Atl Econ J (2013) 41:191192

DOI 10.1007/s11293-012-9350-2
ANTHOLOGY

Impact of Course Scheduling Formats on Student

Learning and Satisfaction
Karen A. Loveland & Eugene Bland

Published online: 19 November 2012

# International Atlantic Economic Society 2012

One impact of the current budget crisis in higher education is the increased emphasis
on classroom utilization. Of particular concern is the use of classroom space during
early morning, later afternoon, and evening hours. Columbia University recently
required each department to schedule no more than 10% of its courses during any
one time/day block. The University of Arizona implemented a rule that allows each
college to schedule no more than 70% of its courses during prime time (Gaubatz,
National Teaching and Learning Forum, 2003).
Implementation of new classroom utilization management policies gives rise to
faculty concerns that these policies may negatively affect student learning outcomes
and student satisfaction. Smith and Stephens (Academy of Business Education
Conference, 2010) found that learning outcomes were significantly higher in accounting classes that met later in the day (10:00 AM start time) than in classes that
met earlier in the day (8:009:00 AM start time). They also found that students in
marketing and accounting classes that met before 10:00 AM were significantly less
satisfied with the course than students in later classes.
In most cases, the value of the conclusions in the small number of studies related to
the impact of scheduling on learning outcomes and student satisfaction is limited by
small sample sizes and restricted fields (e.g., accounting classes only or half a dozen
courses taught by the authors of the article). This preliminary study seeks to address
faculty and administrative concerns related to classroom utilization management
policies that require alteration of traditional scheduling practices.
Data for 1,506 lecture-type courses taught during the 2010/11 academic year
were compiled from the course schedule at a state university in Texas. The

K. A. Loveland (*)
Department of Management & Marketing, Texas A&M University,
Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX, USA
e-mail: karen.loveland@tamucc.edu
E. Bland
Department of Accounting, Business Law & Finance, Texas A&M University,
Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX, USA
e-mail: eugene.bland@tamucc.edu

192

K.A. Loveland, E. Bland

subject university implemented new course scheduling policies at the beginning

of the year designed to limit the number of prime-time courses and maximize
classroom utilization. To provide outcome measures, average GPA in the
course and the complete student evaluation of teaching (SET) ratings were
added to the schedule database to provide multiple measures of the variables of
interest (student satisfaction with the class and student learning outcomes).
Data for this study were compiled by independent parties to assure anonymity
of faculty SET ratings.
The section GPA and a self-reported measure of learning extracted from the SET
results served as the measures of student learning outcomes. The average overall SET
rating, a composite measure of rapport with students, and the questionnaire responses,
I would take another course with this instructor, if possible, or recommend this
instructor to other students, served as the measures of student satisfaction with the
course.
The authors first divided the course starting times into four categories: Early
Morning (starting times prior to 9:30 AM), Prime Time (starting times between
9:30 AM and 12:30 PM), Afternoon (starting times between 1:00 PM and 3:30
PM), and Evening/Night (starting times 4:00 PM or later). These categories are
the standard categories used in studies by university administrators, as well as
in at least one published research study. Analysis of variance revealed a
statistically significant relationship between class starting time and student
learning outcomes. Specifically, section GPA was lowest (2.71) in early morning classes and steadily increased throughout the day (2.80 in prime time, 2.91
in afternoon, and 3.21 in evening/night classes). The self-reported measure of
learning was also lowest for morning classes, followed by afternoon classes,
prime-time classes, and evening/night classes. ANOVA results for all three
measures of student satisfaction were also statistically significant with early
morning classes demonstrating the lowest ratings followed by afternoon classes
and then prime-time classes. For all three measures, students expressed the
highest level of satisfaction with evening/night classes.
The authors then divided the courses into one of three categories based on
the number of class meetings per week: 1 day per week, 2 days per week, and
3 days per week. This variable represents the influence of more frequent
weekly contact on learning outcomes and student satisfaction reported in
previous studies (e.g., Dills and Hernandez-Julian, Economics of Education
Review, 2008). Analysis of variance yielded mixed results related to learning
outcomes. Section GPA was highest in classes that met once per week (3.36),
followed by courses that met two times per week (2.84), and then courses that
met 3 days per week (2.63). Self-reported measures of learning were also
higher for 1 day per week classes, followed by 3 days per week classes, and
then 2 days per week classes.
Analysis of all three measures of student satisfaction were statistically significant
and revealed that students had the highest level of satisfaction with courses that meet
once per week, followed by three-days-per-week classes, and then two-days-perweek classes. The results of this study provided evidence to support faculty concerns
that scheduling policies may have a significant impact on student performance and
student satisfaction with their classes.