≤
* * * * · * 3. ****ș =*****\.* *-
¿¿.*）（?:.*?<！！！！！
$$$$|-
:ș*º§§ 5
; :::::::：：：:::&#
¿¿ ?-???
§
¿?，,，，，，。
¿??¿ $¢ £ €:§:::：:::}
b
* :
*** • • • • • • •
• **"*）, §. && ！º
§§§§§
t
§§
* }
§§§§§§
# gy
*.**
i:;
*** *
#:
§§§
§§§ī£§！
șżżț¢-3 & 3
-~-±¿?，
·::::::：::::::：:::
§:::::::
Gºść:
# h : &
*“， ſº: }
*


.*
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF EDUCATION
BULLETIN, 1919. No. 15
| ADJUSTMENT OF THE TEACHING LOAD |
By
LEONARD V. KOOS -
. . . . PROFESSOR of EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF washingtoN, SEATTLE
ºs

No.
:.
No.
No.
12.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
NO.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
15.
16.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
24.
13.
No. 14.
17.
23.
25.
26.
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF EDUCATION FOR 1919.
. Monthly record of current educational publications, January, 1919.
. Standardization of medical inspection facilities.
. Home education. Ellen C. Lombard
. A manual of educational legislation.
. Instruction in music, 1916–18. Waldo S. Pratt.
. The half-time school.
. Rural education, 1916–18.
. Life of Henry Barnard. Bernard C. Steiner.
. Education in Great Britain and Ireland.
. Educational work of the churches in 1916–18. -
. Monthly record of current educational publications, February, 1919.
J. H. Berkowitz.
H. W. Foght,
H. W. Foght.
I. L. Kandel.
Education in the Territories and dependencies, 1916–18.
Review of educational legislation, 1917 and 1918. W. R. Hood.
Monthly record of current educational publications, March, 1919.
The adjustment of the teaching load in a university. L. W. Koos.
The kindergarten curriculum. *
Educational conditions in Spain. Walter A. Montgomery.
Commercial education, 1916–18. Frank V. Thompson.
Engineering education, 1916–18. F. L. Bishop.
The rural teadher of Nebraska.
Education in Germany. I. L. Kandel
A survey of higher sducation, 1916–18. S. P. Capen and W. C. John.
Monthly record of current educational publications, April, 1919.
Educational work of the Boy Scouts. Lorne W. Barclay.
Vocational education, 1916–18. William P. Bawden.
The United States School Garden Army. J. H. Francis.
Recent progress in negro education Thomas Jesse Jones
Educational periodicals during the nineteenth century. Sheldon E.
Davis. -
Schools of Scandinavia, Finland, and Holland. Peter H. Pearson.
The American spirit in education. C. R. Mann.
Summer schools in 1918.
Monthly record of current educational publications:
1918–January, 1919. -
Girl Scouts as an educational force. Juliette Low.
Monthly record of current educational publications, May, 1919.
The junior college. F. M. McDowell.
Education in Italy. W. A. Montgomery.
Education changes in Russia. Theresa Bach.
Educatioš in Switzerland, 1916–18. Peter H. Pearson.
Training little children. -
Work of the Bureau of Education for the natives of Alaska 1917–18.
An educational study of Alabama.
Monthly record of current educational publications, June, 1919.
Education in France. I. L. Kandel. .
Modern education in China. Charles K. Edmunds.
North central accredited secondary schools. Calvin O. Davis.
Bibliography of home economics. Carrie A. Lyford.
Private commercial and business schools, 1917–18,
. 29.
. 30.
31.
. 35.
36,
37.
89
ſº
41.
No.
No. 43.
No.
NO.
|NO.
27.
28.
. 32.
. 33.
34.
38.
), 40.
42.
44.
45.
46.
No. 47.
Index February.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF EDUCATION
BULLETIN, 1919, No. 15
THE
ADJUSTMENT OF THE TEACHING LOAD
IN A UNIVERSITY
By
LEONARD V. KOOS
PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1919

ADDITIONAL COPIES
OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C.
AT
10 CENTS PER COPY
CONTENTS.
The purpose and method of the Study
The working load of members of the faculty of a university
The factors determining the teaching load in a university
A method of adjusting the teaching load in a university
The total teaching time - -
Time spent in the supervision of students working on individual re-
Search problems
Time spent in all noninstructional activities
Time spent in personal research
Time spent in other official duties (office hours, committee work,
administrative functions, etc.)
Time spent in “professional activities not otherwise reported ”----
The total working load of members of the faculty of a university___
Relationships of the components of the total working load
Hour and percentage relationships *
The coefficients of Correlation
The normality of the week for which data were collected
The unit of instruction used
The mode of presentation as a factor
The Subject or subject group as a factor
The elementary or advanced character of the work as a factor______
Previous experience or inexperience with the course as a factor____
The rank of the instructor as a factor
Repetition in concurrent Sections as a factor
Size of class as a factor
Computing the weighted values of clock hours of instruction________
Concerning the validity of the method of computing the weighted
values
Application of the method of adjusting the teaching load__________
APPENDIX.—The questionnaire used in the investigation
:
10
15
16
17
21
21
21
24
29
31
32
35
36
37
39
39
40
42
44
45
52
54
61
THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE TEACHING LOAD IN
A UNIVERSITY.
A. THE PURPOSE AND METHOD OF THE STUDY.
The purpose of the investigation.—Until the past decade or two
educational administration has been notably laggard in attacking its
problems by methods approximating the scientific. Tradition, senti-
ment, rule of thumb, temporizing compromise—these have been, and
unfortunately, still are, the dominant methods in this important field
of human enterprise. One of the largest of the problems in the ad-
ministration of educational institutions is that of the proper method
of determination of the working load of the members of the instruc-
tional staff. This problem has been with us ever since we have had
Schools. Administrators are only beginning to address serious efforts
to its scientific solution. This is true even in our higher institutions,
to which, because they have been the protagonists of scientific method,
we should first turn for the light of example on such a significant
problem. The investigation reported here is a pioneering attack upon
this problem as it concerns colleges and universities. Being a pioneer-
ing study, it is admittedly defective and subject to improvement. At
many points, as will be indicated, it is not safe to draw conclusions,
and some of the conclusions drawn must, of course, when more and
better facts are available, turn out to be inconclusive. It is believed,
however, that there is here demonstrated a method of determining
teaching loads for the instructional staff of a higher institution that is
deserving of wider application—a method that is much more objective
and reliable than the methods of tradition, sentiment, rule of thumb,
and temporizing compromise that are now in use. It is believed,
further, that there are a number of specific conclusions that will com-
mend themselves to the judgment of many for their immediate
applicability.
The method of the investigation.—In his attack upon the problem
under consideration the writer began by assuming that there are but
two factors which determine the actual working load an individual
instructor is carrying— (a) the time consumed in the performance
of his several functions as a member of a faculty and (b) the fatigue
5
6 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
resulting from such performance. There is large ground for the
belief that the former is of much greater importance than the latter
and will for the most part comprehend it. Although no studies of
mental fatigue of members of a teaching staff have been made, a
number of experiments have been conducted with school children
which tend to discount very much the general belief in the large
influence of mental fatigue upon efficiency in mental work. Even
though members of a university faculty are no longer children, they
must be subject to the operation of similar laws of mental economy,
and therefore it will be pertinent to quote what two psychologists
say in summary of the significance of these experiments. Freeman *
says: “Fatigue is undoubtedly one of the factors which affect the
efficiency of our work, but recent studies with school children have
indicated that the amount of fatigue which we may expect to appear
as a result of the ordinary work of the school day is much less than
was formerly supposed.” Thorndike,” after citing through several
pages the main findings of a number of investigations, says: “There
is a remarkable unanimity in the results summarized in this section
in showing that ability to work is, in school pupils, throughout and
at the close of the school session, almost or quite unimpaired.”
These statements concern mental, not physical, fatigue. The former
is the type which would be our primary concern in this study if we
should have need to give either of them consideration, since there is
but a relatively small proportion of physical activity involved in the
work of the university instructor.
Thorndike,” after reviewing the experiments investigating the
relations of “muscular” work and fatigue to “mental” work and
fatigue, concludes “that Surely there is no uniform effect of muscular
work upon mental efficiency and that the average intrinsic effect of
moderate amounts of it is very slight.” Furthermore, we must bear
in mind that these statements concern actual decrease in efficiency of
mental work, not the feelings of weariness which, according to Thorn-
dike,” “from what little is known of them, * * * seem a very
poor symptom of the loss of ability.” Thus, although the fatigue
resulting, e. g., from conducting a clock-hour lecture may not be the
same as that of an hour of recitation or of laboratory, or, again, that
resulting from an hour of recitation in mathematics may not be the
same as that of an hour of recitation in law, because the influence of
mental fatigue is not large in any event, there is not much justifica-
tion for the contention that discrimination should be made in fixing
1 Freeman, F. N. How Children Learn. Boston. Houghton, Mifflin & Co. Chapter
XIV, Mental Economy and Control, Mental Hygiene, p. 288.
*Thorndike, E. L. Educational Psychology, Vol. III. Teachers College. Chapter IV,
The Influence of Continuous Mental Work, Special or General, upon General Ability, p. 97.
* Op. cit., p. 109.
* Op. cit., p. 107.
WORKING LOAD OF FACULTY MEMBERS. 7
the teaching schedules on the basis of fatigue, even if such fatigue
were measurable. As already implied, it is much more important
that, if large differences in time consumed in connection with
clock hours of instruction are found, these be given recognition in
such discriminations as are made. This opinion has the additional
support of the fact already stated that discriminations based upon
the total time investment in connection with a clock hour of instruc-
tion will also in considerable part comprehend the factor of fatigue.
The data concerning time consumed in their activities by teach-
ing members of the faculty of the University of Washington which
are used in this study were secured by means of a questionnaire which
is reproduced in the appendix. It will be noted that the instructor
was asked to report on time spent in his professional activities dur-
ing one school week, May 14 to 19 (1917), inclusive. It will be seen
also that such questions as appear on sheet 1 call, for the most part,
for the time spent in non-teaching activities. An exception to this is
question 1. Attention will be called to other less significant excep-
tions as they arise in presenting and interpreting the facts in the
main body of this report. Questions 2, 3, and 4 ask for reports on the
more purely noninstructional professional activities of teaching mem-
bers of the faculty. Sheet 2 of the questionnaire was devised to se-
cure a statement of all time spent in instructional work, including
time spent in carrying on the class work, time required for imme-
diate preparation for the work, in correcting papers of students in
the classes, etc. This sheet, with question 1 of sheet 1, was designed
to ascertain the “total time consumed ” in the more purely instruc-
tional activities of the members of the teaching staff of the uni-
versity.
The details of the methods of using the data gathered by means of
the questionnaire will be described at appropriate points in the suc-
ceeding sections of this report.
B. THE WORKING LOAD OF MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY OF A
UNIVERSITY.
How much time per week and per day is actually spent by the
members of the faculty of a university in connection with instruc-
tional work both in class and out? How much time is devoted to per-
Sonal research and to other noninstructional professional activities?
What constitutes the total working week and working day for those
employed to teach in a university? These and some closely related
questions are pertinent to the solution of the problem of determining
the teaching load and will be answered from the data assembled for
8 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A TJNIVERSITY.
the investigation before proceeding to the task of analyzing the
influence of what we may term the factors of the teaching load.
