AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Legal Education Digest

Legal Education Digest
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Legal Education Digest >> 2009 >> [2009] LegEdDig 40

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Macduff, A; Du Moulin, L --- "New challenges in legal education: developing an appropriate response to the issue of student workload" [2009] LegEdDig 40; (2009) 17(3) Legal Education Digest 35


New challenges in legal education: developing an appropriate response to the issue of student workload

A Macduff and L Du Moulin

18 (1&2) Legal Educ Review, 2008, pp179–196

While students have complained for years that studying law involves a heavy workload, this problem has recently become more pressing. Studies show that a greater number of students than ever before are engaged in full-time employment. When students spend more time working and less time studying, their learning is adversely affected. Educational research demonstrates that when students feel under time pressure they are more likely to adopt surface approaches to learning. Surface approaches to learning, such as memorising and copying, can be contrasted with ‘deep’ approaches to learning. Deep approaches to learning include higher-level cognitive activities such as hypothesising and extrapolating. If law schools are striving to encourage students to engage in deep learning, then the issue of student workload needs to be appropriately addressed.

But can a law school address the issue of student workload. In 2003–04, professional legal education provider Australian National University (ANU) Legal Workshop investigated these questions through a student workload project. The project explored the issue of student workload in the Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice (GDLP). We argue that where legal educators are confronted with complaints about heavy student workloads, cutting student study hours could be an inappropriate solution. It could be inappropriate because it may not only be insufficient to address student complaints, but it may also jeopardise quality learning outcomes. A more appropriate response is to examine how various aspects of the curriculum contribute to positive and negative student perceptions of a heavy workload.

While the findings of this project are specific to the practical legal and online education environment of the GDLP, the analytical approach is transferable to other teaching contexts.

In 2002, over 50 per cent of students undertaking the GDLP were working while they studied: in law firms, in legal related areas including government agencies or in other employment. Students juggling full-time work and other commitments began to demand increased flexibility in time and place of study. By 2004, the move to online delivery meant that students could undertake the GDLP at the ANU from anywhere in Australia.

While accommodating student demands for flexible delivery, care was taken to keep student work focused, relevant and of a high quality. Although the transition was largely successful, student feedback in 2002 and 2003 flagged a shift in student experiences of the courses. Anecdotally, students complained that some subjects had a very heavy workload. This feedback was perplexing. Instructors were confident that the total number of actual hours students spent studying in each course had not changed – this had been carefully monitored to satisfy program accreditation. Nonetheless, student perceptions of their workload had altered shortly after the move to online delivery of the GDLP courses. This development prompted Legal Workshop to set up a project to rigorously explore the issue of student workload and to recommend an appropriate response. In general terms, the project addressed two key questions: (1) Was student workload as heavy as the students were claiming it to be, or was it just a few vocal students in the particular years’ courses? (2) If the workload was perceived by most students as being too heavy, what was the most appropriate response that would also satisfy accreditation guidelines?

The study by David Kember and Doris Leung demonstrates that the relationship between a heavy workload and surface approaches to learning is reciprocal. That is, when a student takes a surface approach to learning, they are more likely to perceive the workload as heavy. Subsequent research has identified aspects of the learning experience which can be associated with both heavy workload and surface approaches to learning.

Together, the findings of these studies demonstrate that the relationship between perceptions of a heavy workload and the curriculum is complex and affected by a number of context-related variables. These aspects of the learning environment, and the interplay between them, mean that factors that affect heavy workload in one course will not necessarily affect workload the same way in another course. Nonetheless, the process of examining workload qualitatively does produce useful ideas for course designers to explore and test in their own curriculum context.

Recent research by Herbert Marsh makes a further important distinction in the qualitative understanding of student workload. Marsh argues that for better teacher-effectiveness ratings, curriculum designers should not simply aim to reduce the overall time spent studying but, rather, aim to enhance ‘good-heavy’ workload while reducing ‘bad-heavy’ workload. Marsh emphasises that it is the ability to adjust the course to suit the capacities of the learner that will be critical to the fulfilment of that goal.

A ‘good-heavy’ workload is a workload that may have a high number of study hours, but is still ‘good’ because it is perceived positively by students as being useful and relevant to learning. A ‘bad-heavy’ workload is a workload perceived negatively because it is associated with activities that are frustrating or considered a waste of time.

Thus, the authors recommended that a qualitative approach be used to appropriately explore student perceptions of workload. It was also considered very important that the qualitative approach should incorporate Marsh’s ideas on ‘good-heavy’ and ‘bad-heavy’ workload.

In light of analysis of the education literature, the workload project sought to investigate three questions: (1) how much time students spent studying; (2) which curriculum factors affected student perceptions of workload; and (3) whether certain curriculum factors contributed to positive or negative perceptions of heavy workload.

Student responses to these questions were gathered in two stages. The first stage involved the analysis of existing informal student feedback. The second stage was to test the analysis from the first stage in a widely distributed course experience questionnaire.

