See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327721528

Optimizing Student Learning: A Faculty-Course Assignment Problem Using

Linear Programming

Article · December 2017

DOI: 10.61569/zc88ex04

CITATIONS READS
7 2,620

1 author:

Elvira Entero Ongy

Visayas State University
12 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Elvira Entero Ongy on 18 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology 5:1-14(2017)
Southern Leyte State University, Sogod, Southern Leyte, Philippines

Optimizing Student Learning: A Faculty-Course

Assignment Problem Using Linear Programming
Elvira E. Ongy
Department of Business and Management College of Management and Economics
Visayas State University Baybay City, Leyte

Abstract
Decision making is carried out in organizations in such a way as to observe the goals of
the organizations, which are a combination of the goals of the individuals and groups within
the organization. This study deals with some of the objectives of the universities as well
as the faculty themselves in the process of assigning faculty members to teach specific
sections of particular courses each semester. The regular faculty of the Department of
Business and Management were used as the representative set of such objectives. Some
conflict between objectives which are used as constraints in the analysis were noted. The
assignment process required satisfying in such a way that the total evaluation rating is
maximized thus, faculty who has the highest competency to teach such specific subject over
the others is assigned. A mathematical model of the assignment process was formulated using
mixed-integer programming. The test run was successfully analyzed using the solver add-in
in MS excel which generated an overall evaluation rating of 2188% which has an equivalent
average evaluation rating of 87.5% for each faculty assigned. The faculty assignment problem
is only one of the many day-to-day situations in real life which can be viewed as allocations of
scarce resources involving separate units.

Keywords: Linear programming, optimization, faculty-course assignment

Introduction successfully attain effective and higher

student learning.

The administration of higher education, as Competency of the faculty can be measured

with other administrative environments, has in many ways, but it can be quantified
become increasingly complex (Hardwood using the established evaluation ratings by
& Lawless, 1975) where the assignment of the students specifically on the mastery of
courses to faculty members is one of the the course matter. Effectiveness and quality
essential administrative tasks that must be of the faculty can also be affected by the
performed in academic departments each number of preparations or courses assigned
semester. Decisions made should not merely for each semester. The Commission on
be based on the discretion of one person Higher Education (CHED) has a provision on
or one goal. In order to deliver quality the maximum number of preparations allowed
education, the faculty must be competent to be assigned to each faculty; otherwise,
enough to handle the course. According to teaching effectiveness will be affected. It was
Prasertcharoensuk, et al. (2015), teacher also cited in some articles that overloading
competency influenced the student learning could be more harmful to students than
achievement thus school administrators being beneficial to a university, because the
should promote teacher competency to quality of teaching might suffer as the faculty

*Correspondence: elvie entero@yahoo.com ISSN 2545-9732

Ongy JSET Vol.5, 2017

are handling more subject courses than a Thongsanit (2013) also showed how linear
university considers optimal (The New Times, programming tool can be helpful in attaining
2017). Gwambombo (2013) also found out optimal result in assignment problems relating
that heavy teachers’ workload led to students’ with scarce resources of the university. The
poor academic performance. tool was used to develop a mathematical
Likewise, faculty has a personal preference model and design methods to solve the
on the time schedules not because they classroom-course assignment problem on
wanted to have a more convenient and having large number of courses and different
flexible time, but in order not to compromise classroom capacities with different study
other responsibilities such as research and periods.
extension activities. However, as the main The results of the analysis can be used
task of a faculty is to teach, the university as basis on how many part-time faculty will
has teaching load requirement for each. The be hired. Number of part-time faculty to be
faculty should at least meet the minimum hired can be determined after each regular
requirement for teaching load, since this is faculty is assigned with courses based on the
the core task given as a work load. Unless aforementioned criteria. Further, the study
otherwise, appointed as college dean or with was conducted to address the following:
other administrative duties.
The main objective of this study is to assign 1. Assign the course to faculty who is highly
the course to the faculty based on individual competent to teach on a specific subject
competency, results of evaluation ratings, time with a corresponding schedule based on
and day schedule preference considering that his/her personal preference,
teaching load requirements do not exceed
2. Minimize the incidence of underloading
the maximum or equivalent to the number of
and overloading of teaching loads of the
course preparations, and considering all other
regular faculty,
constraints used in this study using binary
linear programming. 3. Assign a number of preparations to each
Linear programming is an important branch faculty not exceeding the maximum
of applied mathematics that solves a wide requirement to facilitate teaching
variety of optimization problems where effectiveness and quality, and
it is widely used in production planning
and scheduling problems (Schulze, 1998). 4. Provide a basis for efficient
Ismayilova (2007) also used the concept of recommendation on how many part-time
linear programming to faculty-course-time slot instructors should be hired. Since
assignment problem where a multiobjective decision will be made after each regular
0-1 linear programming model considering faculty will be given with the minimum or
both the administration’s and instructors’ maximum teaching load requirement.
preferences was developed. In the study
conducted by Badri (1996), a multiobejctive Methodology
0-1 course-scheduling model was formulated
using linear programming to maximize faculty Problem Formulation
course preferences in assigning faculty
members to course and maximizing faculty The study only focused on one department
time preferences in allocating courses to time specifically the Department of Business
blocks. Similarly, Winch & Yurkiewicz (n.d) and Management (DBM) considering the
presented a case where a simple integer limitations, since the whole university would
linear programming model was used to find require wider and broader scope for the
an optimal class schedule for a student. researcher. It only includes the second

