The Academic Staff Workload: A Case Study in Department of Mechanical

Engineering
Zahratul Laily Binti Edaris1 and Suriana Binti Ismail2
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Polytechnic Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah,
06000 Bandar Darul Aman, Jitra, Kedah
E-mail address: 1laily_78@yahoo.com
2

suriana363@yahoo.com

Abstract: The study was conducted to gather information on the workload of the polytechnic
lecturer. The aims of the study are to investigate: (i) the total time taken by lecturer to perform
academic duties (ii) the total time taken by teachers to perform non-academic duties. The
lecturers workload is measured based on the total time taken to perform certain duties. Data was
collected from the Timetable Unit, Department of Mechanical Engineering POLIMAS. The data
collected were analyzed. The findings showed that each teacher works at 51.75 hours per week to
implement academic duties and having 39% number of staff having non-academic duties of
minimum for two special tasks assigned by the Head of Department. The distribution of duties

among lecturers revealed that mostly polytechnic lecturer have several heavy workload
besides than teaching , which include being a class teacher, co-curriculum duties and
special posts assigned by the Head of Department. The suggestions were made in order to
settle the teachers workload among primary school teachers.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Academic staff is the key factor to a polytechnic and becomes an expendable asset, which is also
an icon that symbolizes the quality of the polytechnic itself. As part of the professionalism,
academic staffs duties are not limited to teaching only but also involve two other very important
elements, which are research work and services [1]. Current situation shows that there is a rise in
the awareness of the workload of polytechnics academic staff, especially here in the polytechnic.
Academic work is complex and challenging [7]; [8];[9]; [10] and different models have been
offered to judge and enhance its effectiveness and efficiency.
It is due to verbal complaints among lecturers that their workloads are imbalanced. Some
are burdened with excess teaching duties, while some others are too tied up by numerous of work
services in the department. Unfortunately, there are also claims that certain academic staff is
under-worked. Hence, this study has been carried out to determine the weights of the workload
for teaching and administration workload in Mechanical Engineering Department, Polytechnic
Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah.
Evaluation of academic staff workload shall be based on certain criteria, where suitable
prioritized weights are considered simultaneously. The outcome reflects a definition by [2] that
evaluation in an education environment is a process of using quantitative and qualitative data to
measure a spesific parameter for its acceptance in decision-making activities.

It is rather difficult when trying to measure the quality of an academic staff through
workload assessment consistently. This is due to the workload characteristics which are
intangible, complex and inseparable [3]. In addition, the academic staff are from various
backgrounds which would further add up the difficulty level. The objectives of this study are:

i)
ii)

to determine the total working time of the Mechanical Engineering academic staff in
teaching.
to determine the total working time of the Mechanical Engineering academic staff in
administrative work and other services.

Workload measurement has been applied to a number of military and industrial problems.
Many of the common measures, such as the NASA Task Load Index, were developed for use in
aviation, particularly studies of aircrew workload, although they have also been applied
elsewhere, such as the nuclear and other safety-critical industries.

