want to put effort into
something that won't work....and from what I've heard, that is a common experience.
The audience response system may not be essential for any of my classes but would certainly be helpful
with engaging students and in understanding whether they are learning the material.
My answers will change when we have greater ability to use digital images. Adequately sized screens and
projectors are STILL needed.
An ELMO is a machine where a camera can show what you are writing or drawing. You avoid
transparencies and the mess associated with them. You can use lots of colors. For courses where you hold
or show objects, such objects are projected so the whole class can see the demonstration.
4. What instructional technologies do you believe would be useful for a large enrollment class?
Results are presented as % of respondents choosing each response; e.g. 25% of respondents find
learning management systems essential.
Learning management systems (e.g.
Blackboard)
Access to online instructional materials
Having a reference librarian assigned to the
class
Flexible, appropriate, and secure online
assessment of student performance
Grading software
Online student course evaluations
Help desk for technical problems available
24/7
Live web conferencing
Essential
Useful
Not
useful
Never
tried
25
37
9
27
34
44
6
13
0
13
20
65
20
27
6
44
20
6
37
27
4
9
37
55
20
37
6
34
0
4
9
85
Comments
All this is BS because it is introducing new technology that means more work for faculty in an effort to
make us more productive. But we already are more productive since we are teaching more students for the
same salary.
We don't currently have quality online assessment. The current homework is just busywork to most
students, often done with help from friends or a centralized database.
A workshop doesn't make faculty proficient in learning management systems. We need more than a help
desk, too. Technology consumes too much of our time because we have to learn so much of it on our own
and because we don't always have the equipment we need.
5. What skills do you bring to your large enrollment class?
Results are presented as % of respondents choosing each response; e.g. 36% of respondents are
very good at making interesting, attention-keeping presentations.
16
Interesting, attention-keeping
presentation
Good course administration
Challenging, learning-producing
assignments
Fair grading
Rapport with students
Variety of learning experiences in
class
Effective use of textbooks or
supplementary material
Ability to make complex concepts
understandable to most students
Ability to engage most students in
substantive dialogue
I’m very
good
I do fine
I would like
to improve
Not important
in a LEC
36
25
38
0
20
44
43
0
16
30
46
6
37
34
51
37
11
25
0
2
4
38
43
13
9
50
40
0
25
51
23
0
15
31
43
9
Other skills
Problem solving
Comments
I don't think I'm self-deluded on this, but I feel I do an exceptional job for the most part.
You can't have learning-producing assignments in a large group. You can't. Same goes for rapport or
dialogue with students. You just can't do this in the large classroom.
Strange question. Most of these depend simply on a particular student's willingness to learn.
I am interested in presenting concepts. I want to improve all aspects of making complex concepts
understandable
I only chose that I would like to improve with having a variety of learning experiences in the classroom
because I am limited by having to teach a larger class and by limited resources – this is not my own
limitation.
Do any of us actually feel satisfied with our performance in these areas in large classes? I doubt it.
6. TASC intends to create a series of events or opportunities to support faculty in dealing with their
large-enrollment classes. We realize that faculty have many constraints on their time and effort. What
barriers are problematic to your participation?
Results are presented as % of respondents choosing each response; e.g. 28% of respondents find
lack of time when classes are in session almost insurmountable.
Almost
Can deal
Problematic
insurmountable
with it
Lack of time when classes are in
session
No funds available for personal
Not a
problem
28
50
19
2
22
40
15
20
17
development
Other faculty members do not seem
to share my concerns or needs
There is no promotion or merit credit
given for participation
Previous experiences with such
events have been disappointing
I don’t usually hear about events
Administration gets on these kicks;
it’ll blow over
If I get really good at this they will
simply give me more students
13
13
22
51
24
37
24
13
11
32
2
53
0
13
20
65
15
17
17
48
11
31
13
44
Other barriers
Adjuncts are not usually included.
Been there, done it; it’s all "PR" by administration at this "research university."
Outreach efforts are not tailored to discipline.
Time needed to do research. Considered more a priority for tenure-track.
Comments
There is no reward and no appreciation at any level. There seems to be an interest to use this to 1)
downsize faculty and 2) increase workload by asking you to teach more students and/or telling you that
you are now more efficient in teaching so you should have more time to get that next grant, finish that
article, and write that book. In this sense this is just a classic speed up.
Why should I bother? We have been told that we must teach large classes because of the budget. I don't
agree but I do have the power to argue. If the administration decides it wants to have large classes the
quality of the education in these classes is going to fall. It is a fact of life. I'm not about to waste my time
in some silly workshop with someone telling me how to teach. I know how to teach. The problem isn't my
ability to teach, it is too many students in a class.
7. If the previous barriers were eliminated, what kind of opportunities would you be most likely to take
advantage of?
Results are presented as % of respondents choosing each response; e.g. 8% of respondents would
definitely participate in brown bag lunch sessions.
