Do our Academic Teaching Workload models adequately and equitably recognise the time needed
for quality teaching?
The principles and recommendations in this document were developed by the ITL Associate Deans
Learning and Teaching Group in order to support the work of the Associate Deans L&T, and the
University and faculties more generally, in developing and enhancing Teaching Workload Calculations.
The University of Sydney Policy context
The University Academic Staff Workloads Policy (Approved February 2011, Effective June 2011):
1. Identifies that it is designed to support the University’s strategic directions and mission.
2. Identifies that the policy provides guidelines and a framework for the development of workload
allocation arrangements at the school or faculty level.
3. Outlines an approach to calculating Teaching workloads based on the hours of paid work set out
in the EBA and an assumption of a 40:40:20 split of teaching research and administration
activities; and hence approximately 690 hours of teaching per year.
4. It does not define the various ‘activities’ that might constitute teaching and it does not differentially
weight various teaching activities. It recognises that ‘A faculty, school or discipline may wish to
weight various activities’.
5. Interestingly teaching workload is calculated in ‘hours of process’, whereas research workload is
calculated only in relation to output. “Provided there are adequate controls on teaching and
service there will be adequate time for research”. “Staff will be allocated sufficient time to
research to be considered research active.”
The Associate Deans Learning and Teaching discussed how teaching workloads are calculated at their
September meeting with a view to supporting the development of faculty workload allocation models that
effectively recognise the scholarly work of teaching. Existing faculty workload calculation models were
tabled or reported to support discussion.
A snapshot of ‘teaching workload’ policies at other Australian universities
Many Australian universities have defined what activities ‘teaching’ work might include – for instance at
Monash teaching may include











preparation of teaching materials for face to face, online and other models of delivery;
unit and course development, including online, off-campus and off-shore learning materials;
delivery of lectures, tutorials, laboratory classes and clinical education;
delivery of online learning;
delivery of off-campus, off-shore and distance education;
co-ordination of units and courses;
supervision of teaching staff, including casual professional and Teaching Associate staff;
supervision of honours year and post-graduate students;
supervision of undergraduate students undertaking research projects or fieldwork;
preparing and marking of student assessment; and
student consultation.
At the University of Queensland teaching activities may include:
 Preparation and delivery of lectures
 Preparation and conduct of tutorials
SB:ITL ADLT
9 February 2016











Preparation and supervision of practical classes
Clinical teaching and supervision
Supervision of honours and research students
Marking of examinations and assignments
Compilation and submission of examination results
Student consultation (during semester and pre- and post-examinations)
Preparation and delivery of material in flexible mode
Teaching in summer sessions (which may involve any of the above activities)
Teaching in intensive mode (eg one week professional education courses)
Cross-campus teaching
Off-shore teaching
In most universities calculations start with an assumption of actual face to face teaching time (i.e. it takes
an hour to deliver a lecture) and then additional loadings are applied to reflect the additional time taken to
prepare for, and in some cases follow up on different types of teaching. For instance Engineering at
Wollongong assumes that an hour of tutorial teaching requires an additional two hours for preparation
and marking, whereas an hour of lecturing requires three hours of preparation.
‘Loadings’ or weightings in general reflect assumptions about (i) time required to teach using different
modes of delivery and assessment (ii) time required for preparation for teaching, curriculum development
and the development of course materials (iii) a multiplier effect of increasing number of students taught.
Some universities allocate ‘marking hours’ in addition to ‘teaching hours’, usually on a per student basis
e.g. ‘2hrs for each student in each subject for marking and student consultation is provided’. (Wollongong)
Some universities recognize that teaching a subject for the first time requires more staff time and state
that this should be taken into considered by the Head of School when allocating workload.
In a few universities, faculty workload models explicitly assign additional hours to teach ‘innovative
curricula, eg. ‘teaching an innovative new subject, without the availability of a suitable text book, no
previous notes or materials available to lecturer = 5 hours per hour of lecture time – in addition to the
usual three hours per lecture of preparation time. (Wollongong).
No quality examples were found at other universities of workload allocation statements which explicitly
recognised time spent on review or evaluation of teaching or curriculum as a necessary part of curriculum
development work.
In some cases, faculty teaching allocation models at other universities allocate workload hours for
teaching leadership and for various levels of course and subject coordination, with the expectation that
this covers course curriculum development duties as well as coordination duties.
University of Sydney faculty teaching workload models
At Sydney, teaching workload allocation modes are determined at the faculty level. Current faculty
workload allocation models are available from the Provost’s website
http://sydney.edu.au/provost/academic_workloads.shtml
At the end of September 2011, Associate Deans Learning and Teaching from four faculties reported their
faculties did not have a formal workload allocation model for teaching. Two faculties reported a range of
Schools-based models were in place in lieu of a faculty model. Three faculties reported they were
currently developing models. Seven faculties reported workload allocation models were in place.
