SETU and units

The workload in this unit was manageable

While Deakin does not currently include the optional Appropriate Workload Scale (AWS) in its course experience questionnaire (CEQ), results from those universities that do (Graduate Careers Australia, 2006) and other research into the CEQ (Ramsden, 1991) suggests that a majority of the variation in the results for the AWS is due to the students' field of study - students in the health sciences and engineering consistently rate their courses lower on the AWS than students from the humanities and visual and performing arts fields of education. There is also a strong inverse correlation between the mean course contact hours per week reported by field of education (McInnis & Hartley, 2002) and the corresponding mean AWS rating in the CEQ. What this indicates is that there are historical/traditional differences in student workload (at least that component measured by contact hours) between fields of education, and these are likely to influence the ratings given by students when asked about the workload quantum in a unit. However, while there may be some systematic influences that impact on the way students evaluate the workload in a unit, there is also evidence to link low AWS ratings with a surface approach to student learning, and ultimately lower quality learning outcomes (Wilson, Lissio & Ramsden, 1997).

A heavy unit workload may at first seem like a reasonable strategy for rigorous content coverage, but for many students it is likely to lead to less effective understanding if they take a shallow learning approach to grapple with the volume of material presented. Unit workload is more than the volume of material that students must digest and learn and the hours per week of timetabled classes and private study, it also includes assessment. Continuous assessment can help maintain student engagement with the unit across the semester, but taken to extremes, excessive assignment requirements may also encourage shallow, rushed learning. While research has shown that students' perception of workload is variable (Kember, 2004), a realistic balance between quantity (of student work) and quality (of student learning) has to be struck. This can be difficult where the content of a unit is constrained by tradition, course curriculum and/or professional accreditation requirements.

Electronic and online resources mean that large amounts of material can be made available to students at low cost and with minimal effort. Adding links to external Internet sites can be a good method of including practical exemplars and topical case studies, but if they require students to spend a lot of extra time reading, their workload may quickly become much greater than originally planned by the unit team. Explicitly indicating whether an electronic resource is a mandatory/required reading or simply optional for those interested is one method to avoid electronic resources getting out of hand.

One strategy in considering workload is to conduct an audit of the total 'workload' associated with a unit (Chambers, 1992). This includes items such as:

• timetabled class/tutorial/laboratory/workshop contact hours;
• expectations for private study;
• set review/revision questions;
• fieldwork/excursions;
• set readings; and
• assignment work (including required reading, group work, writing, etc.).

What else might be included in the tally depends on the discipline area under consideration. When estimating the time(s) required for these activities, place yourself in the shoes of a novice student, rather than an experienced academic. When considering the time available for students to complete these tasks, remember to take into account the varying patterns of the academic semester - are you expecting students to be working 'normally' during orientation week, week one of semester, public holidays that fall in semester time, intra-semester breaks, revision week, swot vac, etc? Is the total workload for the unit reasonable for a full-time student who will be studying other units at the same time? Also consider the workload schedule across the semester - look for coincidences of items that may lead to extreme loading at certain times - can the schedule be adjusted to even out the workload during the semester?

The literature suggests that the design of the curriculum and the management of the learning environment can have an impact of students' perception of workload and whether they adopt a deep learning approach or not. The following guidelines are offered for the design of a unit which is perceived by students as having a reasonable workload while also encouraging them toward quality learning outcomes:

• a coherent programme of courses or subjects with a transparent relationship between components;
• teaching which concentrates on key concepts and promoting understanding;
• assessment which tests understanding;
• an approach to teaching which requires active engagement of students-projects seem to be particularly effective;
• teachers accepting responsibility for motivating students and stimulating interest;
• promotion of a climate in which student-student relationships and class coherence can develop-particularly through group discussion, assignments and projects;
• developing warm, supportive teacher-student relationships (Kember, 2004).

Activity

Do you know where your discipline area traditionally sits/ranks on the CEQ Appropriate Workload Scale? Consider a unit that you contribute to. Consider the sum total of the workload contributions (including all of the elements identified above) that are expected of students in that unit. Do you think this workload is appropriate? Why?

Forward to: Requirements for completing the assessment tasks in this unit were clear