Teaching Workload Analysis PDF
Teaching Workload Analysis PDF
Teaching Workload Analysis PDF
com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
Page 680
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
collegial interactions in the context of disciplinary interests and expertise (Winter et al.,,2000).Flexibility and autonomy are key
factors in becoming and remaining an academic (Bellamy et al., 2003).
In New Zealand, tertiary reforms have sought to refine the role of higher education and define university linkages to enhance national
economic development and to make universities more accountable to government, students as consumers, and the public generally
(Patterson,1996),while subjecting them to more centralized control mechanism. Where pursuit of the knowledge society has resulted
in increased pressures and performance expectations, workloads of academic staff have been affected directly. Coaldrake and Stedman
(1999) noted that as academic work expanded to meet growing expectations, universities and individual academics have responded
through accumulation and accretion rather than adaptation. McInnes (2000) highlighted the need to investigate workloads issues
such as increased stress on staff, development of creative solutions to ameliorate problems, and sustaining the primary sources of
work satisfaction that best promote quality. Coaldrake and Stedman (1999) noted that until recently the effect of change in
academic work has been a blind spot in policy terms for many universities and it remains so for most.
In the 1990s,research reports commissioned by university staff unions raised concerns regarding workloads and levels of stress
(Sullivan,1997).Chalmers (1998) found that staff were reporting increased stress associated with the academic work and more-workrelated illness or injuries in comparison to previous years. Consequently, workload systems management has increasingly been a
factor in recent contract negotiations and collective employment agreements.
The following sections present the methodology, key results of the study and their discussion, and a summary of the main findings and
conclusion.
2. Methodology
2.1. Research Design and Sampling
2.1.1. Research Design
The study adopted a descriptive design. Descriptive design helps to answer questions concerning the current status of the subjects
under study (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003).Descriptive studies are aimed at finding out what is. Descriptive research can include
multiple variables for study(Borg and Gall,1996).Description emerges following creative exploration and serves to organize the
findings in order to fit them with explanations and then test or validate these explanations (Krathwoh,1998). Kothari(2009) points out
that descriptive research studies are concerned with specific predictions, narration of facts and characteristics concerning individuals,
groups or situations.
2.1.2. The Target Population
The target population comprised the seven (7) public universities. The category of staff focused on were the academic teaching staff
members ranging from tutorial fellows to professors. The total number of lecturers in the seven public universities was five thousand
six hundred and thirty(5630) (Table 1). The researcher targeted the teaching staff members since the main function of public
universities is dissemination of knowledge, research and community work which is formulated, implemented and monitored by them.
UNIVERSITY
Year of inception
Nairobi
1964
1429
Kenyatta
1985
879
Moi
1984
1286
Egerton
1987
543
Maseno
1991
320
Jkuat
1994
633
Masindemuliro
2007
540
Total
5630
Table 1: Universities Teaching Staff members schedule
Source: Human Resource Information Management Systems (2012)
2.1.3. Sampling Strategy
The researcher used purposeful random sampling since the members involved were the academic teaching staff at the main campuses
not satellite campuses, and the intention of the researcher was to find out whether performance contracting has had any positive effect
in service delivery in the state-run universities. Table 2 presents the results of such a sampling strategy.
Page 681
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
University
School
Total Pop.
Target (15%)
Kenyatta
University
205
74
151
430
30.75
11.10
22.65
64.50
66
121
72
114
307
18.15
10.80
17.10
46.05
55
49
30
32
111
7.35
4.50
4.80
16.65
21
848
127.2
142
Moi University
Maseno
University
Total
Actual number
of Respondents
Page 682
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
1
K 1
2X
[3.1]
2
Where K is the number of components (K-items or testlets), X the variance of the observed total scores and Y , the variance of
the component I for the current sample of persons. This is normally described as follows: Excellent, 0.9;Good,
0.9>0.8;Acceptable, 0.8> 0.7; Questionable, 0.7> 0.6; Poor, 0.6> 0.5; Unacceptable, < 0.5.
