ÌìÌì³Ô¹Ï

Although the university is scheduling the ÌìÌì³Ô¹Ï Campus teaching labs well, the master plan seeks to further increase the efficiency of how we use our teaching labs. The master plan sets the following utilization goals for teaching labs:

• Student Station Occupancy (number of seats actually filled): The ÌìÌì³Ô¹Ï Campus now fills only 68% of seats during scheduled courses. Teaching labs are typically very expensive spaces, so there’s an expectation for higher utilization. To more efficiently use teaching labs, the goal is 80% seat fill.

• Weekly Room Hours (how much of the week a credit-bearing class is using the room): The ÌìÌì³Ô¹Ï Campus now schedules it classrooms on average for 23 hours/week. The utilization goal is only an incremental increase to 24 Weekly Room Hours. The utilization goal for teaching labs is much lower than for classrooms because teaching labs require substantial non-scheduled time for class preparation and clean up and a moderate level of student and faculty research activity.

The State of Ohio does not yet have teaching lab utilization goals. These goals were derived from other state’s guidelines and the experience of the master planning team.

The physical sciences teaching labs are scheduled for fewer weekly room hours than the performance labs and studios.

The most highly scheduled teaching labs are in the Center for the Visual Arts, Satterfield Hall, Rockwell Hall, and Franklin Hall.  On average, courses in these building are well above the Weekly Room Hours utilization goals.  Taken together, these four buildings contain over 1/3 of all teaching labs.

Do you find it hard to schedule courses in the teaching labs in Satterfield Hall, the Old Art Building, and University Library?

Would you have interpreted the teaching lab utilization analysis differently?