ARTICLES
1
Quantifyingteacherloads
~
A. R. Hilst and W. W. McFee
ABSTRACT
A method
of calculating teachingloads of individualinstructorsandcombined
loadsas full-time
teachingequivalents(FTTE) wasdevelopedusing
datathat are easilyaccessible
at mostinstitutions.
Sizeof class,typeof instruction,repeated
presentations, andnewcoursedevelopment
wereconsidered
in determining
the classroom
teachingload. Loads
dueto nonclassroom
teachingandcounseling
are computedconsideringamount
andtype of instruction
and/or counselinginvolved. Thesefactors were
screened
from34 possibilities givenconsideration.
Thetechnique
hasbeentestedfor 2 yearsandis currently in useandconsidered
valuableby the administration.
Additionalindexwords:Full-time teachingequivalents.
MANY
years both administrators
and staff
F OR
have needed a more definitive
way to measure
full-time teaching equivalents (FTTE), or faculty
teaching loads. The most common method of describing teaching loads has been to use contact
hours. The amount of time an individual
faculty
member spends actually teaching classes is only a
small portion of his total work load each day. It is
quite unfortunate to allow the general public to
gauge work loads in terms of contact hours only,
since the general impression is created that the staff
member who teaches 9 to 12 hours of class per
week is then free to use the remainder of the week
as he wishes; when, in fact, according to several national surveys, most university professors average
about 55 hours per week in fulfilling
their academic
obligations.
Any method of calculating either individual staff
member or departmental teaching loads should include a complete set of factors which could be used
to describe the total teaching experience. An attempt to measure faculty
members’ work loads
only in terms of how many hours they spend in
formal classroom teaching (contact hours) is as erroneous as measuring the work load of lawyers
only in terms of how many hours they spend arguing cases in court or the work load of legislators
only in terms of how many hours they spend debating and voting on the floor of the assembly. If
the university community is to project an image of
its professional capability and if it hopes to stand
the test of accountability,
it must be able to describe in an understandable and logical fashion a
total picture of staff members’ responsibilities.
The
total faculty work load consists of specific professional activities and duties in the broad, although
often misinterpreted,
areas of research, extension
and public service, as well as teaching.
The need for a quantitative system is obvious to
anyone with administrative
responsibilities
where
the number of people instructing
is so large that
the administrator cannot be intimately familiar with
the teaching activities
of every department and
every staff member. The process of allocating resources to colleges, schools, departments, or any
other administrative
unit is frequently based on
that unit’s teaching load. In addition to the ad-
1Educational Journal paper no. 1, Agric. Exp. Stn.,
Purdue Univ., Lafayette, IN 47907.
2Associate Dean, and Director of Instruction of Agriculture and Professor of Agronomy,respectively.
2
JOURNAL OF AGRONOMIC EDUCATION,
ministrator’s
needs, individual instructors
often
desire some measure of their own load compared
with a realistic standard.
Simple counts of students
or students
times
credit units are helpful, but often leave much to be
desired. In response to the need for a more precise
means of quantifying instructional
loads several
staff members were asked to propose criteria,
including numerical factors, to be used in load calculations. 3 Over 30 criteria
were proposed and
discussed before a trial system was devised and
applied to each department’s teaching load the following year. Departmental
administrators
and
many staff members were given a chance to compare the load with their own subjective evaluation
of the load and with the budget positions.
The
procedure was then reviewed by the same groups
and modified. The procedure .presented
in this
paper is the result of this review. The unit of load
used is full-time
teaching equivalent (FTTE),
that load one would be expected to carry if devoting full-time to teaching duties. Loads evaluated in
this procedure include some of the activities closely
related to teaching, such as academic counseling,
but not all such activities.
THE METHOD
Two formulas were devised. The first measures
the load on an instructor imposed by his classroom
activities in one course. It is calculated by adding
the four segments of classroom teaching commonly
in use on our campus with an allowance for teaching a course for the first time. In each of the first
three segments a load is assigned for that type
teaching and it is then weighted according to class
enrollment and number of times the presentation is
repeated. Its basic components are given below as
formula [ 1]
Y = load for a single staff memberdue
[1 a]
to his activities in a single course,
expressed as a fraction of an FTTE.
Y = lecture load + laboratory load +
[lb]
recitation load + scheduled tutorial
hours + new course factor.
Y = [0.1C(0.875 + 0.005 NC)] [1 + 0.67 [lc]
(Dc - 1)] + [0.18L(0.875
0.005NL)] [1 + 0.67(DL - 1)]
[0.09R(0.875 + 0.005NR)] [1
0.67(DR - 1)] + 0.025H + [0.5W
(0.1C + 0.18L)].
VOL.
4,
AUGUST 1975
The following factors pertain
course and only to that portion
structor.
only to a single
taught by this in-
C = Contact hours of lecture in a single division of
this course per week.
NC = Averagenumberof students enrolled in lecture
divisions.
DC = Numberof divisions of lecture taught by this
instructor.
L = Numberof times each division of a 2- or 3-hour
laboratory meets per week. L = 0 if no laboratory; L = 1 if there is a single, 2- or 3-hour
laboratory taught in the course, and L = 2 if
each laboratory section meets twice a weekwith
this sameinstructor.
NL = Average number of students enrolled in the
laboratory sections.
DL = Numberof laboratory sections taught by this
instructor.
R = Numberof recitations (1 hour sessions) scheduled each weekin each division.