2
Ongy JSET Vol.5, 2017

semester of the academic year. The results 7. Only undergraduate courses (lectures
of this study can be used as a tool in and laboratory) are included in the
assigning the course to faculty based on their analysis, faculty handling graduate
competency and preferred schedule (time courses has lesser teaching load units
and day) in other departments within the and preparation requirements.
university.
The model uses a number of zero-one 8. Faculty with administrative positions
integer variables and thus falls into (such as dean or department head) is
the mixed integer category of linear given with a minimal teaching load and
programming models. This model involves preparation requirement.
faculty-course/schedule assignments for the
9. Load units for thesis, special problem,
Department of Business and Management
and case study advisement are excluded
based on competency on the course and
in the analysis.
personal preference on the schedule of the
faculty. One faculty may have more than one 10. Affiliate faculty has stipulated maximum
preferred time/day schedule for each course teaching load and preparation
but assumed not to have the same time/day requirements.
schedule to avoid conflicts in the assigning
process. Moreover, it is further assumed that 11. On-study leave and part-time faculty of
each instructor is able to give more than one each department are not included in the
specific course. However, each instructor analysis.
may or may not be able to give all the courses
being considered. 12. Equivalent teaching load units of one
The analysis employs the following undergraduate course is 3.0 units while
considerations and requirements or criteria graduate course has an equivalent 4.0
which some are based on the requirement teaching units per section.
of CHED or university pertaining to teaching
loads: Considering all these requirements of the
school administration and preference of
1. Assign the course to the faculty who the faculty, it will play an important role
is highly competent to teach (based on in increasing the overall efficiency and
evaluation ratings). effectiveness of the educational system.
2. Each course-time schedule must be These requirements and preferences are
assigned to only one faculty. very important variables which have been
considered through formulating the objective
3. The number of sections assigned to each function and constraints in this model.
faculty should not exceed the maximum The model parameters, decision variables,
limit. objective function, and constraints are defined
4. The number of preparations of each as follows.
faculty should not exceed the maximum
requirement. Parameters
5. The teaching load units of each faculty Let
must be between his lower and upper
limits. i = {i : i = 1, 2, . . . , m} be the set of
faculty,
6. The number of sections per course
assigned to each faculty should not s = {s : s = 1, 2, . . . , l} be the set of
exceed the maximum limit. courses,

3
Ongy JSET Vol.5, 2017

t = {t : t = 1, 2, . . . , k} be the set of 2. Maximum number of sections assigned to

schedule (time-day), each
X faculty
Xij ≤ aij ∀i
j = {j : j = 1, 2, . . . , n} be the set of
j
course-schedule,
3. Maximum number of preparations
Xij = faculty i assigned to
assigned to each faculty
course-schedule j, X
fij Xij ≤ bij ∀i
eij be the evaluation rating of facultyi with j
the course-schedule j
4. Maximum teaching load requirement
fij be the coefficient of Xij for the number (units)
X of each faculty
of preparations requirement constraint gij Xij ≤ duij ∀i
j
gij be the coefficient of Xij for the
teaching load unit requirement constraint 5. Minimum teaching load requirement
(units) of each faculty
aij be the upper limits for number of X
gij Xij ≥ dlij ∀i
sections to handle
j
bij be the upper limits for the number of
6. Maximum sections per course assigned
preparations per faculty i
to
Xeach faculty
dlij and duij be the lower and upper limits gij Xist ≤ kist ∀i ∀S
for the teaching load units per faculty i t

hij be the upper limit for the number Data Used in the Analysis
of faculty assigned to course-schedule j
kist be the upper limit for the number of The necessary data used in the analysis
sections per course per faculty i were obtained from the records of University
Registrar with regards to the class schedules
Decision Variables and from the documents provided by the
 department on the faculty evaluation results by
1
 If ith faculty is assigned to jth students and individual workload assignment
Xij = course-schedule, for the 2nd semester. The following tables