8
22
0
Would
make an
effort to
come
51
46
25
Would
come if I
had nothing
else to do
20
11
25
37
20
18
23
7
25
38
28
9
26
26
36
Would
definitely
participate
Brown-bag lunch sessions (1 hr)
Short workshops (1-3 hrs)
In-depth workshops (1-3 days
Email announcements or emailed
"teaching tips"
Announcements of books or websites
Longer term opportunities such as
"faculty learning communities"
I could not
be dragged
to this
20
20
48
18
Other
The only thing that would get me to go to something like this would be (1) to be paid to do it and (2) have
teaching actually count towards promotion and review.
Time is my major concern.
Comments
Please don't depend on Brown-bag lunch sessions. I often teach my big lecture class from 12-1 on MWF.
I think a 90-minute to 2 hr workshop would be worth my effort and time. I didn't mark brown bag lunch
session, because the large class I teach is over lunch and I could probably not come to it then.
I would come to the three-day workshop if there was an incentive (monetary, time off other work, etc.) I
am tired of "volunteering" for things at this university, where I do not feel rewarded. Yes I get lots of
verbal appreciation, but it gets tiring and old.
“If the constraints were eliminated” is a fantasy. This is not something for which I will be rewarded or
even earn the appreciation of my colleagues.
If you want more of my time, you have to pay for it! We already give more than most. I give 110% -- now
it is the administration’s turn to give back.
What about thinking about how large lecture classes enrich the college experience for students? By and
large, they are pretty great things.
Here are some general comments: Because of the large class, I did not have a paper assignment. Not a
good thing. I find that I don't recognize people on campus anymore, even if they are in my class. Never
been a problem before. Students coming later and leaving early in a disruptive way is a problem that I've
never had before. I get a seemingly constant stream of emails.
I used to get small newsletters such as The Teaching Professor, short with good information and tips. I'd
get a lot more from getting this on a regular basis than indications of websites to go to.
19
C. Questions Posed to faculty in BOT Faculty Representative Michael
Kennedy’s January, 2005 Electronic Survey
A. Would you say that the students you teach now get as much of what
you >want them to have (information, knowledge, skills, insight, . . .) as
they did three years ago? ___________ (see scale below)
7=considerably more, 6=somewhat more, 5=a bit more, 4=about the same,
3=a >bit less, 2, somewhat less, 1=considerably less.
B. Please answer the same question for students in your department
or >discipline. _________
7=considerably more, 6=somewhat more, 5=a bit more, 4=about the same,
3=a >bit less, 2, somewhat less, 1=considerably less.
C. How much time and effort (considering also the support, or lack
of >support, you get) do you expend in teaching a class, compared with
three >years ago? ______
7=considerably more, 6=somewhat more, 5=a bit more, 4=about the same,
3=a >bit less, 2, somewhat less, 1=considerably less.
D. Please evaluate the academic quality of the students you teach
now >compared to three years ago. ______
7=considerably better, 6=somewhat better, 5=a bit better, 4=about the >
same, 3=a bit worse, 2, somewhat worse, 1=considerably worse.
E. Levels of courses you teach: 100-200 level courses ____. 300-500 >level
courses ____. Graduate courses _____.
F. Your college (optional) ____________________
20
D. Results of our Faculty Survey, March 2005
Pooled Data Results for Common Questions:
For quantitative questions: Strongly Disagree= 4, Disagree= 3; Strongly Agree= 1, Agree= 2. Not
applicable responses were omitted from data set.
I have been provided with adequate resources to handle the increased class size.
Respondents (23): Disagree
Average
3.2
Standard Deviation
0.6
Teaching responsibilities are fairly distributed among faculty in my department.
Respondents (22): Disagree
Average
3.5
Standard Deviation
0.6
Teaching a large class has positively impacted my professional life.
Respondents (22): Disagree
Average
3.2
Standard Deviation
0.8
Teaching a larger class has positively impacted my personal life.
Respondents (18): Disagree
Average
3.4
Standard Deviation
0.5
If you devote more time to teaching than before, what other activities have declined in response ?
(respondents had no limit to the number of boxes they could select). There were 6 no responses.
Citing research:
12/18
Citing service:
8/18
Citing personal time:
13/18
Assuming the 6 no responses disagree with the premise of the question, the numbers become:
Citing research:
12/24
Citing service:
8/24
Citing personal time:
13/24
At all levels, maximum number of students professor thinks can be accommodated in the class is
lower than the present number of students.
21
Upper Level Courses (300-500) with Increasing Enrollments
Current class size:
31-40
6
41-50
3
more than 50
8
Previous class size:
less than 30 31-40
13
1
41-50
2
= total respondents=17
more than 50
1
Question 14: Maximum number of students respondents thought could be accommodated:
less than 30
8
31-40
2
41-50
3
more than 50
1
don’t know
2
no response
1
For quantitative questions: Strongly Disagree= 4, Disagree= 3; Strongly Agree= 1, Agree= 2. Not
applicable responses were omitted from data set.
Question 7: I devote significantly more time to teaching duties in response to my increased class size.
Respondents (17): No clear consensus
Average
2.2
Standard Deviation
1.1
Question 8: I have been provided with adequate resources to handle the increased class size.
Respondents (16): Disagree
Average
3.2
Standard Deviation
0.4
Question 9: Teaching responsibilities are fairly distributed among faculty in my department.