The total teaching time.—Total teaching time is here understood to
comprehend all work of an instructional character, including time
spent in class, in preparation for class sessions, and in reading papers
or doing other work connected with such class sessions, as reported
on sheet 2 of the questionnaire. It includes also the time spent in the
Supervision of students working on individual research problems as
reported under the first inquiry on sheet 1. It does not include
work in connection with extension courses, nor such instruction as
may have been given during office hours reported in inquiry 3 on
sheet 1 of the questionnaire. The “teaching days” in hours of the
members of the faculty in the University of Washington are shown
in Table 1. The teaching day has been arrived at by dividing the
total teaching time for the week by 5%, the number of teaching days
in the school week at the time the data were collected.
TABLE 1.-Teaching day of instructors in the University of Washington.

º
- not deans,
º:*| heads of IHeads of
º All #. depart | other than
Iength of teaching day, in hours. instructors.] nor subsi. lii. On 6-III.3.Il Deans.
dized for arians, depart-
research. *@* subsi- ImentS.
* | dized for
research.
1 2 3 4 5 6
2.0- 2.9------------------------------------ 8 2 1 1 3
3. 0- 3.9------------------------------------ 9 7 5 2 1
4.0- 4.9------------------------------------ 17 16 14 2 l
5.0– 5.9------------------------------------ 27 26 21 5 l
6.0–6. 9------------------------------------ 12 12 12 ------------|-----------
7.0- 7.9------------------------------------ 14 13 13 l------------ i
8.0-8.9------------------------------------ 6 6 4 2 |-----------
9.0-9.9------------------------------------ 2 2 1 1 -----------
10. 0-10.9.----------------------------------- 4 4 4|------------|-----------
13.0-13.9------------------------------------ 1 1 1 ------------|-----------
Total number in group................ 100 89 76 13 7
Average number of hours in teaching day 1
for group--------------------------------- 5.8 6.0 6.1 5.5 4.2
1 Not computed from this table, but from original figures for the teaching day of each member of the
faculty used in making the table.
The import of the table is perhaps so obvious as to require only
brief interpretation. In column 2 of this table is shown the distribu-
tion of these teaching days of 100 members of the faculty whose re-
sponses in the questionnaire were made in such a manner as to permit
the computation of the length of the teaching day. No member of
the faculty who is employed by the university for part time only is
represented in this column. It includes the teaching days of 7 deans,
WORKING LOAD OF FACULTY MEMBERS. 9
3 librarians devoting only part time to instruction, 1 instructor sub-
sidized for research and devoting only half-time to instruction, and
13 heads of other than one-man departments who are not deans.
These 100 teachers are approximately three-fifths of those on the
instructing staff of the university at the time reports were called
for." It is to be noted that the teaching day ranges in length from
2 hours to 13.9 hours—a strikingly wide variation. The distribution
is in rough approximátion to the curve of normal frequency, the
modal number of hours in the teaching day being 5–5.9. The average
teaching day, computed not from the table but from the original
figures for the teaching days of each member of the faculty, is 5.8
hours. Column 3 reports the teaching days of 89 instructors, exclud-
ing 7 deans, 3 librarians, and 1 instructor subsidized for research, and
shows a range and distribution of teaching days very similar to that
in column 2, the essential difference, as is to be expected, being the
smaller number of short teaching days in column 3. The model
teaching day is still the same, while the average is only slightly
greater, 6 hours, as compared with 5.8 hours for the entire group
of 100 instructors. Column 4 shows the distribution for the 76 in-
structors remaining after excluding those already excluded in column
3 and also 13 heads of other than one-man departments who are not
at the same time deans. We have thus remaining in column 4 the
teaching days of those who are given no special remissions of teach-
ing hours for administrative and other activities. We find in this
column the same range and much the same distribution of hours in
the teaching day as before, with an average teaching day but one-
tenth of an hour longer than shown in the preceding table.
This table also presents in columns 5 and 6, respectively, the teach-
ing days of 13 heads of other than one-man departments and of 7
deans. The former group includes no heads of departments who
are also deans, as these have been included in the group of deans.
The teaching days of these two groups are given special attention at
this point because they include the officers of administration who are
allowed remissions of teaching hours for the work of administration.
Columns 5 and 6 of the table show that they devote less time to teach-
ing work than do those whose teaching days are tabulated in column
4. The difference is striking in the case of the deans who devote
approximately two-thirds as many hours per day to teaching work
as do the members of the group in the column mentioned. It is less
striking for the heads of departments who spend approximately
1 A total of 110 instructors filled out the questionnaire, but for one reason or another
the responses of 10 could not be used for this portion of the study.
108399°–19—2
10 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
eleven-twelfths as much time to teaching work as do those in the
nonadministrative group.
Time spent in the supervision of students working on individual
Tesearch problems.-Mention has been made (p. 8) of the fact that
time spent in supervising students working on individual research
problems has been included in the total teaching time of the instruc-
tors reporting for this investigation. Only 43 of the group of 100
instructors whose reports were used in studying the total time de-
voted to teaching report students working on such problems during
the second semester of the school year 1916–17. Fifty-seven instruc-
tors, more than half, report no such supervision. The 43 responsible
for instruction of this sort report a total of 1244 students—an aver-
age of about 3 students per instructor. The total amount of time
spent in such supervision by all members of the faculty reporting
during the week of May 14–19 was 94.8 hours, or an average of 0.76
hour per student. This total of 94.8 hours is slightly less than 3 per
cent of the total of 3,172 hours spent in all instructional work during
that week by the entire group of 100 instructors. Whether it is an
important consideration in adjusting the teaching load must be de-
termined largely by the number of such students the individual in-
structor is supervising.
Some light is thrown on this problem by Table 2, which shows the
distribution of such students according to the responses in the ques-
tionnaire. If we recall that the average weekly time expenditure
per student in work of this nature is but 0.76 hour, it will be seen by
reference to this table that a relatively small number of instructors
will need to have such an adjustment made for them. If no adjust-
ment has already been made in assigning to the instructors the
courses in which these students are enrolled, it will be advisable to
make some reduction in the teaching schedule of those who must
supervise the work on individual research problems of four or more
students.
Time spent in all nominstructional activities.—The aspect of the
working load of members of the faculty of a university to which we
now direct our attention is the total time spent in activities com-
prehended by questions 2, 3, and 4 on sheet 1 of our questionnaire
(see appendix). It is to be noted that these inquire after time spent
in personal research, in “other official duties for the university
(office hours, committee work, administrative functions, etc.),” and
in “professional activities not otherwise reported.”
r—
1 In this number have been included only those students who were enrolled in courses
regularly listed as courses in individual research. The number does not include those
students working on semester theses in courses devoted largely to regular class instruc-
tion,
WORKING LOAD OF FACULTY MEMBERS. 11
TABLE 2.-Distribution of 8tudents working on individual research, problem.8.
Number of Number of
students. - instructors.
O 57
T 18
2 5
3 7
4 5
5 1.
6 3
7 -- 1.
8 2
9 1.
Totals 124 100
Although the term is in a slight measure a misnomer, this part of
the working load will be referred to here as the noninstructional load.
The partial inapplicability of the term is illustrated by the fact that
the personal research (see question 2, sheet 1, appendix) may some-
times be rightly considered direct, or almost direct, preparation for
class work. However, the difficulty of distinguishing between such
personal research and preparation for class work is mentioned by
but 2 of the 100 instructors whose answers are used in the present sec-
tion of this investigation. Again, office hours (see question 3, sheet 1,
appendix), especially of instructors other than deans and heads of
departments, are at Once seen to be set aside in part or whole for
instructional purposes. That a few of the “professional activities
not otherwise reported ” (see question 4) are instructional in charac-
ter may be seen by referring to Table 3, which shows the frequency
with which the many sorts of “professional activities not otherwise
reported ” recurred in the reports of 100 instructors. “Miscellaneous
work connected with teaching” may in three of the six cases be prop-
erly classified as instructional. The same may be said of all four
instances of “work on future courses.” One of the reports classified
under “Special conferences with members of faculty or students”
was probably instructional. The remainder of the classifications are
not chargeable to instructional time, in the sense in which this term
is here being used. Under “Professional reading” has been included
only general professional reading, not that which is calculated to pre-
pare for a specific course. “Extension work,” although instructional,
is not work done in connection with instructional work going forward
on the campus. On the whole, the term “noninstructional” is seen
to be fairly applicable.
12 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
TABLE 3.−Classification of “Professional activities not otherwise reported.”
Number
Activity. of times
reported.
Professional Service for public---------------------------------------------------------------. 17
Professional Societies or clubs---------------------------------------------------------------. 17
Professional reading------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
Extension Work-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public lectures and addresses---------------------------------------------------------------.
Miscellaneous Work connected with teaching.................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Work on future courses---------------------------------------------------------------------.
Military drill (faculty gompany)------------------------------------------------------------.
Cooperation in student activities------------------------------------------------------------.
Special conferences with members of faculty or students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ork on material intended for publication......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Work on university plant.-------------------------------------------------------------------
Professionalgorrespondence------------------------------------------------------------------
Professionalinvestigation (not research). -----------. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------
Red Cross parade----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faculty meeting *---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faculty forum meeting----------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental meeting-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of different instructors reporting these activities.........................
Number reporting no such activities--------------------------------------------------
;
1 As there was no faculty meeting held during the week of May 14–19, it is probable that these two reports
refer to attendance upon a meeting of the faculty forum, a voluntary and unofficial body attendance upon
sºme is reported as a type of activity immediately following this type by two other members of
Having set down such qualifications as need to be made on the use
of the term, we next proceed to a brief study of this noninstruc-
tional load of the 100 members of the faculty of the University of
Washington whose reports could be utilized for this purpose. The
distribution of the members of the faculty by hours per day spent in
such activities is shown in Table 4. Column 2 of this table displays
the distribution for all these instructors. Of the entire group, 19
spend less than one hour per day in these noninstructional activities.”
Of the entire group 78 spend less than 4 hours in this way, only 22
reporting 4 hours or more. The average for all is 2.7 hours per day.
Columns 3 and 6 in this table are introduced to detect the influence
on the noninstructional load of holding administrative offices or per-
forming certain other functions for the university. Column 3 gives
the distribution for the 89 instructors remaining after the figures for
7 deans, 3 librarians devoting only part time to instructional work,
and 1 instructor who is subsidized for noninstructional work have
been excluded. Their elimination is at once seen to decrease the dis-
tributions in the larger classifications, 9 of the 11 eliminated re-
porting four hours or more of noninstructional work. The influence
of this elimination may also be seen in the average, which is here 2.4
hours per day. The next column excludes in addition the figures for
13 heads of other than one-man departments (who are not also
deans). This further exclusion is seen again to reduce the num-
* A footnote to the table calls attention to four members who report no work of this
sort.
WORKING LOAD OF FACULTY MEMBERS, 18.
bers in the larger classifications, while the average number of hours
spent in noninstructional activities by these 76 instructors is but 2.2.
Columns 5 and 6, respectively, present the distribution for 13 heads
of other than one-man departments and for 7 deans. The average
for the former group is 4.1 hours, and for the latter 4.6 hours.
TABLE 4.—Time spent in activities largely nominstructional in character (per-
somal research, office hours, administrative duties, committee work, and other
professional activities) by members of the faculty of the University of
Washington. -
Instructors
exclusive of
Tnstructors 7 deans, 13
All º g hºº: #.of
+ 7 deans, Other than | Other than
Number of hours per day. instructors.librarians, long mandelºmaniel Peans.
and 1 other|partments, partments.
