Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Chapter 2


This chapter presents the gathered information from books, articles, and online

information that have a significant bearing on the study. All these related literature and

studies are collected and used as frame of references.

Related Literature

C. F. Niederriter (April 1997, physics. edu) says for the past several years, the

Dean's office and the Faculty Senate have struggled with defining teaching loads at

Gustavus for the purposes of determining overload situations and staffing allocations.

Several ad hoc committees have looked into the matter, without resolution. At least since

the 1992-1993 school years, the Registrar has tabulated “Faculty Load” data by

department, including number of sections (or contact hours) taught full time load (as

determined by the department), enrollment, and enrollment per faculty. [1]

All of the data is confused by the various ways that they calculate and/or discuss

teaching load; courses, contact hours, and combinations of the two. This has been (and

currently is) the source of much frustration for the committees discussing the issue. Some

have suggested that things would be better if only they used semester hours instead of

courses as a measure, but this ignores the inherent differences in the courses they teach

and the evaluation tools that they use. The author has taken data provided by the

registrar's office for both the Fall Semester of 1996 and the Spring Semester of 1997 and

tabulated a number of parameters associated with teaching loads. The data provided

included First Term Seminars (for the Fall) and Curriculum II (both semesters),

independent studies, etc. However, for the purposes of calculation, courses that have

arranged times were not counted, including such things as music lessons and independent

study research. This was not done as a result of any prejudice, but due to the fact that the

number of contact hours and the combined scores could not be measured for arranged

courses. This obviously affects some departmental data more than others, particularly

Music, some science departments, and other areas with a significant number of arranged

courses. [4]

According to Graysail, (1995) open standards Appointment Scheduling System is

primarily designed for Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), but can easily be

incorporated into web solutions for a variety of business lines. The core functionality of

the system allows designating faculty and staff to set schedule of availability and

designate individuals enter the system and schedule appointments as needed with the

faculty and staff. The user base of the scheduler can be broken into groups so as to allow

the institution to use a single framework for multitude of purposes. Examples of

implementations include (a)Advisement scheduling for the general student body

(b)Career counselor appointment schedule for graduate students or other specific groups

(c)General office hour scheduling (d)Inter-faculty appointment scheduling (e)Tutoring

session’s management. [2]

Graysail (1995) says that the core functionality of the Interview Scheduler is in

essence the same as the appointment scheduler. Designated faculty and staff will

maintain schedules, but instead of a group of authorized users having the ability to

schedule meeting times as needed, individuals are sent invitations to come and set a

meeting time. An example of this systems use is best illustrated by the idea of inviting

applicants for admissions interviews.

Both systems are built on the JSR168 standards, and are available for stand alone

implementation or integration with a portal system. The open structure of the code behind

the systems also allows for headache free information sharing between databases.

Related Studies

Senior Scheduling System (2005, Gordon Smith) is a powerful tool designed to

help create school’s master schedule. The schedule created by the scheduling system can

be analyzed, adjusted and rerun an unlimited number of times until the desired results are

achieved. The power of Scheduling system will greatly reduce the time it takes to create

school’s master schedules. [2]Fully integrated with the senior registrar system, the system

has the following features: (a) works on next years schedules can begin at any time; (b)

can easily work with current year and next years schedule, (c) alphanumeric course

identifiers; (d) unlimited number of courses and sections; (e) tracking of co-requisites and

pre-requisites for each course; (f) comprehensive faculty staff information; (g) real time

conflict checking, and (h) conflicts are displayed in red for any identification. User

definable query system allows for the easy selecting and sorting of records. It has also

the add/drop logging and the details of all schedule changes are tracked. [3]

End Notes, retrieved last January 2008, retrieved last January 2008, retrieved last January

2008, retrieved last January

Conceptual Framework

The Conceptual Framework of this study is based on the proposed system

concept. A proposed system consists of the input, the processing and the output, with part

of feedback specified.

In this study, the input refers to the subject to be offered, curricular programs,

time schedule, and major field of instructor to handle the subject.

Process converts input into outputs. The process in this study is the preparation of

matrix of faculty workload.

The output, which is the expected result of the process, includes the final schedule

and final faculty teaching load.

Feedback may be in the form of comments and suggestions regarding the

performance of the system. It would serve as the guide for changing or modification

regarding system requirements and user demands. It includes the suggested changes and

improvement on the system. [2]