EMM v2.3 L9

'''L9. Student work is subject to specified timetables and deadlines'''

Background
E-learning provides a time flexible environment that demands attention to the management of timeliness in the conduct of teaching and learning on courses (Laurillard, 2002; Salmon, 2000). A review of online courses by Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) found that ‘students preferred to move at their own pace even though this required a high degree of self management. They did not want to be locked into completing assignments at the same time as others and wanted to be able to move ahead at their own pace.’ (p. 116)

As the e-learning environment imposes more self-regulated learning responsibilities on the student than they may have previously experienced, there is need for personal learning structures that ensure productivity and reduce stress (Clarke, 2004). Wilson and Whitelock (1998) indicate that instruction needs some dramatic tension from week to week in order to sustain high levels of participation.

This tension between students’ desire for flexibility and the need to ensure that students actually do the work necessitates that there be processes for negotiating timetables and deadlines with students. This is particularly apparent when we realize that the main factor cited by students for workload being perceived as unmanageable was that the assessments were all due around the same time (Giles 2007). Negotiated agreements, between teachers and learners, concerning the ordering and timing of course elements must be clearly communicated in course timetables and assignment deadlines. Furthermore, explicit expectations and guidelines encourage and motivate learners to make the most effective use of time and enable teachers to facilitate effective time management (Clarke, 2004).

Evidence of capability in this process is seen by the provision of a clear timetable that relates all of the elements of a course together and communicates the logic underlying the design of the various activities. Particularly in online courses, there should be frequent pointers and reminders to students as to where they should be focusing their energies and the upcoming deadlines that they should be aware of. During the design of materials, explicit consideration should be given to student and staff workload expectations and the impact that this has on the timing of elements of the course.

Related Guidelines and Standards
This process is informed by: Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever (Chickering and Ehrmann, 1996); Queensland University of Technology teaching capabilities framework (2004/2005); Canadian Recommended E-learning Guidelines (Barker, K., 2002) and; Balancing quality and access: Principles of good practice for electronically offered academic degree and certificate programs (Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications, 2003).