& instructor. |3|ibrarians,
and 1 other
• instructor.
1 2 3 4 5 6
0.0-0.9-------------------------------------- l. 19 l 19 *19 |------------|-----------
1.0–1.9-------------------------------------- 22 22 21 1 -----------
2.0-2.9-------------------------------------- 18 16 13 3 2
3.0-3.9-------------------------------------- 19 19 16 3 -----------
4.0–4.9-------------------------------------- 8 6 4 2 2
5.0–5.9-------------------------------------- 6 3 1 2 2
6.0–6.9-------------------------------------- 5 2 1 1 -----------
7.0–7.9------------------------* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8.0–8.9-------------------------------------- 2 1 ------------ I 1
9.0-9.9-------------------------------------- 1 I 1 |------------|-----------
Numberin group..................... 100 89 76 13 7
Average number of hours per day........... 2. 7 2.4 2.2 4.1 4.6

1 Four of these report no such activities.
In the tabulations of the time devoted to the several kinds of work
done by an instructor during the week under consideration the writer
has assumed an almost uncritical attitude—i.e., he has assumed that
the instructor reporting has been justified in including all the time
and activities that he has reported. Pains were taken, of course, in
framing the questionnaire that only time spent in legitimate pro-
fessional activities should be reported, and it is felt that the re-
sponses are fairly free from reports on other than such legitimate
activities. Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether a questionnaire could
be so framed or a hundred copies of the questionnaire could be so
filled as to eliminate entirely all extraneous activities. Although as-
suming the uncritical attitude to which reference has been made and
regarding as legitimate all work reported in the tabulation, the in-
vestigator became conscious of a possible source of error in the mode
of statement of question 4 on sheet 1 of the questionnaire." It is
probably certain that, because those who filled out the questionnaire
were not definitely directed to exclude from their answer to this ques-
* See appendix.
14 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
tion all professional activities for which they were receiving remu-
neration from other than university sources, and exclusive of salary
received as officers of the university, some such professional activities
have been here reported. We may here refer again to Table 3, which
presents a classification of these activities, in furnishing corrobora-
tion of the statement just made. In the first group, “Professional
service for public,” are included only a very few for which such out-
side remuneration may have been received. The group reporting
attendance upon, or activity in connection with, “Professional So-
cieties or clubs” manifestly would include none receiving such re-
muneration. Most of those whose reports are included under “Ex-
tension work” are receiving some small additional remuneration for
the work. The total amount of time here does not exceed a few
hours. The “Public lectures and addresses” may include a few com-
mencement addresses for which outside remuneration is customarily
received. One of the six in the next group in the table is reported
as “tutoring out-of-town pupils,” for which it is possible the in-
structor received some remuneration. A careful examination of the
reports shows no other activities for which outside or additional
remuneration may have been received. It does, however, discover a
few reports of additional activities which need not be quoted here,
because of the small amount of time devoted to them, and which are
doubtfully chargeable to the working load of a member of the faculty
of a university.

TABLE 5.—Time devoted to personal research, by instructors in the University
of Washington.
Instructors |
exclusive | Heads of
of deans, other than
Number of hours during the week. instructors librarians, one-man Deans.
"|and 3 other depart-
instruc- Iments,
tors!.
1 2 3 4 5
0.0- 1.9------------------------------------------------ 3 54 3 45 4 8 4 4
2.0- 3.9.----------------------------------------------- 7 5 l------------ 2
4.0- 5.9------------------------------------------------ 14 14 1 -----------
6.0- 7.9------------------------------------------------ 11 10 1 1. ----------
8.0-9.9------------------------------------------------ 4 3 2 l
10.0-11.9------------------------------------------------ 3 3 l------------|-----------
12.0-13.9------------------------------------------------ 2 2 1 -----------
14.0-15.9------------------------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|-----------
16.0-17.9------------------------------------------------ 1. 1 1 -----------
18.0-19.9------------------------------------------------|------------|------------|-----------------------
20.0-21.9------------------------------------------------ 1 1 ------------|-----------
22.0-23.9------------------------------------------------ 1. 1 ------------|-----------
24.0-25.9------------------------------------------------ 1 1 |-----------------------
41.0----------------------------------------------------- 1 1 |------------|-----------
Total number in group. -------------------------- 100 87 13 7
Average number of hours in personal research during
Week-------------------------------------------------- 3.7 4. 1 3. 6 2.1
1 These by agreement perform other services for the university in time not spent in teaching.
* Includes 48 who carried forward no research during the week.
*Includes 39 who carried forward no research during the week.
*None of these carried forward research during the Week.
work ING LOAD OF FACULTY MEMBERs. 15
A careful estimate of all time spent in such professional activities
doubtfully chargeable to the working load of the faculty member
does not place the maximum total above 80 hours for the week for
all instructors. It is probably considerably less than this. But,
taken at this maximum estimate, it would be but 0.15 hour per day
per instructor, and could therefore introduce only a proportionally
Small and almost inconsiderable error into the computation of the
average noninstructional load or total working load of instructors.
Time spent in personal research.-It will be profitable now to pro-
ceed to a more detailed study of the noninstructional load of a uni-
versity faculty by scrutinizing successively the three main parts into
which it may be divided, parts implicit in questions 2, 3, and 4 on
sheet 1 of the questionnaire. The first part is that comprehended
by what we have termed “personal research.”* The main facts as to
time spent in this work during the week upon which we have reports
are presented in Table 5. Column 2 of this table shows that 54–
more than half—of the group of 100 instructors whose reports could
be used for this part of the investigation spent very little or no
time in research. In fact, as indicated in a footnote to the table,
all but 6 of this group of 54 (i. e., 48 instructors), report no time
spent in this way. In other words, practically half of all the in-
structors reporting for this investigation spent no time in research.
The remaining instructors, 52 in number, spent from a fraction of
an hour to 41 hours in this kind of activity during the week. Most
of these, however, reported less than 8 hours of research. The aver-
age number of hours per week, computed not from the distribution
in column 2 but from the original figures for individual members
of the faculty, is 3.7, which is approximately two-thirds of an hour
per day.
As it may by some be considered unfair to pass a judgment upon
time devoted to research by members of a group, some of whom are,
by the nature of their positions, prevented from carrying forward
any personal research, in column 3 of Table 5 has been introduced
the distribution in numbers of hours spent in research by those from
whom we are more nearly justified in expecting research. From
the group here concerned have been excluded 7 deans, 3 librarians de-
voting only part time to instruction, and 3 other instructors by
agreement with the university performing other services for it in
the time not spent in teaching. The exclusion of these can not mark-
edly affect the distribution of instructors as to time spent in research,
although the reduction in numbers of instructors is largely in the
1 The term “personal research " is here used to distinguish the research being carried
forward by the member of the faculty himself from that which students are working out
under his supervision.
16 THE TEACHING LoAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
classifications devoting small amounts of time. Here, again, a foot-
note calls attention to a very large number who spent no time in
research. The average amount of time so spent—4.1 hours per week—
is seen to be somewhat higher, indicating a small measure of justi-
fication for the charge preferred in the opening sentence of this para-
graph. Nevertheless, if this week of May 14–19 may be taken to be a
representative cross section of a working year in this university—
and there is little occasion for believing it to be markedly other-
wise—one of the lines of activity a university is expected to en-
courage, viz, research on the part of its faculty, is being far from
generally pursued, although some are devoting generous amounts of
time to it. -
In columns 4 and 5 of this table are presented the facts as to re-
Search time, respectively, of heads of other than one-man depart-
ments and of deans. The former devote slightly less time on the
average to research than do those whose research time is tabulated
in column 3, while the latter, as is to be expected because of their
burden of administrative work, spend notably less time—in fact,
about one-half as much.
TABLE 6.—Time spent in other official duties (office hours, committee work,
administrative functions, etc.) by members of the faculty of the University
of Washington.
Full-ti ;
Number of hours per week. iñº. *::::: . Deans.
partments.
1 2 3 4
0.9–1.9------------------------------------------------------------- 31 |-----------------------
*0- 3.9------------------------------------------------------------- 17 1 1.
4.9-5.9------------------------------------------------------------- 11 I------------|-----------
6.0- 7.9------------------------------------------------------------- 8 ? -----------
8.0-9.9------------------------------------------------------------- 3 4 -----------
10.0-11.9------------------------------------------------------------- 4 ------------|-----------
1*0-13.9-------------------------------------------------------------|------------ 2
14:9-13.9------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 -----------
16:9-17-9------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 -----------
18.0-19-9-------------------------------------------------------------|------------ 1 l-----------
20.0-21.9------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
*0-%.9-------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------ 2
*0-35.9------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
*6.0-87.9.------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------ 1
40.0-41.9------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 -----------
Total numberin group---------------------------------------. 7 13 7
Average number of hours per week................................... 3.6 15.1 18. 3
Time spent in other official duties (office hours, committee work,
administrative functions, etc.).-A second portion of the nominstruc-
tional load deserving some special attention is the time spent in
“other official duties for the university (office hours, committee
work, administrative functions, etc.),” a report on which was called
for in inquiry 3 on the first sheet of the questionnaire (see appendix).
WORKING LOAD OF FACULTY MEMBERS. 17
Table 6 presents the distribution in hours per week in this work for
76 full-time instructors; i. e., all instructors remaining in our total
group of 100 after excluding deans, librarians, heads of other than
one-man departments, and one other instructor subsidized for in-
vestigation (column 2), for 13 heads of other than one-man depart-
ments (column 3), and for 7 deans who are also heads of departments
(column 4). At the foot of the distribution columns are shown the
averages for each of these groups. As is to be expected, both the dis-
tributions and the averages indicate a marked tendency toward an
increase of time required for these activities as we proceed from the
full-time instructors through the heads of departments to the deans.
The fact that the average for the heads of departments is within ap-
proximately three hours of that for deans may be partially explained
by the one head of department reporting 41.3 hours of such activity
for the week. The average for the 12 remaining heads of depart-
ments is 10.4 hours. If the medians—this measure of central ten-
dency not being as susceptible of the influence of extreme cases as is
the average—were computed, they would be approximately 3, 9, and
23 hours, respectively, for the three groups. It is clear that the burden
of work of this nature does not rest heavily on more than relatively
few of the full-time instructions, and where it does not exceed five
or six hours per week there can be little necessity of making special
allowance on the teaching schedule for it. For full-time instructors
upon whom are made such exceptional demands for this type of
activity calling for much more than the average of 3.6 hours per
week, it would be but fair to make some such special allowance as
just mentioned. If the figures presented in Table 6 are normal,
heads of other than one-man departments should have Some reduc-
tion of teaching schedule for such work and most deans should have
an even greater reduction. Since the demand for such activity
must be heavier for some heads of departments and deans than for
others, it will be necessary to discriminate by making greater allow-
ance to some than to others, the allowance being proportioned to the
demands. The figures for the one week which were used in com-
piling Table 6 do not warrant us in here making recommendations
as to what these allowances should be for particular heads of depart-
ments or deans. Before doing this we should need reports covering
a longer period of time.
Time spent in “professional activities not otherwise reported.”—
We have already given some attention to the many sorts of profes-
sional activity reported in answer to question 4 on the first sheet of
the questionnaire—i.e., all professional activities exclusive of teach-
ing work, personal research, and “other official duties for the uni-
versity (office hours, committee work, administrative functions, etc.).”