Respondents (16): Disagree
Average
3.5
Standard Deviation
0.5
Question 10: My teaching responsibilities have increased more than that of my colleagues who teach
smaller courses.
Respondents (16): No clear consensus.
Average
2.6
Standard Deviation
1.0
Question 11: Teaching a large class has positively impacted my professional life.
Respondents (16): Disagree
Average
3.6
Standard Deviation
0.5
22
Question 12: Teaching a larger class has positively impacted my personal life.
Respondents (14): Disagree
Average
3.5
Standard Deviation
0.5
Question 13: If you devote more time to teaching than before, what other activities have declined in
response ? (respondents had no limit to the number of boxes they could select). There were 3 no
responses.
Citing research:
9/14
Citing service:
7/14
Citing personal time: 10/14
Question 15: As class size increases, I continue to use teaching methods that I believe are most
appropriate.
Respondents (11): No clear consensus
Average
2.5
Standard Deviation
1.2
Question 16: The quality of my interactions with students has improved as class size has increased.
Respondents (9): Disagree
Average
3.6
Standard Deviation
0.5
Question 17: I have had to change my teaching methods to accommodate the increasing class size.
Respondents (10): Disagree
Average
3.6
Standard Deviation
0.8
Question 18: If you have had to change your teaching methods, please comment about those
changes.
1) There's less writing. Far fewer re-writes. Less time spend with students.
2) Increased class size calls for more creativity in assignments and class management techniques.
3) My normal practice for this class was to assign two or three papers and two exams including essay
questions. I also usually scheduled conferences. With 55 students and no teaching assistant, it was
impossible to assign short papers or do conferences. It was also difficult to recognize whether students
were having difficulty with texts and comprehension, because there was so little feedback from them in
class. I added short diagnostic quizzes, which addressed basic comprehension, but there was no chance to
see if they were having trouble with their writing.
4) I devote less time to teaching my larger class because if I did what I used to do, I would have very little
time. For example, I used to assign papers and encourage class discussion. I no longer assign papers. I
now just use scan sheets. This has resulted in less time spent teaching (i.e., less time reading/grading
papers), and scan sheets take very little of my time. So, my time has been reduced by shifting to a larger
class. However, the quality of the teaching has clearly suffered.
5) The writing assignments have been reduced. The amount of time I can spend making comments, even
allowing re-writes and re-submissions, has been reduced.
6) more general knowledge-oriented and less aim for fuller understanding of material
7) I now have > 150 students, so I minimize discussion during class.
23
8) First, I need to clarify that I TAUGHT this class last semester, Fall 2004. I had 57 students sitting in
class on the last day to fill out evaluations (so I don't understand why my web evaluations reflect only 45
or so evaluations . . . , but that's another issue . . . .). I am only a full-time lecturer, so my options at the
outset were to (1) teach the larger class with a TA grader AND keep my other 3 classes of 25 students
each. So I would have had 135 students in Fall 2004. (2) The other option was to teach the 60-student
ENG332 without a grader and to teach only 2 other ENG203 composition classes. I chose the latter option
so as to have only 110 students; also, I was nervous about supervising a TA, because I had never done so
before.
The problem I encountered with teaching ENG332 as a large class was the paperwork. I continued
requiring students to write several essays about what they were reading, and I continued reading their
work, grading it according to what I believed were college-level standards. As a result, I had trouble
staying "fresh" for the class presentations themselves; frankly, I was often just too tired to show much
enthusiasm in my lectures. And some students seemed not to appreciate my efforts to improve their
writing and thinking. So, my answer to this question is that, IF I were to teach another section of ENG332
at this size, I would drop most of my essay requirements, administering short-answer quizzes instead,
with only in-class exams formatted with essay questions. I would concentrate more on my class lectures,
incorporating more technology (I had done quite a bit of this in the class, and film clips and readings DO
enliven the atmosphere!)and worrying less about inviting discussion from students. Most of them want to
be entertained, so I would try to accommodate that desire, hoping that they would manage to learn from
my outlines and stories. Student evaluations contained some written comments about my being a "good
lecturer" but "too demanding for undergraduates," so something was amiss. In short, I did not successfully
"let go" of my old traditional teaching methods, and if I were to teach the class again I would force myself
to worry less with their writing skills, and would consider myself successful if I managed only to get them
to READ widely and deeply.
Question 19: Other comments concerning large or increasing enrollment classes.
1) Quality has decreased, as has interactions, and students clearly realize what is going on.
2) 300-500 level History classes demand more preparation than simple survey courses from the 100 &
200 levels. This means more readings, more paper assignments, more student interaction, and more
grading. I do this not because I think that larger classes at these levels are appropriate, but because these
courses require more from the student and the professor. This history professor will not devolve his
course to 'bubble exams.' Our students need less multiple choice exams and more multiple paper
assignments.
3) I do nor think class size per se has that significant an impact on the quality of the educational
experience. Larger classes can call for different methods and more creative approaches.
4) Large classes may be cheaper, but I believe they dilute the value of an undergraduate degree because
they lessen the amount of personal interaction between student and professor. Any writing problems they
may have had went unaddressed. A teaching assistant would have helped a lot, but at the same time the
university is increasing class size it's cutting money for TAs and research assistants. This is a recipe for
pedagogical disaster, administered to our most inexperienced students, who need close faculty attention
the most.