Expectations of individuals in time spent at work must be reasonable, as in any

organization. The current benchmark in the Public Service of 37.5 hours per week was
seen to be a reasonable required maximum. However, it was felt that specifying a weekly
figure was inflexible and a yearly figure in hours, 1,725, would be more acceptable to
academic staff and management than a weekly one. [6]
2.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this study we focus on multi criteria tasks concerning academic staff workload. The
criteria were obtained from a previous method used to measure academic staff workload in
Mechanical Engineering Department, POLIMAS. There are three criteria: a) teaching, b)
administrative, c) services.
Workload under criteria of teaching and administrative works for each academic staff
gathered from the Timetable Unit. This research has been divided into two (2) categories which
are, (a) teaching time allocation (b) administration and services time allocation
2.1 TEACHING
Teaching comprises subject development, subject delivery, student assessment and
subject coordination. The workload weightings relative to contact hours are taken to be averages
in that staff may put in more workload effort to a particular activity on some occasions and less
on others. Calculations are based on face-to-face teaching and associated activities. It is expected
that staff members will provide accurate information for each subject. It is assumed that overall
flexible delivery workloads are similar to conventional face-to-face teaching and some
accounting for workload will be expected of staff teaching by alternate methods.
The weighting assumes that lecturers continue to strive to achieve high standards of
teaching throughout their career and that they enhance and undertake updates or development of
their subjects every year as a matter of course. Extra weighting is granted for subjects that are
taught for the first time by a given staff member. Three different categories of subject
development are given for guidance:
a) Innovative new subject, without the availability of a suitable text book, no previous notes or
materials available to lecturer = 5 hours per hour of lecture time. [5]
b) Standard subject with useful text but not taught before by the staff member concerned = 3
hours per hour of lecture time. [5]
c) Standard subject with access to someone elses resources (notes or slides etc) but not taught
before by the staff member concerned = 2 hours per hour of lecture time. [5]

Note: These times are in addition to the standard multiplier of 3.0hr for each hour of lectures
taught. The weighting for tutorials is 2.0 hours for each tutorial contact hour. This effectively
includes approximately two hours of preparation and consultation with students. The weighting
for laboratories is 1.5 hours for each hour of Lab contact. Implicit in this weighting is the fact
that staff needs some time to familiarize themselves with a given lab the first time they are
involved and there may be some set up time required for some labs. [5]
2.2 Marking
Student assessment is an important part of the education process and is time-consuming.
Total marking time is generally in direct proportion to the number of students in a class and a
weighting of 2 hours for each student in each subject for marking and student consultation is
provided. The 2 hours is to be distributed appropriately amongst those actually doing the work.
2.3 Other Teaching Issues Industry/site
interview/presentation assessment hours included.

Collecting important
criteria

Criteria for Evaluating

Academic Staff
Workload

visits

hours

included.

Industrial

Subjective and Objective

Approach

Weighted product

Workload
measure

Figure 1: The framework of workload measurement

Success of the monitoring process is normally determined through rigorous evaluation process.
The significance of the study are:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)

Can be used to help the faculty to monitor performance among staff.

Can be used to standardize the evaluation for each academic staff across.
To assist top management in taking corrective action appropriately.
To assist academic staff in determining their workload status and thus, would be able
to make corrective adjustment or planning.

3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Mechanical Academic Staff Background
Based from Table 1 below, the ratio of women lecturer compared to men lecturer for July 2010 is
1:3. The numbers of women lecturer in Mechanical Engineering Department for July 2010 are 23
with 26% while the numbers of men lecturer are 64 with 74%.
The number of lecturers in December 2010 was then reduced to total of 85 due to several staff
movement to other polytechnics and unpaid leaves. The numbers of women lecturer in
Mechanical Engineering Department decreased to 19 with 23% while the number are of men
lecturer are 63 with 77%
No
1
2

Session
Men
Women
July 2010
64
23
87
December 2010
63
19
82
Table 1: Number of lecturers in Mechanical Engineering Department

Total

Figure 2: Men and women lecturers for Department Mechanical Engineering

No
1
2

Session
July 2010
December 2010

Total Subjects
90
106

Table 2: Number of subjects offered

From Table 2, the number of subject offered for mechanical students increased due to the new
curriculum introduced for student in first and second semester and must be implemented. The
difference between two session shows that the number of subjects increased from 90 to 106. The
subjects are included with the carry subject cases offered for that semester.

