L9 4 1

=Student workload information is regularly monitored. =

Evidence
To improve e-learning outcomes it is important to learn from past mistakes, according to Ehrmann (2002), who argues that tracking progress is not only necessary to stay on course but also to identify solvable problems that can attract fresh resources (p. 55). The results of monitoring should be used to inform ongoing and new development, and to support resources and strategy. Information on performance can be used as a tool for improving quality, but only if the information is disseminated. Such validation of e-learning practices and resources is a significant stage in the full cycle of organisational learning that describes success in terms of ‘student performance, student satisfaction, staff experience, and cost effectiveness, as judged in relation to the original intentions’ (Salmon, 2000, p. 236). Salmon discusses validating as one of six activities in the iterative process of creating an effective learning organisation infrastructure that enables ‘the system to learn about itself’ (p. 237).

Student workload has several important effects which mean that it needs to be monitored in order to be kept at an ideal level. Workload influences the manner in which students learn (Chambers 1992). A high student perception of workload has been shown to induce a surface or reproducing approach to learning (Kreber 2003). High perception of workload has been shown to adversely affect health. Economos et al. (2008) found that weight gain was related to increased workload in female freshmen. Heavy workload can be responsible for student withdrawal (McInnis et al. 2000, Yorke 2004, Zepke et al. 2005). However, it must be emphasized that several factors can induce students to work harder without increased perception of workload. Devlin and Gray (2007) found that time pressure was a key factor in driving students to plagiarize work.

Resources
We can use questionnaires to ask students how much they work. We can collect data on perceptions of workload, motivation, time reserved for the course (student background and prior knowledge base as well as academic achievement would be useful to know too). Students may be biased in their responses to simple questionnaires, though Kember (1998) argues that this is not so.

We can ask students to recall the number of hours worked, or we can ask students to keep a diary (Nonis et al. 2006, Tanner et al. 2008), or we can ask Likert scale questions about feelings related to workload (e.g. Ellis et al. 2009, Kember et al. 2006).

Giles (2007) asks students to respond to the statement ‘The workload I have experienced in my program of study has always been manageable.’ Then choose from a list of 16 reasons (compiled from the literature) as to why workload was unmanageable.

Kember & Leung (2006) use a questionnaire designed to produce five-point Likert scale answers which produce data feeding into three latent variables hypothesized to influence workload perception.

In other work (1995) Kember et al. have employed student diaries because recall of how hours were actually spent may be poor (Chambers 1992). Other authors have also used diary methods such as Nonis et al. (2006), Tanner et al. (2008).

Sometimes these calculations produce a significant mismatch between what teachers predict students will need to do to complete the work to a reasonable standard and what students believe, or actually do (e.g. Tampakis & Vitoratos 2009).