A critical examination of the time and workload involved in the design and delivery of an e-module in postgraduate clinical education

Abstract

Background: Although there is increasing pressure on Universities to implement e-learning, this 'glorious revolution' has been met with disappointing results and universities have struggled to engage academic staff, who are major stakeholders, with its use. Although literature suggests online teaching adds to traditional faculty workload, information surrounding the actual 'cost' to individuals is sparse. For academics involved in postgraduate clinical education, it is even more incomplete. Involvement can be a risky undertaking for academics unfamiliar with the resources required. Aims: This study outlines staff resources required to create an e-module for busy, practicing clinicians. Method: Data (web analytics, email traffic, and work logs) was collected and statistical analysis performed outlining time involved, work patterns and responsibilities. Results: Data analysis revealed 75% of academic time occurred out of normal office hours. Sixteen total staff hours (12 planning and four delivery) were required to support one hour student online activity. Technical responsibilities were essential throughout, but unpredictable. Conclusions: Universities struggle to engage staff with e-learning due to its unrecognized and (many academics believe) unsustainable workload. Avoiding 'traditional' workload assumptions that are inaccurate, this study provides academics and managers involved in clinical education clear guidance and an increased understanding of workload with a goal to inform practice.

The value of online learning and MRI: Finding a niche for expensive technologies

“…Yet extremely little empiric evidence has compared the full cost of online versus face-to-face instruction (Sandars 2010), and the limited data available suggest that online learning actually requires substantially more instructor time and greater overall cost (Rumble 2001;Spector 2005;Stotzer et al 2013). Limited data in medical education confirm that online learning is costly, most notably in its demands on instructor/developer time (Huang et al 2007;Delgaty 2013).…”

E-learning in graduate medical education: survey of residency program directors

“…Although evidence suggests net savings compared with face-to-face education [9], other research indicates high development and maintenance costs for e-learning activities [10–12]. Although some have claimed a “Net Generation” is requesting greater use of technologies, research suggests no overwhelming demand for e-learning over traditional approaches [13–15].…”

Twelve tips for academic role and institutional change in distance learning

“…There appears to be a lack of clear guidance (Ryan et al 2004) and organisational support (Curtis 2001) for faculty when developing and implementing DL and confusion over responsibilities and competencies (Briggs 2005). The literature unequivocally supports the need for role clarity for academics (Delgaty 2013), as what little published literature on what these individual roles entail is confusing (Briggs 2005). To further obscure the picture for those involved in clinical education, the majority of research on DL has focused on undergraduates or children and has not focused on the needs of health professionals as learners (Cook 2009).…”

“…They have an obligation to change their beliefs, culture, historical roles and most importantly, inform institutional change (Delgaty 2013). While this challenges the accepted evolutionary nature of the academic role (Briggs 2005), individual academics require support in this change or they will ''do what they have always done'' which won't benefit the institution or the students.…”