108399°–19—3
18 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
As these additional professional activities may play an important part
in determining the working load of a member of the faculty of a uni-
versity, we now extend our analysis of the answers to the question.
Unfortunately, the directions of question 4 called for the total amount
of time spent in all such activities and for a list of them only, neglect-
ing to request a statement of the time spent in connection with each
kind of activity reported. A large proportion of the instructors vol-
unteered the information just referred to, but because a number did
not supply it our analysis can give little more than a very imperfect
account of the proportion of the total time spent in “professional
activities not otherwise reported " which is devoted to each of the
several classes of activity into which we have divided the reports.
However, some estimate of this proportional relationship may be
made from the numbers of instructors reporting the several classes as
presented in Table 7. These numbers of instructors are presented for
each of the subjects or subject groups represented by at least 3 of
the total number of 100 questionnaires used in this section of the
report. A number of subjects are therefore not represented in the
table. The classes into which these other professional activities have
been divided are as follows: (a) General professional reading—i.e.,
professional reading not directly applicable as preparation for any
particular course; (b) campus professional Societies and clubs, such
as the Philological Club or a colloquium; (c) extension work, usually
correspondence instruction; (d) other off-campus professional activi-
ties, such as public addresses or other professional service for or in
contact with the public; and (e) miscellaneous professional activities
of many sorts, something as to the nature of which may be discovered
by a glance through the categories of Table 3. Table 7 reports in
addition the number of instructors reporting; (f) no other profes-
sional activities, as well as the average number of hours per week per
instructor devoted to all of the classes of activity just named.
It is at once manifest that only for foreign language, mathematics,
the sciences, and engineering are the numbers of instructors report-
ing large enough to give the figures in the remaining columns of the
table even an approximation to dependability. Of the large group of
22 instructors of foreign language, 3 reported general professional
reading, 5 reported activity in connection with a campus profes-
sional club, 1 reported time spent in extension work, 3 reported other
off-campus professional activities, 3 reported miscellaneous profes-
sional activities, 9 reported no other professional activities, while the
average number of hours per week in these activities is but 3.1, or
slightly more than a half hour per day. A comparison of this dis-
tribution with that of some of the other groups and with the figures
of totals in the lowest horizontal row shows a tendency in this sub-
ject group toward a relatively infrequent participation in off-campus
WORKING LOAD OF FACULTY MEMBERS.
19
professional activities, a larger proportion of instructors devoting no
time to these “other professional activities,” and a smaller average
number of hours per week per instructor in such activities. A simi-
lar tendency is evident in the figures for the instructors of mathe-
matics. In contrast to these are the distributions for the sciences and
engineering, in which a larger proportion report off-campus pro-
fessional activities, a smaller proportion reporting no other pro-
fessional activities and a higher average number of hours of such
activities per week per instructor than do foreign language and
mathematics. While the remaining subjects and subject groups are
less adequately represented than the four so far named, the data shown
concerning them may deserve at least passing mention. The average
number of hours per week for 6 instructors of English is approxi-
mately that of the total of 84 instructors, data for whom are included
in this table. The average for the social studies is surprisingly low,
considering the nature of the subject taught by the instructors in this
group—2 were teaching economics; 1, political science; 1, sociology;
and 1, history. In the light of the nature of most of these subjects,
one expects for most of them more time than the table reports.
Although the nature of the subject is such as to require considerable
touch with the public schools, the average for education is probably
higher than normal. The average for psychology and philosophy is
also probably higher than normal. The figures for home economics
are not unlike those for the sciences. Those for law, because they
are based upon the reports of but three instructors, are scarcely de-
serving of attention.
TABLE 7.-Number of instructors devoting time to “professional activities not
otherwise reported ” and the average number of hours per week, so spent.

Number of instructors devoting time to-
Numb - ;
Ulm Oer Illinſloer
Subject or subject of in- º (d) Other (e) Mis- of hours
j grOup. Structors º: §§. (c) Ex- | off-cam- Cellaneous oë %. per Week
reporting. j *i; iſ tension |pus pro;| profes; j p {| per in-
19 & 5 & work. fessional | sional |º] structor.
reading. | Societies. activities.lactivities. activities.
Toreign language..... 22 3 5 1. 3 3 9 3.1
English. ------------- 6 ----------|---------- 2 1 I---------- 3 4.6
Mathematics...------ 8 1 |----------|----------|---------- 5 2.7
Social studies- - - - - - - - 5 1 I---------- 1 1 ---------- 3 3.0
Education. - - - ---...- 4 2 ---------- 1 4 ----------|---------- 13.7
Philosophy and psy-
chology------------ 4 2 ---------- 2 1 1 ----------| 10.4
Sciences.------------- 15 1. 2 2 5 5 5 4. 1
Home economics..... 4 1 I---------- 1 2 3 1 4.8
Engineering. -- - - - - - - - 13 1 ----------|--------- • 6 2 3 6.0
Law. ---------------- 3 |----------|---------- 1 1 ---------- 2 3.3
Total 84 12 7 11 24 17 31 4.7
Notwithstanding the acknowledged weakness of the figures just
cited, they have a general import that may not well be ignored. The
20 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
average number of hours spent in the activities under consideration,
according to Table 7, is 4.7. When the average number of hours
spent in such activities is computed for the entire group of 100 in-
structors, it is found to be 5.5. Thus the average may be said to
approximate 5 or 6 hours per week. The statement is occassionally
made that reductions in the teaching schedule should be made to
allow for these activities. It must be evident at once from the figures
presented that it would be unwise to make a uniform allowance for
all subjects and all instructors; some subjects are of such a character
as to require more time than others in the professional activities under
consideration. The more reasonable procedure would be to make no
such allowance except for subjects where the average number of
hours per week exceeds markedly the average here found, 5 or 6.
There are no doubt subjects for which and instructors for whom
such concessions should be made. In general these will be the newer
and more rapidly developing subjects—what we may term the
dynamic subjects—and the instructors of these subjects who are
keeping fully abreast of the developments in them. As soon as it
appears that such concessions are no longer necessary or are no longer
properly utilized, they should be withdrawn. Because of the paucity
and weakness of the figures for subjects and subject groups as here
reported, before the extent of such concessions may be justly deter-
mined, a supplementary investigation should be made into the time
spent in these other professional activities either by a larger number
of instructors, or through a longer period of time, or both. Such a
supplementary investigation should make the additional distinction
between other professional activities that bring additional remunera-
tion and those that do not, since the justice of making concessions for
activities for which the instructor is receiving adequate additional
remuneration is bound to be called into question.
TABLE 8.—The working day of 100 instructors in the University of Washington.
Length of - . Number
working day of
in hours. instructors.
4.0— 4.9—-___------------------------------------ 4
5.0– 5.9----------------------------------------- 10
6.0- 6.9----------------------------------------- 14
7.0- 7.9----------------------------------------- 15
8.0— 8.9 * * * *-* * -º- ºr ºº - - - * * * *-* * * * * * * * * * * = - me smºs 14
9.0-9.9----------------------------------------- 17
10.0-109----------------------------------------- 10
11.0——11.9 * * * * *-* - * * * * - - - - - - - -> * = ºre m = 11
12.0—12.9–––––––––––––––––– * * * 1.
18.0-139----------------------------------------- 3
14.0—14.9 ------ --- 1.
Total number Of instructors 100
Average working day in hours––––––––––––––– 8.5 °
wORKING LOAD of FACULTY MEMBERs. 21
The total working load of members of the faculty of a university.—
Table 8 shows the distribution of 100 members of the faculty of the
University of Washington as to number of hours in the total work-
ing day." The total working day of each instructor has been ob-
tained by adding together what has previously been reported in this
study as the total teaching time per day and the time spent per day
in noninstructional activities, the actual total working day charge-
all time spent in connection with class work both within and without
the class period (see sheet 2 of the questionnaire reproduced in the
appendix), time spent in the supervision of students working on in-
dividual research problems (question 1, sheet 1), time spent in per-
sonal research (question 2), time spent on “other official duties for
the university (office hours, committee work, administrative func-
tions, etc.),” and, lastly, time spent in “professional activities not
otherwise reported.” This table discloses a remarkably wide range
in the length of the total working day, from 4 hours to 14.9 hours—
a difference of nearly 11 hours between the shortest and the longest
working days in this group of 100 instructors. However, relatively
Small numbers are to be found in the 4–4.9 hour group at the lower
extreme and in the 12–12.9, 13–13.9, and 14–14.9 hour groups. Fairly
large and approximately equal numbers—from 10 to 17—are to be
found in each of the intervening groups. Thus the distribution here
does not, as with the teaching day (see Table 1), remotely resemble
the curve of normal frequency; nor is there a marked modal length
of working day. The average length of working day is 8.5 hours,
remarkably near the 8-hour day being advocated and carried into
effect by legislation for other occupations. From what has been said
above (p. 16) in the discussion of the facts concerning time spent
in noninstructional activities. Thus this total working day includes
able to the university may be slightly less than the average of 8.5
hours here reported, but the maximum error due to the introduction
of such extraneous professional activities can hardly be more than
0.15 of an hour. *
Relationships of the components of the total working load. (a)
Howr and percentage relationships.--Thus far in this part (B) of
this report we have presented the facts concerning time spent in
instructional activities, in all noninstructional activities (including
personal research, official duties for the university, and professional
activities not otherwise reported), and also concerning the total
working load of members of a university faculty. As we have not
yet directly investigated the relationships that may exist between the
components of the total working load, we now turn to this important
phase of our main problem.
1 Computed on the basis of the 53-day teaching week in operation at the time the data.
were collected.
22 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
The relationship may first be studied by comparing the average
number of hours spent in each of the different kinds of work and in
all work by members of the faculty. These averages will be found
in Table 9. Besides presenting the averages for teaching work
(columns 2 and 3), personal research (columns 4 and 5), noninstruc-
tional activities (columns 8 and 9), and all working time (columns 10
and 11), this table indicates the average number of hours devoted to
“other activities” (columns 6 and 7), i.e., to noninstructional activi-
ties not including personal research. The facts are made somewhat
clearer by Table 10, which presents the percentages the average num-
ber of hours spent in each of the different activities are of the average
total working time per week. This table shows that the average
per cent of the total working time spent in connection with teaching
work for the entire group of 100 instructors whose reports were
usable for this part of our study was 68. Thirty-two per cent was
spent in noninstructional activities and of this time 8 and 24 per cent,
respectively, were devoted to personal research and to other non-
instructional activities. When the reports for 7 deans, 3 librarians,
and 1 other person not considered a full-time instructor are excluded,
the average per cent spent in teaching work rises to 71, the per cent
in noninstructional activities dropping to 29. For this group, re-
search time is higher by 1 per cent than for the entire group of 100
instructors, while the per cent of time spent in other activities drops
by 4. By excluding, in addition to those excluded from group 2, 13
heads of other than one-man departments, thus leaving only those
who may justly be considered full-time instructors, we note another
rise in average per cent of time spent in teaching work, to 74, non-
instructional activities consuming 26 per cent of the total time. Here
we find no anticipated increase in the proportion of time spent in
personal research, although we find a decrease in time spent in other
activities. Heads of other than one-man departments, on the aver-
age, devote only 57 per cent of their working time to teaching, the
remaining 43 per cent being spent in noninstructional activities.
