Research in Higher Education

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 3–17 | Cite as

Factors in teacher assignments: Measuring workload by effort

  • Gerald W. McLaughlin
  • James R. Montgomery
  • Archer R. Gravely
  • Beatrice T. Mahan
AIR Forum Issue Sidney Suslow Outstanding Paper Award


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.


Regression Analysis Faculty Member Activity Analysis National Survey Education Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Association of University Professors Committee on Teaching, Research, and Publication. Statement on faculty workload.AAUP Bulletin 1970,56 30–32.Google Scholar
  2. Biglan, A. Relationship between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments.Journal of Applied Psychology 1973,57 2–4, 213.Google Scholar
  3. Bolton, D. L. Measuring faculty load.Improving College and University Teaching 1965,13 157–158.Google Scholar
  4. Enochs, J. B. Problems of defining faculty load. In K. Bunnell (Ed.),Faculty Workload. Washington, D.C.: ACE, 1960, 17–25.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Gross, R. M.Formula budgeting and the financing of public education: panacea or nemesis for the 1980's. AIR Professional File, 1979, No. 3.Google Scholar
  7. Guilford, J. P.Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.Google Scholar
  8. Hicks, J. W. Faculty workload—an overview. In K. Bunnell (Ed.),Faculty Workload. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960, 3–11.Google Scholar
  9. Kilpatrick, G.A consideration of teaching load in American junior colleges. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, 1967.Google Scholar
  10. National Science Foundation.Systems for measuring and reporting the resources and activities of colleges and universities. Washington, D.C.: NSF, F67–15, 1967.Google Scholar
  11. Romney, L. C., and Manning, C. W.Faculty activity analysis: Interpretation and uses of data. Boulder, CO: NCHEMS, TR54, 1974.Google Scholar
  12. Shay, J. E., Jr. Coming to grips with faculty workload.Educational Record 1974,55 (1), 52–58.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Stecklein, J. E. Approaches to measuring workload over the past two decades.New Directions for Institutional Research 1974,1 1–16.Google Scholar
  15. Stecklein, J. E. Analyzing faculty activities. In E. F. Schietinger (Ed.),Introductory Papers on Institutional Research. Atlanta: SREB, 1968, 36–63.Google Scholar
  16. Yuker, H. E. Faculty workload: Facts, myths, and commentary. ERIC Report No. 6. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1974.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc. 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald W. McLaughlin
    • 1
  • James R. Montgomery
    • 1
  • Archer R. Gravely
    • 1
  • Beatrice T. Mahan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Institutional ResearchVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations