- Email: [email protected]
Assessment of the summer program at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) in Saudi Arabia: directions for development
Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269 www.elsevier.com/locate/highedpol
Forum
Assessment of the summer program at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) in Saudi Arabia: directions for development Adel S. Al-Dosary ∗ , Mohammed Raziuddin City and Regional Planning Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, KFUPM, Box # 684, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
Abstract This study reports the 1ndings of a survey of the perceptions of faculty and students regarding the e2ectiveness of the summer program at KFUPM. In this study the objective was to identify the concerns of faculty and students about the summer program and suggest possible policies for development. Information was collected using a questionnaire. Students were given 200 questionnaires to 1ll out and 160 were completed and returned (80% response rate). Faculty on the other hand, were given 70 questionnaires to 1ll out and 35 were completed and returned (50% response rate). From the study, it was concluded that the summer program should not o2er courses that require a long time to develop skills. It should only be conducted as a supplementary semester to help those, unable to complete their course work successfully during the regular semesters, or improve their skill, which indirectly a2ect the overall completion of their degrees. The study revealed that there were some concerns about the summer program that need to be addressed by the university administration. It also highlighted the need for the introduction of relevant policy measures for the e
1. Introduction The main purpose of evaluation is to improve the quality of a program or a project by identifying its strengths and weaknesses, and to see if it accomplished the stated ∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +9663-860-1256; fax: +9663-860-1256. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. S. Al-Dosary).
c 2001 International Association of Universities. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. 0952-8733/ 01/$20.00 All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 5 2 - 8 7 3 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 1 - 3
262
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
objectives (Suvedi, 1998). It serves as a tool to assess the suitability, adequacy and usefulness of the program. Evaluation also provides the justi1cation for continuing the program either with the same or changed parameters (Crawford, 1998). The most common methodology of evaluation involves collection of information through surveys. These surveys are designed in such a way as to provide the data and information for judging the adequacy, e2ectiveness, and e
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
263
atmosphere, the opportunity to work towards graduation, reduced tuition, opportunity to focus, ease of registration and course work. Disadvantages reported are its hindrance of the ability to earn and save money, di
3. Methodology of the study Research was conducted at KFUPM to investigate the e2ectiveness of the summer program. Focus groups are limited to faculty and students. They were asked through summer coordinators to identify the key issues of concern about the summer program. Questionnaires were circulated to 200 students and 160 were completed and returned (80% response rate), while 70 faculty were given questionnaires and 35 were completed and returned (50% response rate). The questionnaire consists of a total of eight questions. The 1rst 1ve were designed to extract quantitative data and the last three to extract qualitative information. The 1rst 1ve questions are shown in Table 1 along with a summary of the responses. The responses to the remaining three questions are shown in Table 2. A simple descriptive analysis is carried out to come up with policy recommendations.
4. Discussion of the results of the study 4.1. The di7erence in scope and content in courses between summer and regular semesters The majority of the responses from faculty, point to the fact that there is no di2erence in the scope and content between summer and regular semesters. Among faculty, 85.72% support the view that, there is no di2erence in scope and content between summer and that regular semester no adjustments are required for the unique structure of the summer program. Only 14.28% of faculty indicate such a di2erence exists. It was
264
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
Table 1 Summary of questionnaire responses from faculty and students Question
Q1. Is there any di2erence in scope and content of the course between summer and a regular semester. Q2. Is learning by students in any way a2ected by the faster pace of summer program. Q3. Are there any serious class scheduling problems during summer. Q4. How suitable are the dates of starting and ending the summer. Q5. Is faculty teaching in the summer being a2ected in terms of their performance during the 1rst semester in the following year.
