L8 4 4

=Student workloads are regularly monitored. =

Evidence
(See also L1.1.5)

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).

Fielding (2008) notes that the time students spend on work is not necessarily related to the marks allocated for an assessment or to the difficulty of the assessment. Careful 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).

Kember and Leung (who seems to have done more work on student workload than anyone) argue that student workload is a complex and somewhat paradoxical concept (2006, 1998). They observe that students can have fairly minimal workloads in actual hours of contact and study time and yet complain about high workload. They can also undertake intensive study and think the workload is fair. This is important because when students perceive their workload to be excessive they engage in surface rather than deep learning (Chambers 1992). This is generally seen to be undesirable. Several factors contribute to perception of workload. Three latent variables that are likely to causally influence perception of workload are identified and nine measurable factors contributing to these variables are examined. 3341 students are interrogated and structural equation modeling is used to deduce relationships between the measurable teaching and learning factors, the three latent variables (teaching, teacher-student relationship, and student-student relationship) and perceived workload. It is shown that teaching and teacher-student relationship factors influence workload perception and that student-student relationship factors do so indirectly via influences on the other two latent variables. Overall perceived workload is a contextually malleable construct that bears little relationship to actual or expected hours of study.

Resources
We can distinguish between: a. Course guidelines of workload b. Teachers’ expectations of workload c. Students’ actual time investment d. Students’ perception of workload.

Calculations for these four measures do not necessarily correlate (Kember & Leung 1998, 2006). However, if students’ perceptions of workload remain within limits acceptable to the students then they can be encouraged to work very hard.

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.