In 2002, during the 12-month transition to flexible delivery of GDLP courses, instructors distributed open-ended evaluation surveys electronically, at the end of each course, to gather qualitative information about how students perceived their learning in that course. The feedback gathered from these surveys was analysed for commonly occurring themes relating to workload.

Student responses to these early open-ended surveys indicated that perceptions of heavy workload (good or bad) were linked with the following aspects of the curriculum: (1) the amount of time spent locating information (navigation in the online environment); (2) the amount of time spent reading or ‘wading’ through discussion boards; (3) assessment deadlines for different courses being close together; (4) slow instructor response when communicating about the course; (5) courses containing a lot of highly relevant practical exercises; (6) students believing the time and effort they invested in the course resulted in an improvement of their legal practice skills and knowledge; and (7) the amount of group work, considered by some students as ‘a waste of time’.

This student feedback was then analysed as relating to the following seven aspects of curriculum design and delivery: (a) the accessibility of the technology (1 and 2); (b) the structure and organisation of the course (1, 2, 3); (c) assessment (3 and 4); (d) improvement in skills and knowledge (5 and 6); (e) ease of staff contact (4); (f) relevance of learning (5 and 6); and (g) degree of student interactivity (2 and 7).

Stage 2 sought to gather information about whether, and to what extent, the seven aspects of the curriculum identified in (a) to (g) above influenced perceptions of student workload when undertaking the GDLP. . The questions in the existing evaluation questionnaire that were considered relevant to the student workload project were:

A. Overall, [on a scale of 7–1] how heavy did you find the workload in this course? [perception of time]

B. How many hours were spent per week on average in the course? [time in hours]

C. How effective was the structure and organisation of the course? [assessment (c), structure and organisation of the course (b)]

D. Rate [on a scale of 7–1] the ease with which I was able to contact Legal Workshop staff [ease of contact of staff (e), accessibility of technology (a)]

E. Rate [on a scale of 7–1] the degree to which the skills, goals and objectives of the course were made clear [relevance of learning (f)]

F. Rate [on a scale of 7–1] the usefulness of the materials in developing the relevant skills and improvement of skills and knowledge [relevance of learning (f)]

G. Overall, rate [on a scale of 7–1] how well were you satisfied with your learning in this course [overall satisfaction which covers all aspects].

Additional questions were then developed to draw out specific information about the remaining curriculum aspects that the project wished to investigate. The questions were:

H. Please rate [on a scale of 7–1] the adequacy of this practical experience in helping me to develop the relevant skills [improvement of skills and knowledge (d)]

I. Please rate [on a scale of 7–1] the usefulness of the interactive activities in this course [interactivity (g)]

J. Please rate [on a scale of 7–1] the ease of access to the computer-based materials from off campus [accessibility of technology (a)].

Over the six-month period from July to December 2004, a total of 374 responses were collected. The response rate was above 10 per cent but less than 30 per cent of all enrolled students in the courses.

A regression analysis of the 374 student responses showed that there was no significant variation in the number of hours students spent on different courses. The analysis showed that the actual hours students spent studying before and after the transition to online delivery had not changed. This finding supported the decision to investigate student perceptions of the quality of the workload, rather than the quantity of the work/workload.

Of the questionnaires that were completed and received, the responses to questions A through J (identified above) were isolated and analysed to identify which curriculum factors were significant in affecting perceptions of workload. The adequacy of the practical experience was the strongest factor influencing workload perception. That is, the more appropriate and relevant the practical experience, the more likely that a good-heavy workload was experienced. Poor contact with the instructor was a significant factor leading to a bad-heavy workload. That is, the more difficult the student perceived contacting the instructor would be, the more likely that a bad-heavy perception of the workload was experienced.

The aspects of the curriculum that were not predictors of heavy workload in the GDLP context included: (1) structure and organisation of the course; (2) the usefulness of the written materials; (3) the usefulness of the interactive activities; (4) the clarity of goals; and (5) ease of access to technology. These factors might not be predictors because the GDLP courses already addressed those curriculum aspects adequately.

The workload project identified two possible curriculum aspects for development in the GDLP context, namely the ease with which instructors could be contacted by students, and the adequacy and relevancy of the course activities. After a detailed examination of these aspects of the curriculum in the GDLP teaching context, a series of practical recommendations were developed to help instructors enhance student perceptions of ‘good-heavy’ workload and reduce student perceptions of ‘bad-heavy’ workload.

The project revealed that the inability of a student to access instructors was a likely indicator that students would perceive the heavy workload negatively. This result is perhaps not surprising in an asynchronous online environment.

However, in examining communication practices in the GDLP program, students were already being encouraged to make regular contact with instructors, mostly via email. In several courses, the instructor of a GDLP course would post a message, discussion board comment or lecture material at least every two days. This frequency of communication amounts to the equivalent, if not more, contact than many undergraduate students currently experience with their lecturers in the face-to-face environment.