Faculty responses in %
Student responses in %
Yes
No
N=A
Yes
No
14.28
85.72
—
46.25
46.25
7.5
65.71
34.28
—
60.62
30.00
9.68
11.42
82.85
5.70
29.37
57.5
13.13
71.42
20.00
8.58
54.37
26.87
18.76
17.14
68.57
14.28
41.25
35.00
23.75
N/A
felt that the students’ responses on this question were not relevant and hence ignored, because they were at the receiving end of the teaching process. The conclusion is that for all practical purposes the scope and content of the summer courses are similar to those of regular semesters. 4.2. The negative e7ect of summer’s faster pace on the students’ learning The majority both of students (60%) and of faculty (66%) felt that the faster pace of the summer courses negatively a2ects learning. It appears conclusive that the faster pace in the summer has a negative e2ect on the students’ learning. Therefore it is recommended that the summer program should not o2er courses that require a long time to develop skills. It should only be conducted as a supplementary semester to help those students, unable to complete their course work successfully during the regular semesters, or improve the skill, which indirectly a2ect the overall completion of their degrees. 4.3. The summer scheduling Only a very small minority of faculty (10%) indicated the existence of problems in the scheduling of classes and about 25% of the students subscribed to the same view. As the response of faculty in this case is given more weight it is concluded that there are no serious class scheduling problems during the summer. 4.4. Suitability of starting and ending dates of the summer program The majority of both faculty (70%) and students (55%) indicate that dates of starting and ending the summer are suitable. There has been a wide range of conJicting suggestions on alternate dates for starting and ending. For all practical purposes, the
Question
Faculty responses
Frequency No
Q6. List the two most important disadvantages of teaching in the summer.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Q7. List the two most important advantages of teaching in the summer.
1. Financially Advantageous 2. Better Utilization of Facilities, resources and time 3. Faster Graduation of students 4. Reduction of Credit Load on regular semester for students
Q8. Feel free to add any other comments.
Bad Weather Insu
Student responses
%
Frequency No
%
8 8 6 5 3
22.9 22.9 17.1 14.3 8.6
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Faster Pace and Low Comprehension Bad Weather Insu
37 17 9 5 3
23 10.6 5.6 3.1 1.9
11 4
31.4 11.4
4 3
11.4 8.6
1. 2. 3. 4.
Faster Graduation Finish some credit hours in short time Proper utilization of time Less Load in the following semester
38 34 14 9
23.8 21.3 8.8 5.6
1. 2. 3. 4.
Two week vacation before and after summer Course Content needs to be shortened Decrease the duration of the summer More Courses to be o2ered
1. Do not o2er courses that require long time to build skills under summer 2. Split the summer in two arts 3. One week extra vacation 4. Uniform distribution of students among classes 5. Control summer dropout rate by allowing a selected group
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
Table 2 Summary of questionnaire responses from faculty and students with highest frequency
265
266
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
current beginning and ending dates of summer as outlined earlier, serve as a good compromise. 4.5. The e7ect of the summer program on faculty and students Only 17% of faculty admitted that summer teaching negatively a2ects their performance. About 41% of the students also felt the same way. However, it is the authors’ view that a tired, mentally exhausted, person cannot perform as well as a rested and alert one. Taking time o2 is always motivating, energizing and rejuvenating, particularly in a creative work environment. The results also do not support the view that faculty teaching is a2ected during the 1rst semester by teaching in the summer program. However, faculty tend to perceive summer as a time to attend conferences, take up vacation or take up un1nished research, raising the possibility of sudden cancellation of the courses. A person coming fresh from his summer vacation 1nds himself in a more pleasant situation to start the new semester, than one who moves from summer teaching to teaching in the following semester. However, this is a matter of choice. 4.6. The disadvantages of summer teaching From the long list of disadvantages identi1ed by faculty and students, are included here only those that may reJect shortcoming in the summer program. Disadvantages, which are natural or speci1c to the summer, like hot weather, are ignored. • • • • • • • • • •
Fast Pace and Crowded Sections. Daily Classes. Higher students dropout rate. No Vacation after year-long break. Excessive teaching load. Summer session is not suitable for courses that require development of skills over a longer period of time, because of the fast pace of the summer program and close intervals of classes. Shortage of support services. Administrative services slow down as many personnel take their vacation during summer. Students indicate absence and lack of seriousness of some instructors. Shorter working hours of computer labs and library.