0 otherwise. (Tables 1 – 7) show the summarized data

needed in the analysis.
Objective function
The coefficient fij is computed by dividing
Objective function is formulated by maximizing one course by the number of sections the
the total evaluation rating which is expressed faculty can be possibly assigned. A value
below. XX of 0.333, 0.5, and 1 mean that 3 sections, 2
M aximize eij Xij sections, and one section of same course the
i j faculty can be possibly assigned, respectively.

Constraints Likewise, coefficient gij of Xij for the

1. Maximum number of faculty i assigned to teaching load requirement constraint for
course-schedule j Constraints 4 and 5 is 3.00 as one section is
equivalent to 3 teaching units.
X
X ≤h ij ∀j ij
i

4
Ongy JSET Vol.5, 2017

Table 1. List of the faculty members included in the test run.

No. of graduate Administrative i-value assigned
Faculty Rank
courses taught position/s held to faculty

A Assoc. Prof 3 College Dean 1

B Asso. Prof. 2 2
C Instructor 3
D Asso. Prof. 1 4
E Asst. Prof. 2 5
F Affiliate 6

Table 2. List of courses which faculty has competency to teach.

Courses s-value assigned
Mgmt102 lec 1
Mgmt120 lec 2
Mgmt134 lec 3
Mgmt132 lec 4
Mgmt121 lec 5
Mgmt101 lec 6
Mgmt136 lec 7
Mgmt139 lec 8
AgSci14 lec 9
AgSci14 lab 10
BTech143 lec 11
Mgmt198 lec 12
Mgmt113 lec 13

Table 3. List of time-day schedules preferred by the faculty.

Time-day Schedule t-value assigned
7-8 MWF 1
8-9 MWF 2
10-11MWF 3
11-12MWF 4
1-2MWF 5
2-3MWF 6
3-4MWF 7
4-5MWF 8
7-8:30TTh 9
8:30-10TTh 10
10-11:30TTh 11
1-2:30TTh 12
2:30-4:00TTh 13
1-4F 14
10-1F 15
1-2MW 16
4-5:30TTh 17

5
Ongy JSET Vol.5, 2017

Table 4. List of courses which the faculty is competent to teach and corresponding schedules
set by the university registrar preferred by the faculty.
Preferred schedule by Faculty i competent to j-value assigned
Course (s-value)
the faculty (t-value) teach the course (course-schedule)
Mgmt102 lec (1) 2-3 MWF (6) 2, 4, 5 1
3-4 MWF (7) 4 2
1-2:30TTh (12) 1 3
Mgmt120 lec (2) 3-4 MWF (7) 1, 2 4
Mgmt134 lec (3) 8-9 MWF (2) 2, 5 5
11-12MWF (4) 2 6
2-3 MWF (6) 3 7
7-8:30 MWF (9) 2, 3 8
Mgmt132 lec (4) 8-9MWF (2) 3 9
4-5MWF (8) 3 10
8:30-10TTh (10) 3 11
10-11:30TTh (11) 2, 3 12
Mgmt121 lec (5) 10-11 MWF (3) 2,3 13
1-2 MWF (5) 2 14
Mgmt101 lec (6) 3-4MWF (7) 3 15
1-2:30TTh (12) 4,5 16
Mgmt136 lec (7) 1-2 MWF (5) 3 17
2:30-4 TTh (13) 5 18
Mgmt139 lec (8) 8-9 MWF (2) 4 19
10-11 MWF (3) 4 20
11-12 MWF (4) 4 21
AgSci14 lec (9) 10-11 MWF (3) 4, 5 22
AgSci14 lab (10) 1-4 F (14) 4,5 23
10-1 F (15) 5 24
BTech143 lec (11) 10-11:30 TTh (11) 5 25
Mgmt198 lec (12) 3-4 TTh (12) 6 26
1-2:30 TTh (7) 6 27
Mgmt113 lec (13) 10-11 MWF (3) 6 28