2.3. Data Analysis
2.3.1. Data Pre-processing and Processing
Under this section the following are examined: techniques of data analysis, issues of regression strength, problems of multicollinearity
of predictors and homogeneity of variances between predictant and predictors, and the calibration of the regression model. Regression
analysis tools were used so as to predict the results of the study. Results were interpreted and presented using descriptive and
inferential statistical methods. The following sub-sections explain the type of model specification, calibration and estimation
procedures involved in the study.
2.3.2. Model Specification
As an outcome of performance contracting, the quality of service delivery at university level is clearly assessed in terms of tangibles
(y1), reliability of services (y2), responsiveness of employees (y3), assurance given by lecturers (y4) as well as their empathy (y5).
These variables are impacted by several factors ranging from teaching workload (Objective 1) to working environment (Objective 4)
via the administrative work systems (Objective 2) and employees participation in community service (Objective 3). All these variables
and their relationships can be represented by equation [3.2]:
Yi = i+ 1jx1j+2jx2j+3jx3j+ 4jx4j + i
[3.2]
Where,
Yi are factors related to the quality of service delivery
X1j = Teaching workload factors
X2j =Administrative work systems factors
X3j = community service participation factors
X4j = the working environment factors
i = the intercept
i = the regression coefficients of the independent variables.
i = the error term
The following sub-sections deals with some econometric problems encountered in the study that could lead to biased predictions.
These encompass the testing of the multicollinearity among predictors and their homogeneity of variances with the dependent
variables.
2.3.3. Testing Multicollinearity
The multicollinearity test enabled to minimize the number of parameters involved in the model in order to generate reliable
predictions on the level of service delivery at university level within acceptable confidence limits. This model diagnostic was carried
out to rule out the assumption of high correlation between explanatory variables of different types of factors (predictants) related to the
quality of service delivered at university. Such an econometric problem was likely to lead to biased predictions of the performance of
public universities in Kenya. Consequently, one of the variables found to be highly correlated to another was removed from the model.
It shall be noted Cohen and Holiday (1998) declare that a multiple correlation coefficient is considered high when its value is equal to
or above 0.7. That was the cutting point for this study.
2.3.4. Homogeneity of Variances
Though having conducted the test of multicollinearity, an independent test for equal variances between the predictant and its
predictors would rule out any assumption of heterogeneity, which may possibly increase the presence of heteroskedasticity of errors in
the error term. Such rejection of heterogeneity would justify the use of normal distributions, namely the F and t tests. This hypothetical
homogeneity of variances was derived from an independent test of homogeneity of variances known as the Levenes test. The inferred
hypothesis test later on led to clustering the observed variables using heuristic method.
Page 683
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
:
Table 3 displays the actual variables used in the modeling to predict the performance of university staffers vis--vis their contractual
academic duties.
Multiple logistic regressions (probit, logit or tobit) of these predictants by their relevant predictors were conducted to estimate the
regression parameters for each category of dependent variables (predictants). The latter were embedded in the Multivariate
Generalized Linear Model (GLM) procedure, which was run to that effect using the SPSS software package.
2.3.6. Model Evaluation and Validation
A diagnostic check-up was conducted to assess goodness of fit of the model and to rule out the presence of bias in the prediction. The
study used Pearsons Rho test to establish the correlation of various variables. The coefficient of determination (R2), the Beta weight
and the F and t statistics were also employed to get an appropriate set of parameters that determine the strength of ties between
subjects within the variables input in order to measure in the regression strength.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Key Descriptive of the Sample
The researcher in this section explored different parameters ranging from innovativeness, recommended work load, whether the
recommended workforce was more than recommended, the challenges faced in teaching more than recommended workload, how the
respondents overcome the challenges, the aspects of teaching workload which are hindrance to service delivery, the most attractive
aspect of the respondents work, the areas requiring innovativeness in the universities, whether the respondent has ever come up with
an innovative idea and how the customer responded to the implemented idea, the extent to which the suggested measures are effective
in custom satisfaction and whether the concept of performance contracting has improved effectiveness and efficiency in the
respondents work.These findings are presented in the following pages figures and tables.