In general, the higher dropout rate of the summer program will cause severe 1nancial drain on the university budget, because it is a full scholarship university and pays a monthly stipend to the students. The shortage of support services and mismanagement of the university resources are some of the other drawbacks of conducting summer programs. The summer program is not suitable for courses which require a long period for the development of skills. The intensity and taking of classes negatively a2ect students. In authors’ opinion, summer has a negative impact on both faculty and students especially in the following semester. Once a commitment is made, both faculty and
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
267
student will have to persist with the summer program despite there negative externalities which have some impact on their performance. Although the summer program meets its minimum objectives, these concerns should be taken into consideration by the university administration. 4.7. The advantages of summer teaching From the long list of advantages provided by the respondents of this survey, the following stand out. • Faster Graduation of students. • Less congestion of some courses in regular semesters. • Good time to concentrate on research for faculty on research assignments especially those working on funded projects. • A chance for some faculty to earn extra income. • Proper utilization of facilities and resources such as clinics parking and recreation center facilities. • Proper utilization of time. • A way to keep the university active during the summer. • Help some students to graduate earlier whilst prevent by others from being delayed in graduating. • A way for students to reduce their load during the regular semester. • Some students believe that more di
268
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
3. The university should provide more administrative services and facilities to o2set the negative impact of over crowding and long daily classes which arises from limited course o2ering, shortage of faculty and the fast pace of the summer program. 4. The university administration should develop more equitable and e
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
269
Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: an interdisciplinary review and synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64–85. Suvedi, M. (1998). Introduction to program evaluation. Retrieved from http:==www2.ag.ohio-state.edu= ∼brick=suved2.htm. University of Washington. (1997). Strategies and initiatives. Summer Quarter Report Retrieved from http:==www.washington.edu=reports=summer=sqr7.html.
Further reading Andrews, M., & Werner, W. (1988). How can we do it? An Evaluation Training Package for Development of Educators. British Columbia, Canada: Research and development in Global Studies. Atiken, N. D. (1982). College student perfromance, satisfaction and retention: speci1cation and estimation of a structure model. Journal of Higher Education, 53(1), 32–50. Bare, A. C. (1980). The Study of academic department performance. Research in Higher Education, 12(1), 3–21. Neuman, Y. (1980). Organizational climate and faculty attitudes toward collective bargaining: A university in major labor dispute. Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 353–369. Neuman, Y., & Neuman, L. (1981). Determinants of students satisfaction with course work: an international comparison between two universities. Research in Higher Education, 14(4), 321–333. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 90–125. Trinkaus, J. W., & Brooke, A. L (1980). The curriculum change process: participants, strategies and tactics. Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 219–227. Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.
Forum
Assessment of the summer program at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) in Saudi Arabia: directions for development Adel S. Al-Dosary ∗ , Mohammed Raziuddin City and Regional Planning Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, KFUPM, Box # 684, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
Abstract This study reports the 1ndings of a survey of the perceptions of faculty and students regarding the e2ectiveness of the summer program at KFUPM. In this study the objective was to identify the concerns of faculty and students about the summer program and suggest possible policies for development. Information was collected using a questionnaire. Students were given 200 questionnaires to 1ll out and 160 were completed and returned (80% response rate). Faculty on the other hand, were given 70 questionnaires to 1ll out and 35 were completed and returned (50% response rate). From the study, it was concluded that the summer program should not o2er courses that require a long time to develop skills. It should only be conducted as a supplementary semester to help those, unable to complete their course work successfully during the regular semesters, or improve their skill, which indirectly a2ect the overall completion of their degrees. The study revealed that there were some concerns about the summer program that need to be addressed by the university administration. It also highlighted the need for the introduction of relevant policy measures for the e
1. Introduction The main purpose of evaluation is to improve the quality of a program or a project by identifying its strengths and weaknesses, and to see if it accomplished the stated ∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +9663-860-1256; fax: +9663-860-1256. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. S. Al-Dosary).
c 2001 International Association of Universities. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. 0952-8733/ 01/$20.00 All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 5 2 - 8 7 3 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 1 - 3
262
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
objectives (Suvedi, 1998). It serves as a tool to assess the suitability, adequacy and usefulness of the program. Evaluation also provides the justi1cation for continuing the program either with the same or changed parameters (Crawford, 1998). The most common methodology of evaluation involves collection of information through surveys. These surveys are designed in such a way as to provide the data and information for judging the adequacy, e2ectiveness, and e
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
263
atmosphere, the opportunity to work towards graduation, reduced tuition, opportunity to focus, ease of registration and course work. Disadvantages reported are its hindrance of the ability to earn and save money, di
3. Methodology of the study Research was conducted at KFUPM to investigate the e2ectiveness of the summer program. Focus groups are limited to faculty and students. They were asked through summer coordinators to identify the key issues of concern about the summer program. Questionnaires were circulated to 200 students and 160 were completed and returned (80% response rate), while 70 faculty were given questionnaires and 35 were completed and returned (50% response rate). The questionnaire consists of a total of eight questions. The 1rst 1ve were designed to extract quantitative data and the last three to extract qualitative information. The 1rst 1ve questions are shown in Table 1 along with a summary of the responses. The responses to the remaining three questions are shown in Table 2. A simple descriptive analysis is carried out to come up with policy recommendations.