5) Despite the increasing number of students the department continues to educate, we shall not devolve to
'bubble exams.' All UK students need to develop the skills of critical reading, clear prose style, and
logical oral argument. Multiple choice exams do not assist in developing these skills. Students need
more courses with multiple papers than multiple choice exams. But that requires an increase in the
number of qualified pedagogues, something that will not occur when new sport facilities are given such a
high priority. Increasing the number of students with no concomitant increase in the teaching faculty
demeans the quality of a UK education.
6) This does appear to be a bit of a slanted survey. For instance, why should a large or small class size
have any bearing on my personal life?
24
7) large classes are ok, but there is an expectation that one should meet the rest of one's obligations in an
excellent manner and this simply cannot be done.
8) We had seen declining enrollments over the past 10 years, so the increases we see now are welcome
and moving us back to a class size that is considered "normal" for us.
9) From looking at the online evaluations, I gather that some instructors are much better at this than I am,
so maybe some of us are cut out for larger classes, and some are not. Thank you for administering the
survey, and for reading our responses.
25
Lower Level Courses (100-200) with Increasing Enrollments*
(Except as noted below for one item, data were pooled across our two categories of 100-200 level
courses; that was done due to the relatively low numbers of responses received from these two
categories.)
Current class size:
61-80
2
100-199
2
more than 200
3
= total respondents=7
Previous class size:
21-40
41-60
2
1
100-199
1
more than 200
2
I don’t know
1
Question 16: Maximum number of students respondents thought could be accommodated:
21-40
2
less than 200
3
I don’t know
1
Question 7: I devote significantly more time to teaching duties in response to my increased class size.
Respondents (7): Agree
Average
1.7
Standard Deviation
0.7
Question 8: I have been provided with adequate resources to handle the increased class size.
Respondents (7): Disagree
Average
3.1
Standard Deviation
0.8
Question 9: I have received monetary compensation, DOE adjustments, or other compensation as my
class size has increased.
Respondents (7): Strongly Disagree
Average
3.9
Standard Deviation
0.3
Question 10: Teaching responsibilities for large classes are fairly distributed among faculty in my
department.
Respondents (6): Disagree
Average
Standard Deviation
3.5
0.8
26
Question 11: My teaching responsibilities have increased more than that of my colleagues who teach
smaller classes.
Respondents (6): No consensus
Average
Standard Deviation
2.2
0.7
Question 12: Teaching a large class has positively impacted my professional life.
Respondents (6): No consensus
Average
2.7
Standard Deviation
0.9
Question 13: Teaching a larger class has positively impacted my personal life.
Respondents (5): Disagree
Average
3.4
Standard Deviation
0.5
Question 14: I prefer to teach a large class rather than a smaller more specialized course.
Respondents (6): No consensus
Average
2.3
Standard Deviation
0.7
Question 15: If you devote more time to teaching than before, what other activities have declined in
response ? (respondents had no limit to the number of boxes they could select). There were 3 no
responses.
Citing research:
3/4
Citing service:
1/4
Citing personal time: 3/4
Question 18 (from survey of faculty with courses initially over 200 students): The quality of my
interactions with students has improved as class size has increased.
Respondents (3): Strongly Disagree
Average
4.0
Standard Deviation
0.0
Question 19: I have had to change my teaching methods to accommodate the increasing class size.
Respondents (4): Agree
Average
1.7
Standard Deviation
0.4
Question 20/21: If you have had to change your teaching methods, please comment about those
changes.
1) I've had to go high tech for the delivery, of course, and I like that. But these further reinforce that
education is all about getting a course finished and not about the journey.
2) Increased use of visual material and technology.
3) Eliminated writing so grading does not take whole weekends. made tests more easily graded. Less
opportunities for student interaction/discussion.
27
4) To date, I have not changed methods, still using ones developed for a class half this size, which is why
my personal life has changed.
5) It is much harder to keep students engaged in a large class. Most want to let someone else answer
discussion questions. As a consequence, I've had to become much more of an entertainer to try to keep
them actively listening. Pacing and telling interesting stories become much more important than in a
smaller class where the students can't hide and so have to try harder to keep up with you.
Question 21/22: Other comments concerning large or increasing enrollment classes.
1) As I said, I think there are ways to work with large classes and I like that challenge. It is not all bleak.
But I think throughout all of this, as we study and notice that students might score as well on assessments,
we are ignoring their experience, ignoring just how much of a good time they are having. My perception
is that students are not having as good an academic time at U.K. as they once did.
2) It is a bad idea without (a) consent and enthusiasm of the profs, and (b) support. You can't do what
happened to me: double the class size and give no TA help and expect the students to receive the same
attention or quality of educational experience. It just doesn't happen.
3) I plan to change my class requirements, decrease writing and oral presentation requirements and
develop a more speedily gradable exam.