Table 5. Evaluation rating of faculty (specific to mastery of course matter) to the course they
are competent to teach.
Course Faculty (i-value)
(s-value) 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 98 95 80 92
2 88 90
3 85 88 90
4 88 90
5 92 90
6 90 90 83
7 80 85
8 85
9 90 85
10 85 80
11 90
12 90
13 88

6
Ongy JSET Vol.5, 2017

Table 6. Coefficient fij of Xij for the number of preparations requirement constraint
(Constraint3).
j-value Faculty (i-value)
(course-schedule) 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 1 0.5 1
2 0.5
3 1
4 1 1
5 0.333 1
6 0.333
7 0.5
8 0.333 0.5
9 0.25
10 0.25
11 0.25
12 0.5 0.25
13 0.5 1
14 1 1
15 1
16 0.333 1
17 1
18 1
19 0.333
20 0.333
21 1
22 1 1
23 1 0.5
24 0.5
25 1
26 0.5
27 0.5
28 1

Table 7. Right hand side (RHS) of the constraints.

Faculty Constraints RHS
(i) 2 3 4 5
1 1 1 3 3
2 6 3 18 15
3 8 4 24 18
4 7 4 21 18
5 6 4 18 15
6 3 2 9 9

Constraint 2: Maximum number of Constraint 4: Maximum teaching load

sections to handle by each faculty = 8 units assigned to each faculty = 24 units
sections
Constraint 3: Maximum number of Constraint 5: Minimum teaching load
preparations assigned to each faculty = 4 units assigned to each faculty = 18 units
courses

7
 Table 8. Course-schedule (j) assignment to faculty (i).
JSET Vol.5, 2017

Table 9. Course (s) and schedule (t) assignment to faculty (i).

8
Ongy
Ongy JSET Vol.5, 2017

Faculty teaching graduate courses are X3−11 ≤ 1

deducted with 4.00 units per course or section, X2−12 + X3−12 ≤1
faculty holding administrative position is given X2−13 + X3−13 ≤1
with minimal teaching load requirement, and X2−14 ≤ 1
affiliate faculty has stipulated teaching unit X3−15 ≤ 1
allowed. Maximum number of sections per X4−16 + X5−16 ≤1
course assigned to each faculty = 2 sections X3−17 ≤ 1
X5−18 ≤ 1
Course-schedule (j) assignment to faculty X4−19 ≤ 1
and course (s) and schedule (t) assignment X4−20 ≤ 1
are presented in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. X4−21 ≤ 1
X4−22 + X5−22 ≤1
X4−23 + X5−23 ≤1
The Model X5−24 ≤ 1
X5−25 ≤ 1
Objective function: X6−26 ≤ 1
XX X6−27 ≤ 1
M aximize Z= eij Xij X6−28 ≤ 1
i j
M aximize Z = 95X21 + 80X41 + 92X51 +
80X42 + 98X13 + 88X14 + 90X24 + 85X25 + 2. Maximum number of sections assigned
90X55 + 85X26 + 88X37 + 85X28 + 88X38 + to each faculty
90X39 + 9X3−10 + 90X3−11 + 88X2−12 + X
90X3−12 + 92X2−13 + 90X3−13 + 92X2−14 + Xij ≤ aij ∀i
90X3−15 + 90X4−16 + 90X5−16 + 80X3−17 + j
85X5−18 + 85X4−19 + 85X4−20 + 85X4−21 + X13 + X14 ≤ 1
90X4−22 + 90X5−22 + 85X4−23 + 80X5−23 + X21 + X24 + X25 + X26 + X28 + X2−12 +
80X5−24 + 90X5−25 + 90X6−26 + 90X6−27 + X2−13 + X2−14 ≤ 6
88X6−28 X37 + X38 + X39 + X3−10 + X3−11 +
X3−12 + X3−13 + X3−15 + X3−17 ≤ 8
X41 + X42 + X4−16 + X4−19 + X4−20 +
Constraints: X4−21 + X4−22 + X4−23 ≤ 7
X51 + X55 + X5−16 + X5−18 + X5−22 +
1. Maximum number of faculty i assigned to X5−23 + X5−24 + X5≤5 ≤ 8
course-schedule j X6−26 + X6−27 + X6−28 ≤ 3
X
Xij ≤ hij ∀j
i 3. Maximum number of preparations
X21 + X41 + X51 ≤ 1 assigned to each faculty
X42 ≤ 1 X
X13 ≤ 1 fij Xij ≤ bij ∀i
X14 + X24 ≤ 1 j