Page 684
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
Table 3: Specific variables retained for analyzing performance contracting at university level
Source: Researcher, 2013
Page 685
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
66
46.5
73.3
73.3
24
16.9
26.7
100.0
90
63.4
100.0
52
36.6
142
100.0
Table 5: Challenges of teaching more than the recommended workload
Source: Field Data (Researcher 2013)
Table 5 draws its observations from figure 4.32,and it points out that there are challenges associated with teaching more than
recommended workforce with 73.3% stating that there are challenges and only,26.7% indicating that they did not find any challenges
It will be of great interest and research to explore this area and how universities are managing such extremes
The researcher wished to find out the challenges associated with the recommended workload, how the challenges were overcome, the
areas of teaching workload which are a hindrance to service delivery and which of the hindrances were more important, the aspects of
the teaching workload which were considered as more attractive and the areas requiring innovativeness in the public universities. The
researcher also sought to know whether the respondents had come up with any innovative idea during their period of service delivery
and implemented the same and how the customers responded to the implemented idea. Figure 3 illustrates the findings in respect of
the challenges associated with teaching recommended workload and,36.6% cited large classes,16.2% long and late teaching
hours,4.2% loss of time due to clashing time table and travels,2.1% limited time and short semesters, while 40.8% did not indicate.
Page 686
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Frequency
Percent
Vol 3 Issue 5
Valid
Percent
40.1
20.4
Cumulative
Percent
40.1
60.6
Missing
57
40.1
Divided classes and
29
20.4
group discussions
Flexible schedule and
29
20.4
20.4
81.0
perseverance
Self-organization
18
12.7
12.7
93.7
Co-teaching and co9
6.3
6.3
100.0
marking
Total
142
100.0
100.0
Table 6: How challenges of teaching more than recommended workload were overcome
Source: Field Data (Researcher 2013)
Figure 4 illustrates the aspects of teaching workload which are considered a hindrance to service delivery and the findings were 43.0%
cited inadequate teacher-student interaction,11.3% large material contents, 17.6% compressed teaching content, 27.5% cited
inappropriate marking of CATs and exams, while 0.7% did not indicate. Table 7 illustrates how the respondents ranked the responses
in respect of aspect of teaching workload considered a hindrance to service delivery, and43.0% ranked inadequate teacher-student
interaction as most important,11.3% ranked large material contents as most important, 17.6% ranked compressed teaching content as
most important, 27.5% ranked inappropriate marking of CATs and examinations as most important ,while 0.7% did not rank. In figure
5the researcher presents the most attractive aspect of work and26.1% stated that it was student-teacher interaction and prestige, 26.8%
learning by doing and knowledge acquisition, 8.5% ICT and automation of services, 28.9% academic freedom for research and parttiming, 6.3% socio-economic incentives,while3.5% did not indicate.
Page 687
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
Cumulative
Percent
1.4
36.6
88.0
91.5
100.0
In respect of coming up with an innovative idea, Table 9explains that 54.2% had come, 39.4% had not while6.3% did not indicate. In
reference to response from customers about the implemented idea, the researcher in figure 6 established that 5.0% were not satisfied,
17.5% weresatisfied,28.8% fairly satisfied, 27.5% highly satisfied, and 21.3% excellently satisfied.
Status
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Missing
9
6.3
6.3
6.3
Yes
77
54.2
54.2
60.6
No
56
39.4
39.4
100.0
Total
142
100.0
100.0
Table 9: Innovativeness followed by implementation at university level
Source: Field Data (Researcher 2013)
Page 688
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
at 99% confidence interval but still weak or moderate. None of these correlations was beyond 0.69, thus providing an indication of
independence between different predictors retained in the study. Hence, the significance of their relationships could only be explained
by chance but not by collinearity. Consequently, the prediction of the quality of service delivery by workload effects could not
expectedly be tainted by a problem of multicollinearity.
3.3. Test of Homogeneity of Variances
The Levenes test confirmed the assumption of equality of error variances between the quality of service delivery measured by the
level of tangibles (EmploWS 11) and its corresponding predictors (Table 11). This test confirmed the existence of a strong relationship
between them based on their homogeneity. However, this test nullified the hypothesis of homogeneity between all other dependent
variables and their corresponding predictors. Therefore, the study confirmed the assumption that tangibles contribute to the quality of
service delivery in public universities by easing employees teaching workload.