4) Students keep demanding that professors do more and more of the work that students have done
previously. For example, few want to take notes; they expect to have the professor's notes provided for
them. Presentations need to be in PowerPoint slides. E-mail has encouraged the notion that a professor
should be available to a student 24 hours a day. Without additional resources, these trends alone increase
the time I need to devote to attend to my large introductory class. Increasing enrollments add to this
greatly by increasing the time I need to respond to individual student requests, problems etc. The
administration should recognize that although putting another body in a lecture hall doesn't affect the time
that it takes to prepare a lecture, it does increase the over-all time needed to teach (and direct a class).
This time is coming from somewhere and because only research is being rewarded by the University,
necessarily creating a group of second class citizens since faculty members are dealing with these stresses
unequally.
28
E. Questions for Faculty Governance Chairs
Questions for Consideration for Faculty Governance Chairs (prepared by Roy L. Moore)
Intro:
The University of Kentucky Senate is conducting a survey of faculty governance chairs at selected
universities regarding enrollment management issues. Our Senate Council has appointed a committee to
look at enrollment management and make a report to the University Senate this semester. The
information you provide will be shared with the committee to include in its report. Your participation in
this brief survey is very much appreciated.
Background Questions:
1.
Name of institution ______________________________________________________
2.
Official name of faculty governance body ______________________________________
3.
Name of faculty governance leader ___________________________________________
4.
Title of faculty governance leader ____________________________________________
Other Questions:
5.
Different universities define “enrollment management” in different ways, but it is often viewed as
the process by which undergraduate and graduate enrollments are managed on a short-term and
long-term basis in meeting specific goals through the implementation of enrollment policies and
procedures. How similar is this definition to how enrollment management is defined at your
university? What are the differences and similarities?
6.
What specific role or roles does the faculty play in enrollment management at your university?
7.
What is the role of your faculty governance body in enrollment management?
8.
Who sets enrollment goals at your university, what are the criteria used to establish goals and what
is the process?
9.
During the last two years, has your faculty governance body been directly involved in enrollment
management such as voting on policy changes, discussing the issue with university administrators,
etc? If so, specifically how has the faculty governance body been involved?
10.
What is the general attitude of the faculty toward current enrollment management at your
institution?
11.
What effects has enrollment management had during the last two years on teaching at your
institution?
12.
13.
What effects has enrollment management had during the last two years on faculty, including
retention and recruitment, at your institution?
In your opinion, how well or how poorly has enrollment management gone at your institution?
14.
Is any assessment or review of enrollment management conducted at your institution?
15.
Do you have any other comments or observations about enrollment management at your
institution?
Thanks for your participation.
29
F. Responses from Faculty Governance Chairs
Question 5:
Enrollment management: a process by which undergraduate and graduate enrollments are managed on a
short-term and long-term basis in meeting specific goals through the implementation of enrollment
policies and procedures.
This definition of "enrollment management" is similar to the understanding at Penn State, UCLA, Ohio
State, UVA, UGA, and the University of Washington.
UCLA added that undergraduate enrollment can be controlled centrally, whereas graduate enrollment is at
the discretion of particular departments.
Purdue stated that the admissions office handles these matters, and that the Faculty Senate has little to do
with it.
UGA added that the associate vice president controls undergraduate admissions and enrollment
management, while graduate enrollment management falls under the purview of the dean of the graduate
school.
Question 6:
The role of faculties in enrollment management varies greatly.
UCLA claims high faculty involvement: the faculty make every decision on who is admitted and the
guidelines used for making these decisions. Committees that include both faculty and administrators set
target enrollments.
At Ohio State, Penn State, and UGA there are faculty members on the committees that manage enrollment
issues. At UGA the Faculty Admissions Committee, a standing committee of the University Council,
works with the Office of Undergraduate Admissions and the Office of the President on admissions
requirements.
At Purdue the faculty play virtually no role in enrollment management.
Question 7:
There is also great variation in the role faculty governance bodies have in enrollment management.
At UCLA faculty governors serve on the chancellor's enrollment advisory committee to set targets. Also,
there is a senate faculty committee on admissions and standards and actual admissions. At UGA the
faculty governance body collaborates with the Offices of the President and Undergraduate Admissions.
At Penn State the faculty governance body plays a largely consultative role, plus the chair-elect has a vote
with the Central Enrollment Management Committee.
At both UVA and the University of Washington, there exists a faculty senate committee on admissions,
but the faculty governance chair was unsure about the extent of that committee’s role.
At Ohio State and Purdue the faculty governance body has no official role in enrollment management.
30
Question 8:
Enrollment goals are set by central administration (president, vice presidents, provost, and deans) at
Purdue, Ohio State, UVA, UGA, and the University of Washington. This is the same at Penn State, except
there is a bit of faculty governance input from the governance chair.
At UCLA there is a joint faculty-administration committee that set goals.
Little was known or offered regarding the decision-making process. Goals are evaluated annually (Penn
State, Purdue, and UCLA). Purdue's major goal in these decisions is targeting full enrollment.
Question 9:
There is great variation as to the level of faculty governance body involvement in enrollment management
issues such as voting on policy changes and discussing the issues with administrators.
At Ohio State the faculty governance body has not been involved in enrollment management.
At Purdue the faculty governance body receives a presidential report on enrollment for the year. Faculty
governance has found this report satisfactory in recent years.