X25 + X55 ≤ 1 X13 + X14 ≤ 1

X26 ≤ 1 X21 + X24 + 0.333X25 + 0.333X26 +
X37 ≤ 1 0.333X28 +0.5X2−12 +0.5X2−13 +X2−14 ≤
X28 + X38 ≤ 1 3
X39 ≤ 1 0.5X37 + 0.5X38 + 0.25X39 + 0.25X3−10 +
X3−10 ≤ 1 0.25X3−11 + 0.25X3−12 + X3−13 + X3−15 +

9
Ongy JSET Vol.5, 2017

X3−17 ≤ 4 X1−1−12 ≤ 2
0.5X41 + 0.5X42 + 0.333X4−16 + X1−2−7 ≤ 2
0.333X4−19 + 0.333X4−20 + X4−21 + X216 ≤ 2
X4−22 + X4−23 ≤ 4 X234 ≤ 2
X51 + X55 + X5−16 + X5−18 + X5−22 + X227 ≤ 2
0.5X5−23 + 0.5X5−24 + X5−25 ≤ 4 X336 ≤ 2
0.5X6−26 + 0.5X6−27 + X6−28 ≤ 2 X339 ≤ 2
X342 + X348 + X3−4−10 + X3−4−11 ≤ 2
X353 ≤ 2
4. Maximum teaching load requirement X367 ≤ 2
(units) of each faculty X375 ≤ 2
X X416 + X417 ≤ 2
gij Xij ≤ duij ∀i X4−6−12 ≤ 2
j X482 + X483 + X484 ≤ 2
3X13 + 3X14 ≤ 3 X493 ≤ 2
3X21 + 3X24 + 3X25 + 3X26 + 3X28 + X4−10−14 ≤ 2
3X2−12 + 3X2−13 + 3X2−14 ≤ 18 X516 ≤ 2
3X37 + 3X38 + 3X39 + 3X3−10 + 3X3−11 + X532 ≤ 2
3X3−12 + 3X3−13 + 3X3−15 + 3X3−17 ≤ 24 X5−6−12 ≤ 2
3X41 +3X42 +3X4−16 +3X4−19 +3X4−20 + X5−7−13 ≤ 2
3X4−21 + 3X4−22 + 3X4−23 ≤ 21 X5−10−14 + X5−10−15 ≤ 2
3X51 +3X55 +3X5−16 +3X5−18 +3X5−22 + X5−11−11 ≤ 2
3X5−23 + 3X5−24 + 3X5−25 ≤ 24 X6−12−12 + X6−12−7 ≤ 2
3X6−26 + 3X6−27 + 3X6−28 ≤ 9 X6−13−3 ≤ 2

5. Minimum teaching load requirement

(units) of each faculty Model Inputs in MS Excel
X
gij Xij ≥ dlij ∀i Figure 1 shows the model inputted in MS
j
excel worksheet. Target cell which comprises
3X13 + 3X14 ≥ 3 the objective function, changing cells which
3X21 + 3X24 + 3X25 + 3X26 + 3X28 + contain the binary decision variables, and
3X2−12 + 3X2−13 + 3X2−14 ≥ 18 constraints are presented with legend in
3X37 + 3X38 + 3X39 + 3X3−10 + 3X3−11 + Figure 1.
3X3−12 + 3X3−13 + 3X3−15 + 3X3−17 ≥ 18
3X41 +3X42 +3X4−16 +3X4−19 +3X4−20 +
3X4−21 + 3X4−22 + 3X4−23 ≥ 18
3X51 +3X55 +3X5−16 +3X5−18 +3X5−22 + Data Analysis
3X5−23 + 3X5−24 + 3X5−25 ≥ 18
3X6−26 + 3X6−27 + 3X6−28 ≥ 9 Data were analyzed and run using the
solver add-ins in Microsoft Excel. The
model was also run using GAMS (General
6. Maximum sections per course assigned Algebraic Modeling System) software but
to each faculty it was terminated due to licensing error
X of the program as the model exceeds the
gij Xist ≤ kist ∀i ∀S demonstration limits.
t

10
Ongy JSET Vol.5, 2017

Table 10. Number of sections, preparations, and teaching loads assigned to each faculty.

