L9 1 1

=Students are provided prior to enrolment with details of the workload and time commitment required for course activities. =

Evidence
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). 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). 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).

It is also important to realize that not all students in the contemporary mass education market have the elite goals and ideals of past students and may not expect to work as hard as academics think they ought (Haggis 2003 in Giles 2007, Zuriff 2003). The disconnect between teacher expectations and actual student study time can be marked. Students often study much less than higher education teachers expect them to (e.g. Kolari et al. 2006, Zuriff 2003). Kolari et al. (2008) found that students use only 63% of the time allocated to the course. It may be that students simply don’t know what to do, or what to focus on studying (Chambers 1992, Thomas et al. 1991). Explicit statements of expectations may help.

Marshall (2010) identifies that students who undertook a workload diary were overall very positive about the process. Many commented that the summary had helped them to reflect on their time management skills and priorities. Overall, understanding how their time was allocated helped them plan and made them aware of how their workload was consistent with that of other students and other institutions.

Resources
Evidence of capability in this practice 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.

Existing workload information can be collected by the institution such as by Marshall (2010) and the AUSSE surveys. This could then be provided to students in the form of expectation guidelines.

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

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).

Different course structures and assessment structures have been shown to greatly influence student dedication to study. Courses with exams only at the end fail to encourage ongoing study, whereas continuous assessment encourages continuous study (Garmendia et al. 2008).