NR = Average number of students per recitation
division.
DR= Numberof divisions of recitations taught by
this instructor each week.
H = Scheduled hours instructor spends per week in
tutorial activities such as operating a study
center where he is fully occupied, but little
preparation time or follow-up time is required.
W= Coefficient for additional load due to starting a
new course. W= 1 if a new course or major revision is involved; W= 0 if course has been
previously taught.
It is apparent that the following evaluations or
judgements were made in devising this formula:
1. A 1-hour lecture and the associated work each
week for a class of 25 is 0.1 FTTE. Ten 1-hour
lecture classes per week,each on different material,
each to 25 students, without help is a full-time
teaching equivalent.
2. Repeatedclasses (lectures, laboratories, or recitations) are weighted at approximately two-thirds
the first.
3. Class size has a small linear influence on the load.
Thesize factor is 1.00 at 25 students, 0.925 at ten
students, and 1.375 at 100 students, etc. The size
factor is represented by (0.875 + 0.005N) in the
equation.
4. Eachlaboratory period of instruction (and associated preparation, grading, etc.) in 2- or 3-hour
laboratories is 0.18 FTTE.This is greater than a
I-hour lecture load and less than that from two
aCredit is due the Curriculum and Student Relations
Committee and the Dean’s Advisory Committee of the
School of Agriculture, PurdueUniversity for their input in
refining this system.
HILST
& MCFEE:
QUANTIFYING
lectures.
Since 3-hour laboratories
tended to be
self contained and 2-hour sessions required more
preparation,
they were weighted equally.
5. Each 1 hour recitation
period (discussion,
oral
quiz, or written quiz period) is 0.09 FTTE, slightly
less than a lecture.
6. Tutorial activities
create no additional load beyond
the time occupied; i.e.,
40 hours = FTTE.
7. Whena newcourse is taught the load is 1.5 times
the ordinaryload. This is, addedin the last portion
of the formula [0.5W(0.1C+ 0.18L)].
To determine an individual’s load, formula [lc]
is applied to his activities in each course he teaches,
summed, then the following formula is applied to
determine the load due to counseling,
advising
graduate students, and directing special problems
or research.
Z = 0.08 (M+P) + 0.02 (Ma + Pa) + 0.04S
+ 0.06T + 0.005U + 0.01G
[2]
where:
Z = Instructor
teaching Ioad due to individualized instruction
and counseling.
M andP -- Number of masters
(M) and Ph.D, (P}
candidates doing thesis research directly
under his supervision.
Ma and Pa-- Numbers of masters and Ph.D. candidates
not in residence under his supervision,
S = Number of undergraduate
students
performing special
problems or directed
study under his supervision.
T = Number of students registered
for topical
research
under his direction
(This is
normally nonthesis graduate students or
advanced undergraduates
engaged in topical study at a level somewhat higher than
that represented by S above.).
U = Number of undergraduates
advised (academic counseling
including
curriculum
planning and scheduling each semester).
G-- Number of M.S. and Ph.D, advisory
committees on which he serves (other than as
chairman).
The above formula [2] is based on an estimate that
12 graduate students engaged in thesis programs
constitute approximately a full load and that handling 20 undergraduate counselees each semester is
likely to require one-tenth of a professor’s time if
they feel free to visit and consult with him.
In preliminary discussion, tables of values were
prepared for loads due to advising student organizations and serving on departmental, school and university committees and many other activities.
These
TEACHER LOADS
were rejected because of the difficulty in collecting
the information and the great variability
in time
demands of such activities.
Admittedly, there are
other teaching, counseling, and administrative activities
of equal importance and equally demanding, but the ones used here can be obtained from
records normally accessible,
without polling the
faculty, and free of individual judgement and bias.
This goes a step beyond the system proposed by
Patten and Beams (1969) which is based on contact
hours and the number of courses. It includes the
number of students
as did Goodwin (1970) but
ignores the course level, a factor used in her system.
We felt that good teaching required just as much
time and effort regardless of course level. In fact,
arguments in our initial
deliberations
went both
ways, favoring heavier weights for graduate courses
versus lower division courses and vice versa.
The sum of formula [1] applied to all courses
taught by an instructor and formula [2] applied to
his other activities gives a quantitative measure of
his effort in teaching expressed as a fraction of
FTTE. For example,
professor
A teaches
one
course for 40 students. He has all 40 in two I-hour
lectures each week and splits them into two 2-hour
laboratories
(20 students each). He counsels
undergraduates and has 2 graduate students working on theses under his supervision. His load is:
(from formula one)
0.2(0.875 + 0.2) + 0.18(0.875 + 0.1)1.67 =
0.215 for the two lectures plus 0.323 for the
4 hours in laboratory = 0.538 FTTE.
(from formula two)
0.08(2) + 0.005(20) = 0.16 for his work with
the graduate students plus 0.1 for his undergraduate counseling = 0.26.
professor A has a teaching/counseling load of 0.798
FTTE.
The formula can be manipulated easily to reflect
differences in judgement concerning loads and the
different teaching/counseling
systems. The system
is open-ended such that additional load factors can
be added if needed and the information becomes
accessible. The greatest value is not in the absolute
value of constants and factors in the formula, for
they would undoubtedly be different
at each institution, but in its value as a model for developing
a quantitative
system of compiling teaching loads
which is easily adapted to computer programs.
JOURNAL OF AGRONOMIC EDUCATION, VOL. 4, AUGUST 1975