4. Discussion of the results of the study 4.1. The di7erence in scope and content in courses between summer and regular semesters The majority of the responses from faculty, point to the fact that there is no di2erence in the scope and content between summer and regular semesters. Among faculty, 85.72% support the view that, there is no di2erence in scope and content between summer and that regular semester no adjustments are required for the unique structure of the summer program. Only 14.28% of faculty indicate such a di2erence exists. It was
264
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
Table 1 Summary of questionnaire responses from faculty and students Question
Q1. Is there any di2erence in scope and content of the course between summer and a regular semester. Q2. Is learning by students in any way a2ected by the faster pace of summer program. Q3. Are there any serious class scheduling problems during summer. Q4. How suitable are the dates of starting and ending the summer. Q5. Is faculty teaching in the summer being a2ected in terms of their performance during the 1rst semester in the following year.
Faculty responses in %
Student responses in %
Yes
No
N=A
Yes
No
14.28
85.72
—
46.25
46.25
7.5
65.71
34.28
—
60.62
30.00
9.68
11.42
82.85
5.70
29.37
57.5
13.13
71.42
20.00
8.58
54.37
26.87
18.76
17.14
68.57
14.28
41.25
35.00
23.75
N/A
felt that the students’ responses on this question were not relevant and hence ignored, because they were at the receiving end of the teaching process. The conclusion is that for all practical purposes the scope and content of the summer courses are similar to those of regular semesters. 4.2. The negative e7ect of summer’s faster pace on the students’ learning The majority both of students (60%) and of faculty (66%) felt that the faster pace of the summer courses negatively a2ects learning. It appears conclusive that the faster pace in the summer has a negative e2ect on the students’ learning. Therefore it is recommended that the summer program should not o2er courses that require a long time to develop skills. It should only be conducted as a supplementary semester to help those students, unable to complete their course work successfully during the regular semesters, or improve the skill, which indirectly a2ect the overall completion of their degrees. 4.3. The summer scheduling Only a very small minority of faculty (10%) indicated the existence of problems in the scheduling of classes and about 25% of the students subscribed to the same view. As the response of faculty in this case is given more weight it is concluded that there are no serious class scheduling problems during the summer. 4.4. Suitability of starting and ending dates of the summer program The majority of both faculty (70%) and students (55%) indicate that dates of starting and ending the summer are suitable. There has been a wide range of conJicting suggestions on alternate dates for starting and ending. For all practical purposes, the
Question
Faculty responses
Frequency No
Q6. List the two most important disadvantages of teaching in the summer.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Q7. List the two most important advantages of teaching in the summer.
1. Financially Advantageous 2. Better Utilization of Facilities, resources and time 3. Faster Graduation of students 4. Reduction of Credit Load on regular semester for students
Q8. Feel free to add any other comments.
Bad Weather Insu
Student responses
%
Frequency No
%
8 8 6 5 3
22.9 22.9 17.1 14.3 8.6
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Faster Pace and Low Comprehension Bad Weather Insu
37 17 9 5 3
23 10.6 5.6 3.1 1.9
11 4
31.4 11.4
4 3
11.4 8.6
1. 2. 3. 4.
Faster Graduation Finish some credit hours in short time Proper utilization of time Less Load in the following semester
38 34 14 9
23.8 21.3 8.8 5.6
1. 2. 3. 4.