SB:ITL ADLT
9 February 2016
Faculty
Faculty Teaching Workload Allocation Model
Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
No faculty model reported
Arts
Faculty model currently under development
Architecture, Design and Planning
Faculty Model available – Policy provided
Conservatorium of Music
Faculty model currently under development
Dentistry
No faculty model reported
Economics and Business
Faculty model currently under development
Education and Social Work
Faculty model available – Policy Provided
Engineering and IT
No faculty model - each school has its own model
Health Sciences
Faculty model available - Policy provided
Law
Faculty model available - Policy provided
Sydney Medical School
No faculty model reported
Sydney Nursing School
Faculty model available - Policy provided
Pharmacy
Faculty model available - Policy provided
Science
No faculty model – each school has its own model
Sydney College of the Arts
Faculty model available - Policy provided
Veterinary Science
No faculty model reported
Where teaching workload allocation models were currently used in faculties, widely different levels of
visibility and transparency reported. Some were collegial, some were ‘private’ arrangements, some were
reported to be largely ‘self-managed’ with little or no external accountability.
Different faculties identify and allocate ‘hours’ to different activities in relation to teaching for example:
 Faculty A: Teaching includes - Development of courses; Delivery of courses: Marking and
Feedback; Leadership; Supervision of HDR
 Faculty B: Teaching includes - Delivery of courses; administration of courses; assessment
There is considerable variation in what ‘teaching’ activities are included – notably the inclusion or not of
research supervision. There is variation in the specificity of teaching activities included and there are
some teaching activities that were typically absent in these lists of activities, notably; evidence based
review of teaching and curriculum, professional development, and curriculum development or innovation.
Most faculties allocate hours on a combination of (1) assumed % of academic time per week allocated to
teaching and (2) a loading or weighting for different sorts of class / teaching delivery – e.g. lectures /
tutorials. One faculty uses a points system with differentiation by level of appointment.
Different loadings are used in different faculties of the University. Some faculties use no loadings. Some
use loadings by ‘Level of Appointment’, in some faculties it was reported that professors are expected to
teach more, and in others the reverse is expected.
Some faculties include in the calculation ‘coordination and leadership of teaching activities’ for example
allocating workload hours to Unit of Study co-ordination, year and course coordination, Associate Dean
leadership etc.
One faculty allocates half of the 720 hours assigned to teaching to ‘contact’ teaching duties which are
weighted by type of teaching. In addition, for each hour of contact time, there is one hour of associated
working time to make up the other 360 hours, including review and assessment weeks and often also the
week leading up to the start of each semester.
SB:ITL ADLT
9 February 2016
Developing or improving faculty teaching workload allocation models at Sydney.
The nature of teaching ‘work’ varies across disciplines, and in these varied contexts it involves different
contributions from different members of staff, both academic and general as well as external members of
professions. There can be no prescriptive teaching workload allocation model, however there is scope to
provide principles to support faculties in more equitably and consistently recognizing the workload
implications of ‘quality teaching’ in the models they develop.
Workload allocation models should be recognized as having many benefits including supporting staff in
allocating their ‘teaching’ time in the context of other demands arising from their academic work. There is
scope for workload models to support staff in better managing work stress, defining the parameters of the
working day, and setting realistic expectations with students.
There is scope for enhancement in current teaching workload models. Where these do exist they could
better link teaching workload allocation with other quality indicators of teaching for example USE
information and data from peer review of teaching. There is also scope for workload allocation models to
better support emerging curriculum and teaching enhancement priorities in the University.
The ADLT group proposes the following principles to support the development of faculty teaching
workload allocation models:
1. There should be consistency across the university as to what is ‘counted’ as teaching work.
Teaching workloads would usually include all coursework teaching and learning support activities
at all degree levels, as well as research supervision.
2. Workload allocation would typically start with assigning hours to direct and indirect teaching
activities.
3. Direct time usually includes preparation, teaching and assessment (including provision of
feedback), and includes a consideration of delivery in various modalities.
4. Indirect time would usually include curriculum review and development, as well as teaching
review and professional teaching development. For example, this would cover consideration and
responding to USE results, routine contributions to curriculum review development,
administration, and professional development.
5. In addition, the contribution of different leadership roles to teaching and curriculum innovation and
development work should be explicitly recognised.
Recommendations
1. The ITL-Associate Deans Learning and Teaching Group proposes these guidelines are used by
faculties to review or develop teaching workload allocation models to realistically reflect staff
contributions to teaching.
2. That clear guidelines, and a transparent process, are established and communicated to staff, for
how teaching workload allocations are calculated in each faculty where these do not already
exist.
3. That the Provost request all faculties to review their teaching workload allocation models and
report on how these ensure capacity to undertake routine teaching and curriculum evaluation and
renewal work.
ITL Associate Deans L&T Group
SB:ITL ADLT
9 February 2016