Abstract:

Problem Statement:
The University Timetabling Problem (UTP) is a vital institutional function that directly impacts the undergraduate experience and engagement. Traditionally, this is treated as a combinatorial optimization problem: allocating activities to rooms and timeslots without conflicts while minimising penalties for certain criteria (e.g. isolated activities, consecutive activities duration exceeding some threshold). However, the problem is practically infeasible to solve via brute-force and is often complicated by departmental "room ownership" and the tendency to "roll over" legacy schedules.
While institutional focus is mostly on these logistical constraints, the requirements and preferences of the modern student have likely evolved due to hybrid learning, COVID, and cost-of-living pressures. This study investigates the current state of these learner preferences, specifically how daily contact hours, schedule density, and mid-day gaps influence attendance across different student cohorts.

Methods:
A mixed-methods approach was employed at an Irish university during the 2023-24 academic year. Quantitative data was gathered from a survey of 779 students across multiple disciplines (Engineering, Business, Science, etc.) and cohorts (1st Year to Postgraduate). This was complemented by qualitative data both from open-ended survey questions, and workshops with departmental timetablers to understand the administrative side of the UTP.

Results:
General analysis of the survey indicates a favorable satisfaction score (2.94/5). However, satisfaction inversely correlates with academic progression; it is highest among 1st years (2.98) and lowest among 4th years (2.87). This trend along lines of seniority is mirrored in the preference for compact 4-day schedules, gap sensitivity and length. While 1st years appear happier to explore campus life, final-year students—facing dissertation and work commitments—have a much stronger preference for minimizing “dead time” on campus. Therefore our findings, somewhat contradictory to standard practice, suggests that timetables of final year students should have more priority than timetables of 1st year students (within confines of trying to find a balance for all cohorts).

Data identifies two primary “attendance killers.” First, excessive mid-day gaps negatively affect attendance for 82% of respondents (640 students), peaking at 96% for Management students. Second, 62% reported that low-contact days (1-2 hours) make the commute unjustified. Interestingly, discussions with coordinators revealed that some “poor” timetabling features, like large gaps, were sometimes intentional for group work, highlighting a disconnect between administrative intent and student perception. Specific needs also emerged by discipline, e.g. AgriScience students commented that schedules should accommodate farming responsibilities.

Conclusions:
Our research suggests a paradigm shift: the schedules of final-year students should likely receive higher priority than those of 1st years to maximize engagement. Institutional timetabling is not merely a logistical puzzle but a controllable determinant of retention. We conclude by discussing the impact of these findings on AI tools for generating UTP solutions. Specifically, how solving strategies can incorporate cohort-specific “soft constraints” to bridge the gap between institutional efficiency and the reality of the modern student experience.

Keywords:

Student Engagement and Attendance, Undergraduate Experience, University Timetabling, Scheduling Optimisation.