Abstract
Based on a national survey of 491 department heads in 25 major universities in the United States, this study examines what department heads perceive to be the component parts in making assignments to faculty members. The importance of evaluating faculty resources based on effort required rather than on time devoted to given tasks is stressed. Regression analysis is used to investigate how department heads interpret effort required to teach classes and how this effort varies by discipline (Biglan taxonomy), by class level, by number of students, and by type of instructional technique. The results are validated against reported time expenditures from a faculty activity analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Association of University Professors Committee on Teaching, Research, and Publication. Statement on faculty workload.AAUP Bulletin 1970,56 30–32.
Biglan, A. Relationship between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments.Journal of Applied Psychology 1973,57 2–4, 213.
Bolton, D. L. Measuring faculty load.Improving College and University Teaching 1965,13 157–158.
Enochs, J. B. Problems of defining faculty load. In K. Bunnell (Ed.),Faculty Workload. Washington, D.C.: ACE, 1960, 17–25.
Goodwin, D. C. Work load assignments: In A. S. Knowles (Ed.),Handbook of College and University Administration: Academic. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970, Ch. 9.
Gross, R. M.Formula budgeting and the financing of public education: panacea or nemesis for the 1980's. AIR Professional File, 1979, No. 3.
Guilford, J. P.Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.
Hicks, J. W. Faculty workload—an overview. In K. Bunnell (Ed.),Faculty Workload. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960, 3–11.
Kilpatrick, G.A consideration of teaching load in American junior colleges. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, 1967.
National Science Foundation.Systems for measuring and reporting the resources and activities of colleges and universities. Washington, D.C.: NSF, F67–15, 1967.
Romney, L. C., and Manning, C. W.Faculty activity analysis: Interpretation and uses of data. Boulder, CO: NCHEMS, TR54, 1974.
Shay, J. E., Jr. Coming to grips with faculty workload.Educational Record 1974,55 (1), 52–58.
Smart, J. C., and Elton, C. F. Goal orientations of academic departments: A test of Biglan's model.Journal of Applied Psychology 1975,60 580–588.
Stecklein, J. E. Approaches to measuring workload over the past two decades.New Directions for Institutional Research 1974,1 1–16.
Stecklein, J. E. Analyzing faculty activities. In E. F. Schietinger (Ed.),Introductory Papers on Institutional Research. Atlanta: SREB, 1968, 36–63.
Yuker, H. E. Faculty workload: Facts, myths, and commentary. ERIC Report No. 6. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1974.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McLaughlin, G.W., Montgomery, J.R., Gravely, A.R. et al. Factors in teacher assignments: Measuring workload by effort. Res High Educ 14, 3–17 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00995366
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00995366