3.2 Teaching Time Allocation

No

Academic Routine

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Teaching specific module

Teaching workshop
Teaching/assisting in laboratory
Lesson plan preparation
Preparing with the teaching aids
Teaching and assessment preparation
Marking the assessment
Industrial visit
Industrial interview and assessment
TOTAL

Total average working

time in a week
12.55
12.64
3.68
2.50
3.02
3.40
8.47
3.24
2.25
51.75

Table 3: Total Average Working Time for Academic Routine

Figure 3: Teaching Time Allocation for Each Lecturer in Department of Mechanical Engineering
From Table 3 and Figure 3 above it is shown that lecturers in Department of Mechanical
Engineering spending 51.75 hours per week finishing the academic work in POLIMAS. The main
academic work implemented for most of the lecturers are teaching specific module and teaching
workshop with both 12.55 and 12.64 hours per week.

Type of Job

Number of various

Number of teachers

Percentage

jobs
Class Teachers
Non-class teacher
Total
Co-curriculum
Non co-curriculum
Total
Special Tasks

1
-

36
46
82
13
69
82
16
32
31
3
82

1
1
2
3
4

TOTAL

44
56
100
16
84
100
19.5
39.0
37.8
3.7
100

Table 4: Administrative and Services Time Allocation

Data collected from the Timetable Unit shows that 39% of the lecturers having minimum
of two special tasks assigned by the Head of Department. From the findings above and below
(Table 4 and Table 5), it is clearly that, most of the lecturers in Mechanical Engineering
Department are responsible to minimum of two and three of non-academic works.
Number of Job Number of Lecturers

Percentage

Responsible
1
2
3
4
5
TOTAL

19.5
37.8
37.8
3.7
1.2
100

16
31
31
3
1
82

Table 5: Administrative and Services Time Allocation included Class teachers and Co-curriculum

4.0 RECOMMENDATION
It is important to spread knowledge about the burdened workload among the polytechnic
lecturers. Gaining a greater awareness is the first step in alleviating the sources and effects of the
burdened workload among polytechnic lecturers that could contribute to work stress. Although it
may not be possible to decrease the academic workloads however below are several
recommendations to lighten the academic workload for polytechnic lecturers:

The number of students in a class for each number of lecturers should be in a balanced
number. The number of students in a class is recommended 40 per class.
Recruit new staff to help the lecturers assigned the non-academic work.

Overtime carried out by the lecturers should be paid.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS
This study has shown that academic staff are generally burdened and not comfortable
with accounting for input workload indicators like time. More accurate workload distribution
instrumentation should be carried out to perceived fairness and equity among staff, but it appears
as the early of (non-use instrumentation) in this research shows the output and outcomes of
academic work are increasing stressed. in order to produce tangible evidence of what academic
staff contribute rather than how they spend their time.

REFFERENCES
[1]

Abu Daud Silong. (1986). Professionalizing characteristics of the training profession in

Peninsular Malaysia. PhD thesis University of Maryland.

[2]

Ee Ah Meng. (1991). Pedagogi-Suatu pendekatan bersepadu. Pedagogy-An integrated

approach). Kuala Lumpur: Fajar Bakti Publishers.

[3]

Mazlan Mohd. Sappri. (2005). Sistem Sokongan Pemutusan Pengukuran Prestasi

Pensyarah Berasaskan Metrik. Universiti Utara Malaysia.

[4]

Mokhairi Makhtar. (2001). Pemantauan Prestasi Perisian. Tesis Sarjana Maklumat.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

[5]

Workload Reference Group.(2006).University of Wollongong

[6]

Izabel Soliman.(1999). The academic workload problematic. HERDSA Annual

International Conference, Melbourne

[7]

Ball R & Wilkinson R. 1994. The use and abuse of performance indicators in UK
higher education. Higher Education, 27: 417 427

[8]

Piper D W. 1995. Performance related resource allocation within universities. Journal of

Tertiary Education Administration, 17(1): 89 97.

[9]

Taylor J. 2001a. Improving performance indicators in higher education: The

academics perspective. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25(3): 397 393.

[10]

Taylor J. 2001b. The impact of performance indicators on the work of university

academics: Evidence from Australian universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(1):
42 61.