Two week vacation before and after summer Course Content needs to be shortened Decrease the duration of the summer More Courses to be o2ered
1. Do not o2er courses that require long time to build skills under summer 2. Split the summer in two arts 3. One week extra vacation 4. Uniform distribution of students among classes 5. Control summer dropout rate by allowing a selected group
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
Table 2 Summary of questionnaire responses from faculty and students with highest frequency
265
266
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
current beginning and ending dates of summer as outlined earlier, serve as a good compromise. 4.5. The e7ect of the summer program on faculty and students Only 17% of faculty admitted that summer teaching negatively a2ects their performance. About 41% of the students also felt the same way. However, it is the authors’ view that a tired, mentally exhausted, person cannot perform as well as a rested and alert one. Taking time o2 is always motivating, energizing and rejuvenating, particularly in a creative work environment. The results also do not support the view that faculty teaching is a2ected during the 1rst semester by teaching in the summer program. However, faculty tend to perceive summer as a time to attend conferences, take up vacation or take up un1nished research, raising the possibility of sudden cancellation of the courses. A person coming fresh from his summer vacation 1nds himself in a more pleasant situation to start the new semester, than one who moves from summer teaching to teaching in the following semester. However, this is a matter of choice. 4.6. The disadvantages of summer teaching From the long list of disadvantages identi1ed by faculty and students, are included here only those that may reJect shortcoming in the summer program. Disadvantages, which are natural or speci1c to the summer, like hot weather, are ignored. • • • • • • • • • •
Fast Pace and Crowded Sections. Daily Classes. Higher students dropout rate. No Vacation after year-long break. Excessive teaching load. Summer session is not suitable for courses that require development of skills over a longer period of time, because of the fast pace of the summer program and close intervals of classes. Shortage of support services. Administrative services slow down as many personnel take their vacation during summer. Students indicate absence and lack of seriousness of some instructors. Shorter working hours of computer labs and library.
In general, the higher dropout rate of the summer program will cause severe 1nancial drain on the university budget, because it is a full scholarship university and pays a monthly stipend to the students. The shortage of support services and mismanagement of the university resources are some of the other drawbacks of conducting summer programs. The summer program is not suitable for courses which require a long period for the development of skills. The intensity and taking of classes negatively a2ect students. In authors’ opinion, summer has a negative impact on both faculty and students especially in the following semester. Once a commitment is made, both faculty and
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
267
student will have to persist with the summer program despite there negative externalities which have some impact on their performance. Although the summer program meets its minimum objectives, these concerns should be taken into consideration by the university administration. 4.7. The advantages of summer teaching From the long list of advantages provided by the respondents of this survey, the following stand out. • Faster Graduation of students. • Less congestion of some courses in regular semesters. • Good time to concentrate on research for faculty on research assignments especially those working on funded projects. • A chance for some faculty to earn extra income. • Proper utilization of facilities and resources such as clinics parking and recreation center facilities. • Proper utilization of time. • A way to keep the university active during the summer. • Help some students to graduate earlier whilst prevent by others from being delayed in graduating. • A way for students to reduce their load during the regular semester. • Some students believe that more di
268
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
3. The university should provide more administrative services and facilities to o2set the negative impact of over crowding and long daily classes which arises from limited course o2ering, shortage of faculty and the fast pace of the summer program. 4. The university administration should develop more equitable and e
A. S. Al-Dosary, M. Raziuddin / Higher Education Policy 14 (2001) 261–269
269
Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: an interdisciplinary review and synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64–85. Suvedi, M. (1998). Introduction to program evaluation. Retrieved from http:==www2.ag.ohio-state.edu= ∼brick=suved2.htm. University of Washington. (1997). Strategies and initiatives. Summer Quarter Report Retrieved from http:==www.washington.edu=reports=summer=sqr7.html.
Further reading Andrews, M., & Werner, W. (1988). How can we do it? An Evaluation Training Package for Development of Educators. British Columbia, Canada: Research and development in Global Studies. Atiken, N. D. (1982). College student perfromance, satisfaction and retention: speci1cation and estimation of a structure model. Journal of Higher Education, 53(1), 32–50. Bare, A. C. (1980). The Study of academic department performance. Research in Higher Education, 12(1), 3–21. Neuman, Y. (1980). Organizational climate and faculty attitudes toward collective bargaining: A university in major labor dispute. Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 353–369. Neuman, Y., & Neuman, L. (1981). Determinants of students satisfaction with course work: an international comparison between two universities. Research in Higher Education, 14(4), 321–333. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 90–125. Trinkaus, J. W., & Brooke, A. L (1980). The curriculum change process: participants, strategies and tactics. Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 219–227. Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.