Table 10: Correlation between independent variables for the teaching workloada
Source: Field Data (Researcher 2013)
Notes:
***. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.1 level (2-tailed).
a
Method: Pearson Correlation
Variable
Tangibles contributes to quality of service
offered at the university
Reliability contributes to quality of service
offered at the university
Responsiveness contributes to quality of
service offered at the university
Assurance contributes to quality of service
offered at the university
Empathy contributes to quality of service
offered at the university
df1
df2
Sig.
Conclusion
0.987
120
13
0.556
Homogeneity
2.726
120
13
0.022
Heterogeneity
11.012
120
13
0.000
Heterogeneity
6.856
120
13
0.000
Heterogeneity
3.485
120
13
0.007
Heterogeneity
Page 689
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
Table 12: Correlation between the quality of service delivery and the teaching workload factors
Source: Field Data (Researcher 2013)
Notes:
***. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.1 level (2-tailed).
3.4.2. Regression Strength
Table 13 shows that tangibles, including physical facilities, equipment and staff appearance, significantly contributed to the quality
of service delivery at the university (R2 = 0.623; Adjusted R2= 0.465; F= 3.955; Sig.= 0.000). This was explained by increased
demand for courses offered at selected universities (F=2.406; Sig.= 0.043), timely graduations ceremonies (F=2.295; Sig.= 0.065),
increased customer compliments (F=4.472; Sig.=0.002) and increased number of graduates (F=4.111; Sig.=0.004). Secondly,
reliability, that is the ability to perform service dependably and accurately, significantly contributed to level of service delivery at
these universities of Kenya (R2=0.657; Adjusted R2 = 0.514; F= 4.59; Sig.= 0.000) by means of timely graduation ceremonies
(F=2.96; Sig.= 0.024), reduction in customer complaints (F=2.134; Sig.= 0.083) and increase in customer compliments (F=9.143;
Sig.=0.000). Also is notable the contribution of responsiveness or willingness to help and respond to customer needs (R2= 0.563;
Adjusted R2 = 0.380; F= 3.079; Sig.= 0.000) by means of effective and efficient teaching methods (F=2.038; Sig.= 0.096), increase in
customer compliments (F=8.766; Sig.= 0. 000) and timely release of results (F=2.092; Sig.=0.088).
Regarding assurance, in other words the ability to inspire confidence (R2 = 0.534; Adjusted R2 = 0.339; F=2.741; Sig.= 0.000), its
contribution to level of service delivery at the university was largely explained by novel teaching methods (F= 4.33; Sig.= 0.003),
reduction in customer complaints (F=2.546; Sig.=0.045) and increase in customer compliments (F= 6.154; Sig.=0.000). Finally,
empathy or the extent to which individualized service is given (R2=0.486; Adjusted R2=0.272; F=2.268,Sig.=0.001) determined the
level of service delivery at the university via reduction in customer complaints (F=3.422; Sig.=0.012), increase in customer
Page 690
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
compliments (F=2.36; Sig.= 0.059) and timely release of results (F=2.879; Sig.= 0.027). It shall however be noted that the increase in
customer compliments was the key explanatory variable predicting the level of service offered at the university. It was significantly
linked to tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. The remaining factors explained one or a few of the above
outcomes.
Table 13: Tests of between-subjects effects of teaching workload on the quality of service delivery
Source: Field Data (Researcher 2013)
a. R Squared = .623 (Adjusted R Squared = .465)
c.
b. R
R Squared
Squared =
= .563
.657 (Adjusted
(Adjusted R
R Squared
Squared =
= .380)
.514)
c. R Squared = .563 (Adjusted R Squared = .380)
Page 691
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
Table 14: The most significant teaching workload parameters explaining the level of service delivery
Source: Field Data (Researcher 2013)
Page 692
www.ijird.com
May, 2014
Vol 3 Issue 5
Page 693