These heads of departments devote a somewhat smaller percentage
of time to personal research than do those in the preceding group,
and more than twice the percentage in other activities.
WORKING LOAD OF FACULTY MEMBERS.
23
TABLE 9–Average number of hours spent in teaching work, personal research,
other activities, all nominstructional activities, and all work by members of
the faculty of the University of Washington.

Average
Average | Average Average number of Total
number of number of number of hours O
hours hours hours devoted to i. f
devoted to devoted to devoted to personal nº # O
teaching personal other research º
Group of faculty members. Work. research. activities. and other Ollſ S.
- activities.
Per | Per | Per | Per | Per | Per | Per | Per | Per | Per
Week. day. Week. day. Week. day. week. day. week. day.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. One hundred instructors 1. . . . . . . . . . . . 31. 7 || 5.8 || 3. 7 || 0.7 || 11.4 || 2. 1 || 15. 1 || 2.7 || 46.8 8.5
2. Eighty-nine instructors (excluding 7
deans, 3 librarians, and 1 other person,
none of these being considered full-
time teachers).--------------------...-- 33. 2 | 6. 0 || 4.0 .7 || 9.4 | 1.7 | 13.4 || 2.4 46.5 8.5
3. Seventy-six onstructors (excluding,
in addition to those omitted from
Group 2, 13 heads of other than one-
man departments) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33.7 6.1 || 4.0 .7 || 7.9 | 1.4 11.9 2.2 45.5 8.3
4. Thirteen heads of other than one-man
departments (who are not also deans). 30. 1 || 5.5 3.6 . 7 || 19. 1 || 3.5 22.7 || 4. 1 || 52.8 9.6
5. Seven deans----------. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.9 || 4. 2 2. 1 . 4 || 23. 3 || 4.2 || 25. 4 || 4.6 48.3 8.8
* All instructors Whose responses could be used in this part of the investigation, including deans, libra-
rians, heads of departments, etc.
TABLE 10–Average per cent of the average total working time spent in teaching
work, personal research, other activities, and all moninstructional activities by
members of the faculty of the University of Washington.”

Non-
Teaching | Personal | Other instrug-
Group of faculty members. work. research. activities. tional
activities.
1 2 4 5
Per cent. | Per cent. | Per cent. | Per cent.
1. One hundred instructors..................................... 68 8 24 32
2. Eighty-nine instructors (excluding 7 deans, 3 librarians, and
and 1 other person, none of these #. considered full-time
teachers)--------------------------------------------- * = * * * * * * * 71 9 20 29
3. Seventy-six instructors (excluding, in addition to those
omitted from Group 2, thirteen heads of other than one-man
departments)----------------------------- ------------------- 74 9 17 26
4. Thirteen heads of other than one-man departments (who
are not also deans)------------------------------------------- 57 7 36 43
5. Seven deans------------------------------------------------- 47 4 48 53
1 Computed from the figures for “hours per week” to be found in Table 9.
The tendencies shown for deans are the same as those for heads of
departments, except that, as is to be anticipated, they are much more
marked for the former group. The total working time of deans is
seen to be approximately equally divided between teaching work and
noninstructional activities. Their average per cent of time spent in
personal research is approximately half that for the preceding group,
while the proportions of time spent in other activities and in teach-
24. THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
| UL"
I
-----
ing work are almost identical. The essence of these facts may be pre-
sented in another way by saying, e. g., that, on the basis of reports
made by 100 members and disregarding distinction between full-time
instructors and those who devote part time to administration, for
every three members of the faculty employed the university may ex-
pect the approximate equivalent of two members devoting all their
working hours to teaching work and one all his time to nominstruc-
tional activities; that for every four full-time instructors employed
the university may expect the approximate equivalent of three in-
structors devoting all their working hours to teaching work and one
all his time to noninstructional activities; that for every two deans
employed the university may expect the approximate equivalent of
one devoting all his working hours to teaching work and one all his
time to noninstructional activities; also, that for every 12 members
of the faculty employed the university may expect the approximate
equivalent of one member devoting all his working time to research.
(b) The coefficients of correlation.—An extension of large signifi-
cance in the study of the relationships of the components of the
total working load is made possible by the investigation of these re-
lationships through the computation of the Pearson coefficient of
correlation and the regression equations. These coefficients and equa-
tions are assembled in Table 11. In the left-hand column of this
table are given the names of each pair of series of data for which the
coefficients and regression equations have been computed. The co-
efficients and equations are seen to have been computed for three
groups of instructors. The group of 100 includes all instructors
whose reports have been so far utilized in this study, among them
7 deans; 3 librarians, devoting only part time to instruction; 13 heads
of other than one-man departments; 2 instructors who, although
carrying a full teaching load, by agreement with the university per-
form other services for it during the time not spent in teaching; and
1 instructor subsidized for investigation. The group of 87 omits the
7 deans, 3 librarians, and the 3 instructors last named. The group
of 76 excludes also the 13 heads of other than one-man departments,
but includes the 2 instructors who by agreement perform the “other
services” for the university. The purpose of the grouping will be-
come manifest as we proceed with the interpretation of the table.
The computation of these coefficients of correlation has made it
possible to investigate the reliability of a statement frequently made,
and an opinion frequently held, in university circles—viz, that a
proper method of encouraging research includes as its most important
feature a general reduction of the teaching schedule of all members
of a faculty. This theory assumes that there is a rather constantly
operating causal relationship between time spent in teaching and
WORKING LOAD OF FACULTY MEMBERS. 25
time spent in research; that as the former increases, the latter de-
creases, and vice versa. If this were true we should find in Table 11
a large negative coefficient of correlation, which is not the case. It
is negative but it is very small, not only when computed for the entire
group of 100 instructors, but also for the group of 87 instructors and,
again, for the group of 76 instructors; i. e., when only those who are
expected to carry a full teaching load, and who have no large and
specially assigned administrative or other function to perform, are
considered." The significance of these small negative correlations
may be better appreciated after quotation from Rugg 4 on the mean-
ing of coefficients of differing magnitudes:
The experience of the present writer in examining many correlation tables
has led him to regard correlation as “negligible * or “indifferent " when r
(the coefficient of correlation) is less than .15 to .20; as “present but low ’’
when r ranges from .15 or .20 to .35 or .40; as being “markedly present’’ or
“marked ” when r ranges from .35 or .40 to .50 or .60; as being “high '' when
it is above .60 or .70.
TABLE 11.-Coefficients of correlation and regression equations.
Coefficients of corre-
lation. Regression equations.
Series of data used in computa-
tion. 100 instructors. | 87 instructors. | 76 instructors.
100 in-
St Tuc-
torS.
87 in-
Struc-
tors.
76 in-
Struc-
torS.
y=
y=
y=
(x) Time spent in teaching
work with (y) time spent in
personal research . . . . . . . . . . . .
(x) Time spent in teaching
work with (y) time spent in
all nominstructional activities.
. (x) Time spent in teaching
work with (y) time spent in
noninstructional activities,
exclusive of personal research
–0.04
–0.36
—0.34
–0, 06
–0, 20
—0, 21
–0.05
—0.11
–0. 07
–0.07y
–0.37y
–0.35y
–0.02x
–0.35x
–0.33x
—0.10y
—0.22y
—0.26y
—0.04X
—0.18x
—0.17X
–0.08y
—0.13y
—0.11y
–0.03x
–0.09x
—0.04X
(x) Time spent in nonin-
structional activities, exclu-
sive of personal research,
with (y) time spent in per-
Sonal research.... . . . . . . . . . . . .
(x) The sum of the time
spent in teaching work and
in noninstructional activi-
ties, exclusive of personal
research, with (y) time spent
in personal research..........
—0.18 –0.14 –0.10 ||—0.32y –0.10x –0.19y –0.10x –0.10y —0.10x
–0. 16 –0.16 —0.11 –0.32y |–0.08x |–0.32y |–0.08x –0.20y —0.06x
The correlation between time spent in teaching work and that
spent in personal research is therefore “negligible.” That is to
* As has already been stated, in this group of 76 are included the two instructors who,
although carrying a full teaching load, by agreement with the university perform other
Services for it during their working time not spent in teaching. Although they should
not properly be in this group in the computation of the coefficient of correlation between
teaching time and personal research, they are properly a part of it for some of the other
coefficients computed, and to keep the groups identical, they are here included. Their
presence affects the coefficient only slightly, invalidating no conclusions.
* Rugg, H. O. Statistical Methods Applied to Education. Houghton Mifflin & Co.,
p. 256.
108399°–19—4
26 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
Say, an instructor who devotes a relatively large amount of time
to teaching is almost as likely to devote a relatively large amount as
he is to devote a relatively small amount of time to personal re-
Search; and, again, one who devotes a relatively small amount of
time to teaching is almost as likely to spend a relatively small amount
of time as he is to devote a relatively large amount of time to personal
research.
It would be unwise and unfair to pass final judgment on the con-
dition just described or to recommend on the basis of the findings so
far mentioned an administrative practice for the adjustment of the
teaching schedule that would be designed to promote research eco-
nomically, without first giving consideration to the relationships
between time spent in teaching and the remaining component of the
total working load, the time spent in noninstructional activities ex-
clusive of research, either in combination with the time spent in
personal research or alone. When there are three components of a
working load it is evident that a consideration of the relationships
of two of them can not be complete if the relationships of the third
are ignored. If a high negative coefficient of correlation should be
found between the time spent in teaching and the time spent in all
noninstructional activities (including both personal research and
other noninstructional activities), our conclusion as to the negligi-
bility of the relationship between teaching time and research time
would be in considerable part invalidated. However, the coefficients
for these two series of data, as set down in Table 11 under B, are seen
to be small, although somewhat larger than for time spent in teach-
ing and time spent in personal research alone. While the correlation
is “present but low ’’ when the data for all instructors, including
deans, librarians, heads of departments, etc., are included in the
computation, it drops to “negligible” when only full-time in-
structors without large and specially assigned administrative or
other functions are included. Almost identical coefficients are found
when time spent in teaching work and time spent in noninstructional
activities, exclusive of personal research, are introduced in the com-
putation (C in Table 11), which seems to indicate that such correla-
tion as is found under B must be largely attributable to time spent
in noninstructional activities exclusive of research. Furthermore,
the correlations are highest when administrative officers and those
with other specially assigned functions are included and most nearly
negligible when they are excluded.
This point of possible weakness of the conclusion as to the almost
negligible relationship between teaching time and personal research
has been further pursued by obtaining the measure of the relation-
ship between the two other sets of data—those given under D and E
in the table. The former set gives the measures of correlation of
WORFCING I.OAD OF FACULTY MEMBERS. 27
time spent in noninstructional activities exclusive of personal re-
search with time spent in personal research. All three coefficients
are so low as to show the correlation to be “negligible” and to prove
these two components of the working load to be far from mutually
exclusive. The latter set gives the correlations between (a) the sum
of the time spent in teaching work and in noninstructional activities
exclusive of personal research and (y) time spent in personal re-
search. Here we see that when the coefficient of correlation is com-
puted for the time spent in all activities (teaching, administration,
office hours, etc.), exclusive of personal research and time spent in
personal research, there results again a small negative coefficient;
when the total working load is divided into these two parts, they
are seen to be only to a slight extent mutually exclusive.