No. of Teaching load

Faculty No. of sections
preparations (units)

A 1 1 3
B 5 3 15
C 6 4 18
D 5 3 15
E 5 4 15
F 3 2 9

Results and Discussion could be possibly hired, wherein each of

the two of them will be assigned with four 4
preparations comprised with 9 sections and
The formulated problem consisted of 38 another one part-time faculty assigned with
decision variables and 76 constraints. The two preparations comprised of 2 sections
problem was solved using solver in MS excel (Table 12). However, the department has
in which decision variables are taken as binary the sole discretion whether to hire the third
(zero-one integer) variables. Figure 1 shows part-time faculty or delegate these workloads
the results of the analysis. to the regular faculty.

Based from the results, it can be observed

that only Faculty A and F were assigned with
number of sections based on their maximum Conclusion
limit while Faculty B, C, D, and E have 1, 2,
2, and 1 section left, respectively. In terms The model was tested by preparing
of the preparation requirement, all faculty teaching schedules of the entire regular
except faculty D were assigned based on faculty at the Department of Business and
their maximum limit. With regards to teaching Management. Using the concept of binary
load requirement, all faculty except Faculty linear programming, the overall evaluation
D were assigned based on their minimum rating was maximized at 2188% with an
requirement (Table 10). equivalent average evaluation rating of 87.5%
assigned for each faculty. The result of the
Table 11 presents the list of all the courses analysis exhibits that the model developed
offered in the Department of Business and can provide or assign the faculty to handle
Management with specified time and day the course based on competency which is
schedules set by the University Registrar. It measured in terms of mastery of subject
can also be depicted from the table that there matter and personal preferences on the time
are eight (8) preparations with 20 sections schedules, while satisfying the policies and
left unassigned to the regular faculty. This provisions of the institution. It also shows that
information could serve as basis on providing issues on overloading and underloading of
a recommendation as to how many part-timers teaching loads within a department can be
are going to be hired. Three part-time faculty addressed using this tool.

11
JSET Vol.5, 2017

12
Ongy

Figure 1. Snapshot overview of the model inputs and results of the assignment from Microsoft excel using solver.
 Table 11. Faculty assigned to courses they are competent to teach with their preferred time and day schedule.
P – part-time faculty to teach the course in a specific schedule
Ongy

13
Table 12. Courses with specific schedules to be assigned to the part-time faculty.
P1 – part-time faculty 1; P1 – part-time faculty 2; P3 – part-time faculty 3
JSET Vol.5, 2017
 Ongy JSET Vol.5, 2017

References Prasertcharoensuk & et al. (2015).

Influence of teacher competency factors
Badri, M. (1996). A two-stage multiobjective and student’s life skills on learning
scheduling model for faculty-course-time achievement. Procedia-Social and
assignments. Elsevier. European Behavioral Sciences. The Proceedings
Journal of Operational Research, of 5th World Conference on Learning,
94 (11), 6-28. Retrieved from http:// Teaching, and Educational Leadership
www.sciencedirect.com/ science/ article/ (Vol. 186, 556-572). Retrieved from http://
pii/ 0377221795002049. www.sciencedirect.com/ science/ article/
pii/ S1877042815022818.
Gwambombo, D. (2013). The effect
of teachers’ workload on students’ Schulze, M. (1998). Linear programming
academic performance in community for optimization. Retrieved from
secondary schools of Mbeya City. https:// www.markschulze.net/
Retrieved from http:// repository.out.ac.tz/ LinearProgramming. pdf.
913/1/IDDE%2C GMhuruma -
EXERNAL - OUT.doc gabriel.pdf. The New Times. (2017, September
20). Heavy workload affects quality
Ismayilova, N. & et al. (2007). A multiobjective of teaching. Retrieved from http://
faculty-course-time slot assignment www.newtimes.co.rw/ section/ read/
problem with preferences. Elsevier. 220209.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling,
46, 1017-1029. Retrieved from http:// Thongsanit, K. (2014). Classroom assignment
www.sciencedirect.com/ science/ article/ problem for a university. Silpakorn
pii/ S0895717707000829. University Science & Technology
Journal, 8 (1). Retrieved from http://
Hardwood, G., & Lawless, R. (1975). www.journal.su.ac.th/ index. php/ sustj/
Applications and implementations: article/ viewFile/389/409.
Optimizing organizational goals in
assigning faculty teaching schedules. Winch, J. & Yurkiewicz, J. (n.d). Student class
Journal of Decision Sciences Institute, scheduling with linear programming. Pace
6 (3), 513-524. Retrieved from http:// University, New York. Retrieved from
onlinelibrary. wiley.com/ doi/ 10.1111/ http:// www.nedsi.org/ proc/ 2013/ proc/
j.1540-5915 .1975. tb01040.x/full. p121023002. pdf

14

View publication stats