Faculty Workload Comparison Between a Campus-based and Internet-based Patient Assessment Course

Abstract

Over the past several years, many programs of higher education have begun offering courses through an online or Internet-based format. 1 Pharmacy education is no exception. Some schools and colleges of pharmacy are now offering courses using Internet technology. One factor that faculty members and administrators must consider before offering an Internet-based course is the amount of faculty workload it will consume compared with teaching a traditional campus-based course.Creighton University School of Pharmacy and Health Professions has recently implemented an Internet-based doctor of pharmacy distance pathway. 2 The Internet-based distance pathway provides a full-time educational program to obtain a Doctor of Pharmacy degree that involves several innovative approaches to education. All didactic courses in the program are taught by distance-learning mechanisms, which use tools such as the Internet and CD-ROM. Interactions with faculty members and mentors occur via Internet chat rooms, discussion boards, e-mail, fax, and telephone. Distance pathway students come to campus each summer for laboratory courses and annual performance-based assessments.To date, no study has compared the faculty workload required for teaching a pharmacy course offered to both campus-based and Internet-based students. The primary objective of this study was to compare the faculty workload (ie, amount of total time and time invested per student) to teach and maintain a required pharmacy Internet-based course versus that required for the same course offered in a traditional campus-based setting. A secondary objective was to identify the source of the workload. Prior to data collection, the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Creighton University as exempt from Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects. METHODS Course ContentPHA 326, Patient Assessment, is a 2-credit hour required course. Course content is identical in both the campus-based and Internet-based pathways. This course instructs student to methodically obtain and evaluate subjective and objective patient information (including pediatric, elderly, and pregnant patients) for all of the body systems. Students learn specific patient-interviewing skills and questions in order to appropriately obtain subjective information. Students also learn practical Objectives. To compare instructor workload between a required campus-based and an Internet-based patient assessment course and to identify the sources of the workload. Methods. Instructor workload was measured for each pathway by documenting the total time required throughout the semester to teach and maintain the course. Specific workload items that were measured included lectures, administering examinations, e-mail communications, discussion boards, phone conversations, and office visits. Results. The Internet-based course (n=45 students) resulted in a 23% increase in total instructor workload for the semester and a 192% increase in instructor workload per student compared to the campusbased course (n=107). ...

Development of a Faculty Work Load System

“…Durham et al (2007) proposed the workload formula of the nursing school which is based on scholarship, teaching, and service. The work of Lenz and Monaghan (2005) discussed a comparison on the workload between campus-based teaching and internetbased teaching in the patient-assessment course. For Internet teaching, it is even harder to justify the workload because it depends on the type of courses, and the teaching procedure.…”

Online Education and Organizational Change

“…Course development in this manner differs from the traditional process in which a single faculty member has autonomy over a course. Furthermore, course development and instruction in an online format tend to require more time and effort on behalf of faculty members (Lenz, Jones, & Monaghan, 2005;Mupinga & Maughan, 2008;Tomei, 2004).…”

“…My students never go away.'" Thus, online instruction and course development were viewed as more labor and time intensive than traditional methods (Lenz et al, 2005;Mupinga & Maughan, 2008;Tomei, 2004). The faculty at LECC did not perceive the extra time or work as a negative but as a natural effect of this type of teaching and learning.…”