The regression equations of Table 11, introduced in order to give
a somewhat fuller description of the relationships between the com-
ponents of the total working load, also give support to the general
conclusion drawn. The method of reading them from the table is
as follows: For the two series of data under A for all the 100 in-
structors, these equations are ar-0.07 y, and y=0.02a). These equations
may be said to signify that as the amount of time spent in teaching
work increases by a unit of time, the time spent in personal research
tends to decrease by only 0.07 of such unit; and that as the time
spent in personal research increases by one unit, the time spent in
teaching work tends to decrease by only 0.02 of a unit. A glance
at the remaining equations will make clear that in no instance is
there even a remote approach to equality in the values of a; and y.
In most cases they are nearer equality when data for all instructors,
including deans, librarians, heads of other than one-man depart-
ments, etc., are introduced into the computation than when data for
those only who have no large specially assigned administrative or
other functions are included. Even in these cases an increase of one
hour in a does not tend to bring a decrease in y appreciably above
a third of an hour.
Because there are three series of data involved—viz, (1) time
spent in teaching, (2) time spent in personal research, and (3) time
spent in other noninstructional activities—it has been possible to ex-
tend this study of the relationship between them by a method of
computation of multiple correlation demonstrated by Yule." The
coefficients of correlation obtained by this method are as follows:
*Yule, G. U. Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. London, Charles Griffin & Co.,
pp. 238–241.
28 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
One hundred instructors—
r12.8 = −.11
ria.2 = −.35
r23.1 = - .21
Eighty-seven instructors—
r12.8 = −.09
ris.a = - .22
T28.1 = - . 16
Seventy-six instructors—
r12.8 = −.06
Tia.2 = −.08
r23.1 = −.10
The regression equations are as follows:
One hundred instructors—
*1 = - . 1922 – .371s
a', - – .06.1 - . 12, a
a's = – .342, — .34zz
Eighty-seven instructors—
2:1 = - . 152- .28za
22 = −.0621- . 1223
a's = - . 1721 – .2022
Seventy-six instructors—
2, - – .09.2 - . 12.3
22 = −.04.1 - . 1025
a's = – .05×1–.1022
It is seen at once that the coefficients are hardly appreciably larger
than those found by means of the Pearson formula for any two series.
Nor, in the light of the regression equations, except in some of the
instances where administrative officers and other instructors who
have special additional activities assigned them are included, must
we modify the conclusions which our findings up to this point are
compelling. The interpretation of these equations may be illustrated
by reading the first one as follows: When data for all the 100
instructors are included in the computation, for each unit of increase
in the amount of teaching time, there is a tendency to a decrease of
0.19 unit and 0.37 unit, respectively, in the amount of time spent in
personal research and the amount spent in noninstructional activities
other than research. Thus interpreted, the first and third equations—
notably the latter—for the entire group of 100 instructors show an
appreciable relationship between the components. But this dimin-
ishes—in fact, almost disappears—as we exclude from the computa-
tion the data for those instructors with specially assigned administra-
tive or other functions.
WORKING LOAD OF FACULTY MEMBERs. 29
As the facts that have been cited discover no such intimate causal
relationship between the components of the working load as is
implied by those who advocate a general reduction in the teaching
schedule in a university in order to encourage research, it should
be clear that research would not be generally encouraged by such a
reduction. No doubt a general reduction would result in a larger
total amount of time spent in research in a university, as it is to be
expected that those instructors inclined toward research would
devote more time to it if their teaching schedules would permit. But,
manifestly, this would be a most uneconomical method of encour-
agement. What would seem to be a much more economical and prac-
tical method is the reduction of the teaching schedule for individual
instructors who have demonstrated their inclination toward and
ability in research by some measure of productivity in spite of a
normal teaching schedule. Such a reduction should be continued, of
course, only as long as productivity continues. The decision upon
such reduction, or continuance of the reduction after once being
made, should rest with the head of the department in which the
instructor teaches, the dean of his school or college, and the president
of the university.
Although throughout these Several pages devoted to a presentation
and discussion of the coefficients of correlation and regression equa-
tions attention has been particularly directed to the significance to
personal research of the relationships obtaining, it must have been
obvious to the reader that those measures of relationship are not
without significance for the problem of adjustments to be made for
the third component of the working load, the noninstructional activi-
ties exclusive of personal research. A glance at the measures of re-
lationship with a view to discovering their significance for the latter
problem will convince the reader that the interpretation can not be
essentially different from what has been said concerning the former.
On this account, and because the recommendations made elsewhere
in this study (pp. 58–59) are in harmony with these facts, they will be
given no further consideration at this point.
The normality of the week for which data were collected.—Ques-
tion 6 on sheet 1 of the questionnaire (See appendix) asks, “Has the
week reported upon been a fairly normal one? If not, in what
specific respects has it been exceptional?” Before leaving this part
of the report dealing with the facts concerning the working load of
members of the faculty of a university, some presentation of the
trend of the answers to this question should be made for the bearing
they have upon the validity of the study.
In answer to the first part of the question just quoted, 64 persons
answered “no " and 34 “yes.” Of the two remaining, one said there
is “no such thing ” as a normal week and the other neglected to
30 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A TUNIVERSITY.
answer. Unfortunately, the Second portion of the question was so
put that it was often far from clear whether the abnormality, if any,
was in the direction of a lighter week, of a heavier one, or a normal
one as to total load, being abnormal merely because of a shift of time
from one component to another, as, e. g., less time spent in teaching
work and more devoted to research. Despite this difficulty of inter-
pretation, on the basis of the inner testimony of the answers, they
were classified as follows: Of the 64 who reported the week as ab-
normal, (a) for 31 it was or was probably below normal, (b) for 6 it
was or was probably above normal, (c) for 23 it was or was probably
normal as to total working load, but abnormal because of a shift of
time from one component to another, while (d) for 4 it was impos-
sible to make any sort of conjecture as to the nature of the ab-
normality. By adding those under (b) and (c) in this subclassifica-
tion to the 34 who affirmed the normality of the week, we have a total
of 63 for whom the opinion as to the normality of the week was that
the working load for the week was probably as great or greater than
usual, as against 31 for whom it may have been less than usual. The
testimony of the answers to this question thus seems to point toward
a week to Some extent under normal. However, the writer is in-
clined not to accept at its full value such an interpretation. Other
than for a few members of the faculty carrying light teaching
Schedules at this time of year, in order to balance with a very heavy
Schedule during short courses no longer in session at the time re-
ported upon, and for a few whose classes were so hard hit by the
student exodus in the military emergency of the spring of 1917 that
there were no students left in these classes, there could not have
been many whose working load was notably diminished. The week
was abnormal, certainly, but the abnormality consisted not so much
in the diminished working load as in the general disturbance of a
military crisis. Faculty members did not cease their work. Further-
more, it should be remembered that these opinions are merely opin-
ions. Few or no members of a faculty regularly take such an
account of “time spent’ as was required for our questionnaire, so
that they could have had nothing more than a general impression—
not figures, certainly—upon which to base a comparison from which
to derive the opinion asked for. And, as has already been pointed
out, because of the poor statement of the question they are most
often opinions on normality in general and not specifically normality
of the working load. After all things are considered, and after can-
vassing the answers to this question very carefully, one is not left
with the impression that the week was a notably exceptional one as
to the amount of time spent in all professional activities.
FACTORS DETERMINING TEACHING LOAD. 31
C. THE FACTORS DETERMINING THE TEACHING LOAD IN A
UNIVERSITY.
The factors investigated.—In giving thought to the problem of
investigating the time consumed in connection with classroom in-
struction it may at once occur to the reader that this factor is itself
determined by what may be designated as subfactors, and that, in
framing a questionnaire which is planned to secure data bearing on
the total time expenditure, this questionnaire should be so devised
as to secure data from which the presence and influence of such sub-
factors may be analyzed. Such has been the effort in the present
instance. The hypothetical subfactors (which will hereafter be
referred to as factors) whose possible influence the questionnaire
and the study based upon the responses to it were designed to
discover are the following:
(a) The department or subject. It is frequently contended by
instructors that the subject taught is influential in determining one's
teaching load. Horizontal column 1 on sheet 2 was introduced to
assist in analyzing the effect of this factor.
(b) Previous ea perience or inea perience with the work is often
alleged to be a factor; to teach courses new to the instructor, it is
said, requires more time than to teach courses which one has already
conducted. To make it possible to search out its influence, question
4 on sheet 2 was introduced.
(c) Elementary or advanced character of the work, i. e., in what
year or years the course is normally taken. We are often told that
courses taken by students who are freshmen or sophomores take less
time than those taken by juniors and seniors, and that the latter
again require less time than graduate courses. Question 5 (sheet 2)
inquires into this. - -
(d) Size of class.-Horizontal column 6 calls for the enrollment
during the semester, and is thus directed to find such influence as
this factor may have.
(e) The influence of the mode of presentation, e.g., recitation, lec-
ture, laboratory, etc., is sought for by answers to Nos. 7, 9, 11, 13, 15,
17, 19, and 21.
(f) The discovery of the effect of repetition of courses in concur-
Tent sections is made possible by the requests (sheet 1, d) that “if the
same preparation suffices for two or more sections of the same course,
distribute the time in equal parts to each of the sections,” and (c) to
“make a report for each course or section for which you have teach-
ing responsibility.” * -
(g) Having the instructors’ names and knowing their rank will
help in evaluating the latter as a factor.
32 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
The unit of instruction used.—The unit of instruction used in the
effort to analyze the influence of the hypothetical factors named is
what is commonly known as the clock hour. This is particularly con-
venient because daily programs in higher institutions are usually
planned in full clock-hour units or multiples of full clock hours."
For the purpose in hand the clock hour has distinct advantages over
two other units that have sometimes been used or, suggested, the stu-
dent hour, defined by Buckingham * as “one student taught one hour
a week for a semester,” and the credit hour, which is the “counter’’
used in totaling the credit received by the student. The student hour
may be advocated for use in attacking the problem of educational
finance in a higher institution. It may be that for this purpose, as
suggested by Buckingham,” it is the best unit so far devised. Since
we are here only concerned with the problem of the proper method
of determining the teaching load, despite the fact that this teaching
load may have important bearings upon the problem of cost, decision
upon this point is not within the province of the present investiga-
tion. The reader has probably noted that the investigator is not
leaving out of account the possible influence of the number of stu-
dents (“size of class”) which the student hour is designed to recog-
nize, but that it is merely one of a number of hypothetical factors
to be investigated by means of the clock-hour unit. The use of the
credit hour as the unit for investigation is at once seen to be inade-
quate when attention is called to the fact that its use would tend to
make it impossible to analyze the influence of the mode of presenta-
tion (recitation, lecture, laboratory, etc.). As further justification
for the use of this clock hour as the unit of investigation will be
found in the facts themselves, there is little need here of defending
it at greater length.
The particular procedure in using the clock hour as the unit in
analyzing the influence of the several factors has been to charge up
to each clock hour of instruction all work done in connection with it,
both within and without the class period. This has been made pos-
sible by the organization of the second sheet of the questionnaire
(See appendix). For instance, under rubric 7, the instructor was
asked to report the hours of recitation in a course he was teaching
and, under rubric 8, the amount of time spent in preparation for
these hours of recitation. Each pair of succeeding rubrics to and in-
cluding rubric 22 calls for a similar report on another mode of pre-
sentation. Rubric 23 asks for a report on the time spent in the
* Of course, a small portion of the hour—5 to 10 minutes—is allowed to students
for moving from one classroom to another or from one building to another.