At Penn State the chair elect of the faculty senate has a vote on policy and discussing enrollment issues
within the context of the Central Enrollment Management Committee. Like Purdue, Penn State receives
an administrative report (from the Vice-Provost).
At UGA the faculty governance body approved a definition of "diversity" to be used in crafting
admissions policy.
At UCLA faculty governance involvement in enrollment management is high, through both the faculty
senate committee and the senate-administrative committees.
There is modest faculty involvement in enrollment management at UVA and the University of
Washington.
Question 10:
The faculty at each university has some level of concern with enrollment. These concerns include:
managing the balance between high access and high standards (Ohio State, land grant institution),
recruitment and budget issues at extension, or noncentral campuses (Penn State), increased admission and
the resulting lower faculty-student ratios (Purdue, UCLA), and maintaining access for underprivileged
students (UCLA), and maintaining manageable class sizes despite budget cuts (UGA). UVA and
University of Washington faculty were concerned about a trend toward increasing class sizes, but seemed
resigned to accept the situation.
Question 11:
Enrollment management has had mixed effects on teaching. Ohio State has made moves to recruit higher
quality students, which has increased faculty satisfaction with their students, thus effecting teaching
positively.
31
Virtually no effects at Penn State and Purdue. Purdue did note some strain on the foreign language and
English departments, and also shifts toward more undergraduate teaching by senior faculty to eliminate
some teaching assistants.
UGA overenrolled undergraduates two years ago, which caused them to rely heavily on adjunct
professors. They are currently trying to rebuild their senior faculty.
UCLA is under enrolled at the undergraduate level. This has negatively affected faculty to student ratios.
They would also like to increase their percentage of students at the graduate level.
Both UVA and the University of Washington are concerned about the quality of education with increasing
undergraduate enrollments, particularly with respect to skills in writing, speaking, and critical analysis.
Questions 12:
The effects of enrollment management on faculty retention and recruitment have been minimal: can't
answer/don't know (Ohio State), none (Penn State, UCLA), marginal (Purdue).
UCLA did note that if the number of students per faculty keeps increasing it would have a major effect.
UGA stated that enrollment management's concern with diversity has become a major issue for faculty
campus-wide. Also, retention issues seem closely connected to the low salary pool they have experienced
over the past several years; salary compression is also an issue in retention of experienced faculty.
Question 13:
There is a general satisfaction with enrollment management. Ohio State and UGA
noted some diversity setbacks. Purdue thought the process should be less top-down and that responses to
domestic applicants have to be made too quickly; they should be given more consideration. UCLA noted
that graduate level enrollment is difficult to manage because each department makes decisions. UGA said
they have done fairly well with limited resources, but the limitations have affected morale.
Question 14:
Enrollment management is reviewed and assessed with high regularity. Ohio State's is ongoing, but does
not involve the faculty governance body. At Purdue the administration evaluate enrollment and reports to
the Board of Trustees once or twice per year. Similarly, at Penn State the Board of Trustees receives the
reports of the Vice-Provost, who also reports on these issues to a large gathering of advisors, associate
deans, and faculty.
Question 15:
Additional Comments:
As a land grant institution, there is a tension between access and high admission standards. (Ohio State)
The Vice-Provost has major enrollment management responsibilities. Because the person in this position
in strong, management has been positive. (Penn State)
32
There was a proposal of a state commission to increase undergraduate competitiveness and concentrate on
graduate teaching and research. But, with a decrease in the number of undergraduates there could be a
budget crisis. Furthermore, there are issues negatively affecting graduate enrollment. The increased
difficulty United States policy is giving to international students (i.e., harder to acquire visas) is hurting
recruitment. Furthermore, Chinese universities are improving and aggressive recruiting in Great Britain
and Australia is capitalizing on the walls being erected by U.S. policy. (Purdue)
33
G. Questions for Enrollment Managers
1.
What are your responsibilities in enrollment management?
2.
Who sets the enrollment goals?
3.
Does your university have enrollment “expectations” from the state level (e.g. CPE)?
4.
How are faculty involved in the enrollment recommendation process?
5.
What has been done well at your university related to enrollment management?
6.
What has not gone well at your university related to enrollment management? What have you
learned from your mistakes?
7.
Does your university have an enrollment “cap” on any particular group (freshmen)?
8.
How does budget and planning impact the enrollment management process?
9.
What impact has enrollment had on class offerings - # of sections, usage of TAs, PTIs, capacities,
usage of technology solutions, etc.?
10.
Does your institution consider students’ potential majors in making admissions decisions for firstyear students? Does your institution have differing admissions requirements for upper-division
status in some majors/colleges; if so, how has this affected enrollment management at your
institution?
34
H. Responses from Enrollment Managers
NC State
 Vice Provost for Enrollment Management
 Offices of Undergraduate Admissions, Scholarships and Financial Aid, and Registration and
Records, with a dotted line relationship with the Credit Programs and Summer Sessions Office in
Lifelong Education, has thirty-four EPA professional staff members, sixty-four SPA staff and a
range of ten to twenty student workers at any given time for a total Division staff of over one
hundred ten.