The authors hypothesised that, with the transition to online delivery, the expectations around communication between instructor and student had changed. It seemed that students expected more frequent contact than in courses delivered in the traditional face- to- face mode. Two explanations that occur to the present authors are: (1) the expectation in the workplace of response times to email is generally same business day, preferably same business half-day and better still, immediately. This expectation is being transferred into an online learning environment; and/or (2) students who study online are more likely to also be working full-time, so their available study time is less able to absorb any delay caused by a failure to answer what the student perceives is a critical question. In any case, it was clear that students expected prompt, and even immediate (within the hour) responses from instructors. A sensitive balance must be clearly struck between student needs for contact/response and what is a reasonable teacher workload.

Recommendations were developed to assist instructors to articulate some of the online communication issues, and to encourage instructors to communicate to students clearly their communication expectations. In particular, instructors were asked at the beginning of each course to explicitly articulate to students their expectations surrounding various issues such as: (1) How frequently the instructor logs on and checks the website. (Ideally, in an online asynchronous environment, this is at least every day, and more frequently in the days leading up to the due date for a piece of assessment); (2) How soon students can expect a response if they ask a question. (Ideally, in an online asynchronous environment, the instructor should respond within 24 hours or sooner. Again, this might be more frequently in the days leading up to the due date for a piece of assessment); (3) Instructor availability times during the week – for example, contact times/viewing the websites on weekends, public holidays, evenings, etc; (4) How the instructor would notify students if availability changed – for example if the instructor was away or sick; (5) Where students can ask/post questions so that the instructor will see them; (6) What the instructor considers an urgent question (otherwise everything becomes urgent) and what students can do if they require an urgent response (eg, provide a telephone number or email details); (7) How frequently students are able to see the instructor’s presence online and how that presence may vary in different places within the course website; and (8) The nature of communication in a text-based course (written responses), as well as the purpose of communication in learning – specifically, to remind students that communication is a two way process and students have responsibilities too. For example, students need to be mindful about the frequency of their postings, their relevance, length and quality.

Since 2004, the range of communications tools used has increased considerably to include WebCT email, recorded tutorials (via streaming audio and MP3 downloads), voicemail, online videoconferencing, synchronised voice recording and PowerPoint demonstrations. Increased communication has also been supported by greater use of phone contact in some courses for both assessment and feedback.

The other curriculum factor that was identified as likely to contribute to a good-heavy workload was the appropriateness of practical exercises. If activities were not properly explained and/or poorly related to the student’s own perception of appropriateness, students quickly skimmed them. If these impractically perceived tasks were either necessary or compulsory, then the resulting quality of the students’ learning experience was likely to be superficial and undesirable and the heavy workload perceived negatively.

In a practical postgraduate legal education setting, it was clear that the activities and assessment needed to have a practical focus. But what was it about the transition to online delivery that had caused students to see previously relevant and appropriate activities as suddenly irrelevant and inappropriate? Research has shown that the delivery medium can critically impact on student perceptions of relevance.

Recommendations were designed to assist instructors to make explicit the link between the method of delivery (online) and the course aims and outcomes. The recommendations were: (1) To support and train instructors and students to understand and use the technology according to best practice; (2) To provide interactive and helpful information about the technology to help students come ‘up to speed’ with information communications technology (ICT); (3) To clearly inform students of the level of ICT accessibility (and skills) required to undertake the GDLP program. This information is now included in handbooks, enrolment processes, face-to-face seminars, and is also raised by instructors in courses; (4) To clearly explain to students about how the activities and assessment are to enable students to satisfy the APLEC/LACC competencies; (5) To clearly explain how the development of those competencies is possible and even enhanced in an online environment – for example, in conducting telephone interviews, instructors should inform students that advising clients may occur as frequently over the phone as in writing or in person; (6) To clearly enunciate student-learning course objectives and expected outcomes and to clearly link these with the delivery mode, materials, activities and assessment; and (7) To provide prompt and comprehensive feedback, with marks before the next assessment is due and, at the very latest, within two weeks of submission. This formative assessment and the opportunity to improve enhances the perceived adequacy of assessment in developing practical skills.

Over the ensuing three years, the recommendations of the workload project have been gradually implemented into courses within the GDLP. Anecdotally, student workload no longer appears to be a critical issue for students. Preliminary analysis of CEQ feedback during 2006 and 2007 suggests that student perceptions of workload are currently appropriately managed. Moreover, students generally evaluate the ease with which the instructors can be contacted as appropriate, and the practical activities as relevant.

While the intuitive response to student complaints about workload might be to reduce study hours, the workload project demonstrated that this was inappropriate.

Changing the curriculum is an appropriate response that can effectively address issues surrounding student perception of workload.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegEdDig/2009/40.html