L9 2 2

=The extent and timing of e-learning activities is guided by student workload information. =

Evidence
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.

Chambers (1992) argues that given that students study for about 40 hours per week (the Hale Report) then we can calculate what tasks it is actually possible for them to complete and to sustain a deep approach to learning. She gives a detailed example of an overloaded course where the actual calculation (i.e. readings at 100, 70 or 40wpm, viewing set video material, spending 6-7 hours on a 2000 word assignment, etc) comes out to 69 hours when the allocated block ought to be 56 hours. Note that Bristol University has a 20 hour guideline for researching and writing a short (1000-2500 word) essay, so there is much variation on what constitutes appropriate workload (Fielding 2008 gives other examples of university guidelines in his review). Teachers expecting students to cover all this material will drive a surface approach to learning and students will feel their workload is excessive. If teachers are required to make these sorts of calculations then they may find surprises in what they are expecting of students, especially when large ‘reading lists’ are handed out at the start of a course.

This sort of planning is crucial as studies have shown that if students take all exercises seriously then actual time to complete spills over allocated time for course (e.g. Lawless 2000).

When interrogated, students claim that many factors contribute to unmanageable workloads (Giles 2007). The main factors cited by students as reasons for workload being perceived as unmanageable are:

1. Assessments all due around the same time 2. Part time employment 3. Problems with time management 4. Difficulty knowing what to study (N.b. that the list is extensive, these are merely the top four reasons)

Interestingly, there is a sense in which 1 and 2 may reduce to 3. But 4 may reflect a lack of readiness for the course of study, or unclear objectives and expectations. It may be that teaching content needs to be sacrificed sometimes in favour of method.

Evidence
Estimated assessment hours and word limits can both be used to gauge student workload for assessments (e.g. Fielding 2008).

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).