 Shooting for 16% out of state enrollment
The Ohio State University
Ohio State has extensive faculty involvement in both strategic and tactical aspects of enrollment
management. That tradition began in the late 1980s, when Ohio State went to selective admissions. Their
first-year target for fall 2005 is 5800; they want to keep that number stable and work on improving the
quality of each cohort, as well as enhancing the diversity of each successive cohort. They have an
interesting financial dilemma: as they recruit brighter students, they are finding a more rapid graduation
rate, and this has negatively impacted tuition revenue. The state is concerned about the increasing
difficulty for first-year students to gain admission to Ohio State, and has made some sounds about that
issue. They also have a group of students locally referred to as “boat people” (those who are trying to
gain admission to upper-division standing within one of Ohio State’s colleges. Through changes in
advising, and identification of such students as “exploring students”, they have been able to reduce such
numbers from 2000 to a current level of 600.
Penn State University
The Central Enrollment Management Group advises the President, who sets enrollment targets and
criteria. Faculty have input through the Chair-elect of the University Faculty Senate, who has a voice at
the table for the Central Enrollment Management Group. As tuition has continued to rise and the number
of graduating high school seniors continues a very slow increase, Penn State has had an increasingly
difficult time recruiting the sorts of students it desires. (Only West Virginia and North Dakota are
growing more slowly than is Pennsylvania.)
Purdue University
Their Enrollment Planning Group includes a broad array of academic and student services representatives,
along with the faculty chair from their senate’s financial affairs committee. The Enrollment Planning
Group has established a ten-year plan for the enrollment of first-year students, and modifies the process
on an annual basis. The primary mechanism for faculty input is through their college deans, who meet
annually with the campus-wide enrollment manager. Their Fall 2005 enrollment target is 7363; it is clear
that they have fine-tuned their admissions and yield estimation processes!
Texas A&M
 Associate Provost for Enrollment Management
 Each program unit prepares enrollment plans submitted to the Chancellor
 Enrollment Management at two levels – at the lower level it means Admission Criteria by
Program – only some are doing it. Globally it limits University enrollment.
 A&M received about 16,000 applications but accommodate slightly more than 6,000 first-year
students.
 Committee: Assistant Provost for Enrollment (ex officio and chair), the Dean of Undergraduate
Programs and Associate Provost for Academic Services (ex officio), Dean of Graduate Studies (ex
35

officio), three faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate, three representatives of the
Council of Deans, two representatives of the Academic Operations Committee, two
representatives of the Graduate Operations Committee, and the Director of Admissions (ex
officio). All members have voting privileges.
UT & A&M Presidents publicly stress the need for coordinated enrollment management –
funding, transfer, admissions.
University of Arizona
Their Enrollment Management Policy Group consists of several deans, several administrators from the
President’s and Provost’s offices and the key enrollment manager. Direct faculty input to enrollment
management, at either the strategic or tactical levels, seems to be quite modest. This institution has
assessed their space limitations at 40,000 students, and their peer institutions currently are running at
around 30% of students in the graduate and professional ranks. Since the University of Arizona has 23%
of their students in graduate and professional ranks, and since they sense an absolute limit on total student
numbers, they are actively working to reduce first-year enrollments from a current level of approximately
6000. A state-mandate requires that the top 50% of all Arizona high school students must be admitted; of
course, this makes it difficult for the University of Arizona to manage its undergraduate enrollments.
University of California at Los Angeles
Their Chancellor’s Enrollment Advisory Committee, which meets five times per year, includes a long list
of central campus administrators, along with the Dean of Letters and Science. A couple of faculty are
included; according to the enrollment manager, “to educate them about the process we go through.” Their
physical plant limits enrollments to about 4000 first-year students each year, and that number is relatively
stable. About 20% of applicants are admitted. They do admit about 3000 undergraduate transfer students
annually. They are trying to develop systems which will improve their capability to plan for numbers of
students in specific colleges and majors. Under their circumstances, it is much easier to work with
transfers (who migrate within UCLA less) than with first-year students (who often change majors and
colleges).
University of Florida
The key enrollment manager heads an Enrollment Management Committee, made up of a set of central
campus administrators and associate deans from colleges. Their first-year enrollment (6200-6750) is
trending slightly upward, and is set by the President on the advice of the enrollment manager, the
institutional research person, and the provost. They recently had a kerfuffle when business decided to
reduce the size of its entering class; as a result, some previously qualified students were not
accommodated.
University of Georgia
They have a task force which is currently developing an enrollment management plan; it is chaired by the
Associate Provost for Admissions and Enrollment Management, and includes representatives from
college faculties and recruiting and advising counselors. Two years ago, the University of Georgia was
caught off-guard by a surprisingly high yield, and ended up with 5100 first-year students. Last year, they
were able to limit first-year numbers to 4500, a more manageable level. For fall 2005, they have targeted
4600 first-year students. Their journalism program has far too few seats for its qualified applicants;
hence, many who meet the minimum college GPA standards for admission to upper-division standing in
journalism are unable to enter the program.