* Buckingham, B. R. Critical Present-Day Issues in the Administration of State and
Higher Education. School and Society, 6 (Dec. 22, 1917) : 722.
8 Loc. cit.
FACTORS DETERMINING TEACHING LOAD. 33
*w-
“correction of written and other work” in connection with the
course, and rubric 24 for time spent “in other work for the courses
listed not reported elsewhere.” Thus, all time spent in connection
with a course was reported. From these reports the total amount of
work per clock hour of each mode of presentation for each course
was computed. Usually it was a very simple matter to make such
a computation and to distribute to each clock hour its proper portion
of additional work reported under rubrics 23 and 24. Sometimes
such distribution required the use of careful judgment, as in the
cases where two or more modes of presentation were reported for a
single course. In a few instances, where no safe judgment could be
arrived at, the figures for a course were omitted in assembling the
tables presented in this part of the report. Moreover, in assembling
the tables no figures were introduced for clock hours of instruction
for which the person reporting them was not responsible for all the
work." What prompted such exclusion was the aim to have the final
figures representative of the clock hour of instruction when its full
load was being carried by an instructor. From these amounts of
work, in hours for each clock hour, the averages” of the numbers of
hours of work per clock hour of instruction were readily computed
and these are presented in the tables which follow. These averages
are computed from the reports of 106 members of the faculty of the
University of Washington—i. e., approximately 60 per cent of all
teaching members. Altogether, 1,684+!, clock hours of instruction
are involved. ,5%
1 See direction (c) on sheet 1 of the questionnaire reproduced in the appendix.
* The average was used throughout this study because it is the measure of central
tendency which is most influenced by extreme items in an array. It is believed that ex-
tremes should carry their full influence in an investigation of this nature.
34
THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
TABLE 12.-Average number of hours of work: per clock hour of instruction, b
mode of presentation, and by subject and subject group.

§ - - - - Mixed lecture &
£ Recitation. Lecture. and discussion. Oral quiz.
O
—º
Q
E sº | # § 5 { § 5 # 5 § º: 5 §
Subject, department, or | #5 | # § * . . ; § * 3 f * , 3 § P4
•r- ºri - tº e g -> - º
- grOup. ‘s 3. §§ ăgă 33 ### 33 #3; #3 ###
$—t o;c; 6, c. o, c. o, c.
# ## ###| #3 | #3 | ## ###| #3 | #:
# || 5 |###| 5 |###| 5 |###| 5 | is:
}* C & !-- C C, §: SS § 3'5
Z. Z. <! 2. <! Z. <! Z. <!
Foreign language............. 23 || 263 1.77 15 4. 72 27 2.75 7 1.98
Chinese-------........... 1 4 1.58 --------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------
French. ----------------- 7 74 1.49 10 3.32 5 4.48 2 3.50
German----------------- 6 66 1.91 1 3. 83 10 2.38 --------|--------
Greek------------------- 2 15 1.89 |------..."-------- 4 2.67 3 1.28
Italian.------------------ 1 4 1.79 |----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------
Latin-------------------- 3 32 1.83 ||--------|-------- 3 . 19 2 1.50
Scandinavian............ 1 12 1.51 1 4.17 3 2.53 |--------|--------
Spanish.----------------- 4 56 2. 14 3 9.89 2 1.75 --------|--------
£nglish ---------------------- 7 || 36 1. 79 5 1.25 19 2.22 |--------|--------
Mathematics.----------------- 8 42 1.61 10 3.56 37 1.86 3 1. 72
Social studies----------------- 5 7% 2.00 15 4.38 29% 2.63 8 1. 13
Economics--------------- 2 7# 2.00 2 6.33 20% 2.40 3 1.00
History------------------ 1 --------|-------- 9 || 5.08 ||--------|--...... 5 1.20
Political science......... 1 ---------------- 4 1.83 --------|--------|--------|--------
Sociology---------------- 1 |-------- • * * * * * * | * * * * * * * * | * * * * * * * * 9 3.14 |--------|--------
#ly and psychology.... 4 9 1.63 11 2.48 15 2.21 7 1. 10
Oriental --------------------- 1 ---------------- 10 1:57 --------|----------------|--------
Education.------------------- 4 --------|-------- 6 1.94 39 2.66 --------|-------.
Science ---------------------- 16 21 2. 21 58 2.53 35 2.08 18 1.94
Astronomy-------------- 1 4 2.81 5 2. 70 1 1.25 --------|--------
Bacteriology------------- 1 |------------------------|-------- 5 1.77 --------|--------
Botany------------------ 3 2 1.75 13 2.00 6 1.69 |--------|--------
-- Chemistry--------------- 3 ---------------- 16 2. 69 2 2.75 8 1.44
Geology----------------- - 2 --------|-------- 2 4.00 19 2.16 i--------|------- '-
Physics------------------ 4 15 2.11 13 3. 73 2 3.00 6 2.75
Zoology------------------ 2 ---------------- 9 2.74 l--------|-------- 4 1. 73
Home economics-------------. 4 5 1.00 5 4.80 9 2.09 |--------|--------
Physical education. .......... 2 1 1.50 1 3.13 --------|--- • * as a e i s sº * * * * * * : * * * * * * * *
Journalism ------------------ 1 --------|-------- 8 3.06 |--------|--------|--------|--------
Architecture.----------------- 1 l--------|-------- 4 3.25 --------|-------- 1} 1.00
rt-------------------------- 1 10 1.52 --------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------
AMusic.----------------------- 2 14 2.00 4 1.44 2 6.67 --------|--------
Engineering - --------------- 13 24 2.00 9% 1.99 27 2.20 2 2.11
Civil--------------------- 5 13 1.83 ---------------- 10 3.29 |--------|--------
Electrical---------------- 3 2 1.58 % 1.50 12 1.80 --------|--------
Mechanical.............. 5 9 2.36 9 2.02 5 1.00 2 2.11
Forestry.--------------------- 3 5 1.13 2 || 3.75 6 1.50 --------|--------
Mining. --------------------- 3 # 1.50 4} | 1.72 8 3.77 --------|--------
Pharmocy ------------------- 2 8 1.74 4 2.21 --------|-------- 1 1.00
Library economy............. 3 1 2.67 2 4.04 4. 4.40 l.-------|--------
0.70- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 28 3.60 --------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------
Total.----------------- 106 || 475 | 1.89 174 || 2.98 || 257% 2.41 || 473 | 1.62
º a-T
aſ “j S < t , § ºf F 3 * * * S * *-
| n 4 × 2 . " : " ; : ** - ~ h
º *
2 s. 7.8 x 2. “ ( = 6 * 3: ... 2 17, 353
47.hs 97. 7 & . $ 77
- u - º, * .* | V
7-), Sº Y 1, 1 & -* q 8, 8
- ; + s
* ...? -.” ^{ 7 2 4. * 6 ë W { Q. 5"
4.4333; 1, 2 x = 0 , 2-, 7% "
: … see *2
63 S. 1, 2 × 2 3 O. 6 +
13
}. 7 = 1 & 2 O -
(, & Sº I
“.. - --~ ºr 51
s----> - - We -
- ... , …" - as - i
z º. 3 e 2-1, S 4 c 3'l
" ... tº W. & -
A wºre? - = |* * *
FACTORS DETERMINING TEACHING LOAD. . 35
TABLE 12.-Average number of hours of work per clock hour of instruction by
mode of presentation and by Subject and subject group—Continued.

. Seminar Laboratory. Shop Field
Subject, department, or | # 5 º # ă e # 5 º # 5 . 'S E .
- *—s rº % = | <- ...; e to #: *— …; $- * 3 ºr E
53 |Fă ă = 3 ăgă 33 ###| = 3 |###| #3 |###
# = | 93.5 | # 3 || 93.5 || 3 & 23:5 || 5 § g35 | # 3 || 93.5
3= | ##| ##| | #3 || 3: | #3 | # |##| ##| | #F#
5 |###| 3 #.3 ă ###| 5 #.3 || 3 | #.3
c P. C. C. P. C S) P. © CŞ c > C ~5 p ;: O S
Z. <! Z. < Z <! Z. <! Z -:
Foreign language............ 6 1.17 4 2.40 -------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------
€rman- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 3.25 -------|--------|------ • s = • * * * - I - e s s s e s i - - - - e º e
Greek------------------- 5 1.10 ---------------|-------|---------------|-------|--------------
Scandinavian. ---------. 1 1.50 -------|--------|-------|----------------------|--------------
Spanish------------------------------- 2 1.54 ---------------4---------------------|-------
English --------------------- 45 1. 14 11% 2.27 1-------|--------|--------------|-------|-------
Social Studies... ------------ 4} | 1.11 2 1.00 -------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------
- Economics-------------- 2} | 1.00 -------|--------|-------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------
Political Science---------|-------|--..... 2 1.00 ---------------|-------|-------|-------|-------
*80ciology................ 2 1.25 -------|--------|-------|--------|--------------|-------|-------
Philosophy and psychology---|-------|--...-- 2 2.05 2 1.67 -------|-------|-------|-------
Education ------------------ 2 1.00 6 2.64 l-------|--------|-------|-------|-------|-------
Science---------------------- 2 2.65 2 2.75 164 1.26 -------|-------|--------------
Astronomy--------------|-------|------- 2 2.75 12 1.19 |-------|-------|-------|-------
Botany-----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------- 28 1.13 -------|-------|-------|-------
Chemistry---------------|-------|-------|-------|-------- 30 1.17 1-------|-------|--------------
Geology----------------- 2 2.65 -------|-------- 24 1.35 -------|-------|-------|-------
Physics-----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------- 39 1.37 -------|--------------|-------
Zoology-----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------- 31 1.30 -------|-------|-------|-------
Home economics............. 7 1.00 2 1.50 40 1.36 -------|-------|--------------
Physical education........... 7 1.27 -------|-------- 23 1-16 l-------|-------|--------------
4rchitecture.----------------|-------|-------|--------------- 1. 1.00 l-------|-------|--------------
rt-------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------- 10 1.18 -------|-------|--------------
Engineering----------------- 3 1.00 l-------|-------- 176# 1. 17 60 | 1.30 !-------|------.
Civil--------------------|-------|--------------|-------- 95 1.25 -------|-------|-------|-------
Electrical.-------------- 3 1.00 -------|-------- 36% 1.20 |------ - I - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - I - - - - - - -
Mechanical.-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------- 45 0.98 60 | 1.30 -------|-------
Forestry--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------- 4 1.11 -------|------- 60 1.17
Mining --------------------- 3 1.00 -------|-------- 46 1.07 3 | 1.00 l-------|-------
Pharmacy-------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------- 12 1.19 -------|-------|-------|-------
Library economy-------------|-------|-------|-------|-------. 14 1.33 -------|-------|-------|-------
Law------------------------|-------|--------------|-------. 6 2.26 --------------|-------|-------
Total.----------------- 79} | 1.18 29% 2.24 || 498; 1.23 63 | 1.28 60 1.17

1. The mode of presentation as a factor.—The influence of the
mode of presentation as a factor may be seen at a glance by refer-
ence to Table 12, which presents in the lowest horizontal column
the total number of clock hours of each mode of presentation (reci-
tation, lecture, mixed lecture and discussion, etc.) and the average
number of hours of work both in classroom and out per clock hour
of such instruction. Striking differences between the several modes
of presentation are at once manifest. While the average number of
hours of work per clock hour of instruction for recitation is 1.89, for
a clock hour of lecture it is approximately an hour greater. In fact,
lecture is seen to be the most arduous of the modes of presentation.