University of Illinois
Five years ago, first-year enrollments were about 6000. For the fall of 2004, they hit 7250. This growth
has come in the face of sharply declining state appropriations. Further, 90% of their students are of the
36
in-state variety. They believe they could approach 15% out-of-state enrollment without arousing the ire
of state legislators, and will attempt to do so, for purely fiscal reasons. Involvement of faculty in making
enrollment management decisions is only indirect (through their deans and associate deans). To deal with
increasing enrollments and declining budgets, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences increased class
sizes for first-year students, and increased the number of sections for sophomores. As this shakes out,
they actually ended up with a higher percentage of faculty instruction. Unfortunately, their first-year
retention rate has fallen from 93% in fall 2003 to 90% in fall 2004; as one may surmise, they are quite
concerned about this relatively sharp drop within one year.
University of Iowa
This school recently hit a new high of 4184 first-year students, exceeding their capacity of 4000 firstyears. In order to accommodate those additional students, they increased hiring of teaching assistants and
increased the section limits for some first-year courses. Interestingly, their Provost is arguing for a
reduction of first-year enrollments, in order to enhance the quality of undergraduate instruction. The
proposal is to make up for that lost tuition by increasing the percentage of undergraduates entering their
first-year class as non-residents (paying non-resident tuition, of course). Like the University of Kentucky,
the University of Iowa has seen large increases in student enrollment in the face of declining state revenue
support. Iowa requires that the top 50% of high school students be admitted to state institutions; the
Provost at the University of Iowa is arguing that some such students should be diverted to the community
college system. In addition, the University of Iowa is also admitting some marginally qualified first-time,
first-year students for the spring term, in order to give them an opportunity to hone their skills at other
institutions of higher education first. Surprisingly, nearly all engineering students at the University of
Iowa enter as direct admits.
University of Maryland
The enrollment manager sets enrollment goals, with input from a campus-wide Enrollment Management
Working Group. This group includes a pair of faculty, along with the usual administrators. Their firstyear target is around 4000, and is relatively stable. Back in 1991, the University of Maryland cut firstyear enrollment by 20% in order to improve the quality of its student body and the quality of its
instruction. Some first-year students are directly admitted into business, architecture, and engineering.
University of Michigan
The key enrollment manager visits with all 7 college deans about their target numbers for enrollment; the
Provost has input on the final decision. In the fall of 2004, enrollment of in-state engineering students
reached an 80% yield (their highest previous level had been 63%), so they had to deal with extra students
in that academic year. Steps taken included hiring more faculty and postponing building maintenance
projects. Weekly meetings of the enrollment manager’s group (representatives from the Provost’s office,
associate deans from Engineering and LSA and his own staff) help to fine-tune the process of admissions.
Direct faculty input appears to be quite modest. A fair number of first-year students are now directadmitted to programs like business and architecture.
UNC – Chapel Hill
 Statewide enrollment guidelines – President/Provost
 Campus wide faculty / Administration committee (large) – effective planning – this was a strong
point in their opinion.
 Out of state – 16%
 Enrollment is increasing Approx. 50 per year total – IF STATE INCREASES SUPPORT
PROPORTIONALLY!
 State-wide planning – UNC has horse power
37
University of Texas – Austin
 Traditional Registrar, Admissions Office, Financial Aid Office, …
 Enrollment management – reducing class size -17% freshmen + gpa, +ACT
University of Virginia
 All admissions done holistically
 State Funding decreasing – enrollment stable – applications >> acceptances
Univ of Washington
 State funded – fte rate per student – enrollment is being reduced from +1,500, +1,000, +500 above
the funding level
 Faculty participate heavily on the budget committee
 Several programs (primarily graduate) are differentiated on a fee-based basis
 3:1 instate/out of state – 50% of admissions done holistically – grades, course selection, extra
curricular, essay, school history – “graded” twice by RAs – reviewed by professional staff.
 Very large CC enrollment - %30% - xfer students are differentiated by major.
Univ of Wisconsin-Madison
 Very much like UK – no real control over enrollment – mandated state-wide for all colleges and
universities.
Institutions Identified by Don Witt as Examples of Effective Enrollment Management
Oregon State University
 The office of Enrollment Management Unit provides an integrated leadership approach to achieve
OSU's enrollment goals, for integrating enrollment management services, and for developing and
implementing enrollment management strategies. Enrollment Management services include:
Admissions, Student Orientation and Retention Programs, Registrar, Financial Aid and
Scholarships, and Precollege Programs
 Structure similar to UK – reports to Vice Provost for Academic Affairs – charges with Universitywide planning.
 Shooting for 19,000 enrollment – using $1 million of research funding for scholarships.
 Ed School has courses in Enrolment management.
Slippery Rock University
 State Goals – e.g. +1% in credit hours, +3% retention.
 Explicitly part of the strategic plan  Under Assoc Provost
 PA demographics predict enrollment declines – thrust is to increase enrollment with improved
scores – effective state support declining – tuition rising .
Tulane University
 VP for Enrollment Management
 Strategic Planning Committee – 4-5 senior faculty, senate vice-chair, 4-5 VPs and Deans
 Comprehensive study of economic factor in their environment – cost benefits to students, average
increasing debt of graduates, …
38
University of Central Florida
 Established a management plan with cost estimates for all aspects: recruiting different types of
students, advising, and instruction. … Primary thrust was for graduate students not
undergraduates.
39