Mixed lecture and discussion is almost midway between recitation and
lecture. Oral quiz requires a somewhat smaller time expenditure per
clock hour than does recitation. The time investment in Scheduled
conference seems to be almost limited to the clock hour of confer-
ence itself; i. e., there is an expenditure of but 0.18 of an hour in
36 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
addition to the clock hour of instruction. Seminars on an average
require the expenditure of 2.24 hours of work per clock hour, ranging
between recitation and lecture. Laboratory, shop, and field require
about the same time investment as scheduled conference hours. We
have in these figures support for some of the distinctions that have
for many years been made in our rule of thumb methods of deter-
mining the teaching hours of instructors in higher institutions. But
the question may well be raised as to whether, in the light of these
facts, the systems of weighting in use have been just to all concerned,
and whether they have recognized all of the important differences
that are here discovered. -
2. The subject or subject group as a factor.—Table 12 reveals also
the influence of the subject or subject group as a factor. This may
be seen by glancing down, e. g., the vertical column headed “Reci-
tation.” A clock hour of recitation in foreign language is seen to
require an average of 1.77 hours of work. The same is essentially
true of English. A clock hour of recitation in mathematics requires
slightly less time. The numbers of clock hours of recitation upon
which the averages for the social studies and for philosophy and
psychology are based, are probably too small to furnish valid com-
parisons. The departments of oriental literature and education re-
port no recitation work. One or the other of the two reasons just
given must exclude from comparison as to this mode of presentation
the following subjects: Home economics, physical education, jour-
nalism, architecture, forestry, mining, pharmacy, and library econ-
omy. A clock hour of recitation in the sciences is seen to require
more hours of work than any of those so far considered. Art requires
less time than any of the groups, music and engineering slightly
less than the sciences, and law emphatically more—in fact, almost
twice the average for all subjects. -
The reader will find it profitable to glance down each of the re-
maining vertical columns of this table in the same manner as has
just been demonstrated for the recitation column, noting differences
in the average number of hours of work for each of the subjects.
In doing so it is probably safest to give little heed to differences
where the number of clock hours used in computation has been less
than 10, as such small numbers of hours are more likely to give
unrepresentative averages than are larger numbers. The columns
reporting the facts for oral quiz, scheduled conference, seminar, shop,
and field contain but a small proportion of instances of subjects
where 10 or more clock hours are reported, and will therefore reveal
less as to the influence of the subject in determining the teaching
load than do the remaining columns of the table. But even these
FACTORS DETERMINING TEACHING LOAD.
37
#
contain some facts of significance, which, with those of the other
columns, point to the advisability of giving the subject or subject
group recognition as a real factor in determining the teaching load.
TABLE 13.−Average number of hours of work per clock hour of instruction
by mode of presentation and by the division in which the work is normally
taken.

Lower division. Upper division. Graduate division.
i. #. - Average
Illinºlber Ill III.108T number
Mode of presentation. Nºbºr jūs Number j|Number | j
of clock of Work of clock of Work of clock f k
hours of jk|hours of jºck hours of O Y.
jºu. |percloºk|iºu. |per glºº inju. perClock
tion hour of | “... hour of “. hour of
º instruc- - instruc- - instruc-
tlon. tion. tion.
Recitation....... -------. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5% 1.74 103} 2.13 19 2.99
Pºcture----------------------------------- 58 2.82 47% 3.03 13 3.84
Mixed lecture and discussion.............. 65% 1.84 107 2.48 11 3.69
Tal Culz- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 273 1.64 4 1. 83 2 3. 50
Scheduled conference...................... 32% 1. 07 12 1.28 6 1.08
€ſſilſlar----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21% 2.75
Laboratory-------------------------------- 188 1.26 198; 1. 17 11 1.35
; • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 63 1.28 l----------|--------------------|----------
Field.-----------------------------------------------|---------- 12 1.17 --------------------
3. The elementary or advanced character of the work as a factor.—
Table 13 presents the results of an effort to analyze the influence of
the elementary or advanced character of the work as a factor. Ref-
erence to sheet 2 of the questionnaire used in the investigation will
show that the “ year or years in which the course is normally taken º'
were called for. The instructor was directed to designate (see No. 5
and footnote on sheet 2 of the questionnaire) the year or years by
number, e. g., “1 for freshmen, 2 for sophomores, 5 for graduate
courses and professional courses requiring four years of previous
training, etc.” As some courses drew their students normally from
more than one class, the answers of the instructors were given in
combinations of numbers, as 1–2, 2–3, 1–4, or 3–5. Under “Lower
division ” in Table 13 have been included courses reported as 1, 2,
or 1–2; under “Upper division,” 3, 4, and 3–4; under “Graduate,”
5 and 5–6. In assembling the materials for this table courses re-
ported with other numbers, e. g., 2–3, 1–4, 3–5, 4–5, etc., were ex-
cluded. The figures for somewhat less than 300 of the total of 1,684
seven-twelfths clock hours of instruction included in the present
study were omitted from this table. That is to say, the figures for
slightly more than 1,300 clock hours of instruction have been intro-
duced into the effort to discover the influence of the factor under
consideration.
For the recitation mode of presentation, the average number of
hours of work per clock hour of instruction in the lower division is
38 + THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
1.74; in the upper division, 2.13; in the graduate courses, 2.99. We
note at once in the figures for this mode of presentation a definite
progression in the amount of work required per clock hour of in-
struction as we proceed from courses in the lower division to those
of graduate caliber. This is also true for the three succeeding modes
of presentation in the table, lecture, mixed lecture and discussion,
and oral quiz, although the numbers of clock hours involved in the
computation of the average number of hours of work in the mode
last named in the columns for upper-division and graduate work are
so few as to justify little confidence in the findings as to this mode
of presentation in advanced work. As the mode last named seems
to be seldom used in upper-division and graduate work, this weakness
is a matter of but slight concern. Scheduled conference, while
requiring practically no time outside the clock hour of instruction
itself in the lower division, requires approximately one-fourth of
an hour of such additional time in the upper division. For this
mode in graduate work we are again confronted by a number of
clock hours too small to give confidence in the average number of
hours of work computed and introduced in the table. As the seminar
mode of presentation is almost exclusively used in graduate classes,
no opportunity or need appears for comparison with upper or lower
division figures for this mode. The laboratory mode of presentation
does not seem to require more work per clock hour of instruction in
the upper division than in the lower division, as do most of the
preceding modes. As the averages in this mode for the lower and
upper divisions have been computed from almost 200 clock hours of
instruction each, this finding is well established. Laboratory work
of graduate caliber seems to require slightly more time than that of
undergraduate grade. The figures for shop and field work are so
near those for laboratory work that they hardly merit separate at-
tention and, as far as the influence of the factors under consideration
is concerned, may be similarly recognized in fixing the teaching load
of members of the instructional staff. Thus, the evidence of the in-
fluence of this factor of the elementary or advanced character of
the work is clear; injustice would result from an apportionment of
clock hours of instruction to members of a department staff without
regard to it. -
|, n - - - , ‘a - 'a. ,'i ºf
| * | 2. z- | ||
| TI CA. Ti- ... 3 4
FACTORS DETERMINING TEACHING LOAD.
39
TABLE 14.—Number of hours of work per clock hour of instruction by mode of
presentation and by the instructors’ previous eacperience or inea perience with
the Course.
First-time work. Non first time All work.
WOTº.
†: ; à:
Modo of presentation. Number ºf Number | Pºpeſ | Number | Pºpº
of clock º Of clock º: of clock º º:
hours of 94.W. hours of 9: Yºº hours of 91 Wºr
instruc per gloº isºlº |perclock | jºu. |Per Clock
tion. hour of | “... hour of | “...i. hour of
inStruc- * instruc- tº inStruc-
tion. tion. tion.
Recitation. ............................... 83} 2. 07 38.9% 1. 86 473 1. 89
Lecture------------ : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36% 4.48 137% 2.58 174 2.98
Mixed lecture and discussion.............. 36% 3. 07 221 2. 30 257% 2.41
Oral quiz---------........................ 4 1.65 433 1. 62 47% 1.62
Scheduled conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% 1.00 74 1. 18 79% 1.18
eminar------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 3.21 23% 1.99 29. 2.24
Laboratory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35} 1.33 462; 1.22 498% 1.23
hºp---------------------------------------------...l.......... 63 1.28 63 1.28
Field--------------. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * sº I am s m an ºs e º sm as as 60 1. 17 60 1. 17
4. Previous ea perience or inea perience with the course as a
factor.—That the instructor's previous experience or inexperience
with the work of a course is a real factor in determining his actual
teaching load may be seen by a brief examination of the figures as-
Sembled in Table 14. This table presents the average number of
hours of work per clock hour of instruction when the work is classi-
fied as to “first-time ’’ and “nonfirst-time ’’ work, classes correspond-
ing to the two kinds of answers that were made to question 4 on the
Second sheet of the questionnaire reading as follows: “Is this the
first time you have taught the course?” Work “new” to the in-
structor requires more time per clock hour than does work that he
has previously taught. This is true for all modes of presentation
for which we have figures that allow a comparison except scheduled
conference. For this mode and for oral quiz the small numbers of
“first-time ’’ clock hours of instruction forbid assurance for con-
clusions that may be drawn. The ratios that the “first-time” aver-
ages bear to the “nonfirst-time ’’ averages are not the same for all
modes of presentation, as may be seen from the following: For
recitation this ratio is 1.11:1.00; for lecture, 1.73:1.00; for mixed
lecture and discussion, 1.33:1.00; ..for seminar, 1.61:1.00; for lab-
oratory, 1.09:1.00. For the recitation and laboratory modes of pre-
sentation the difference seems to be less marked than for lecture,
mixed lecture and discussion, and Seminar. -
5. The rank of the instructor as a factor.—Table 15 presents the
average number of hours of work per clock hour of instruction by
rank of instructors—i. e., the average number of hours of work per
clock hour for instructors, for assistant professors, for associate pro-
fessors, and for full professors. An examination of these averages will
40 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
fail to discover any consistent influence of rank upon the time con-
sumed in carrying the work. For recitation the average drops from
instructor to assistant professor and again to associate professor,
but rises again to its highest point for the full professor. For lecture
there is no evidence of such influence, as the averages are higher for
instructor and associate professor than for assistant professor and
professor. For mixed lecture and discussion the averages are prac-
tically equal for all ranks. For none of the remaining modes of pre-
Sentation for which comparisons are possible does any consistent
influence of rank make its appearance. Such differences as are evi-
dent must either be purely casual or due to factors other than that of
the rank of the instructor—more probably the latter.
TABLE 15.-Average number of hours of work per clock-hour of instruction by
mode of presentation and by the rank of the instructor.

------ - - Assistant | Associate *A** * * * : * ** . *
Instructo S. professors. professors. Professors. All work.
** £ *=4 &#- tº **** tº *= go
3 #3 || 3 |## | 3 |## | 3 |## | 3 |##
# |33 | # 35 | # 33 # 35 | # 33
O 5. C £º O Hº O ɺ O º: .**
e # = 33 || 3 a 5% | H = |s? | H = 33 || 5 a 3%
Mode of presentation. A 5 |: . 248 |33 || 2 3 |#3 : 3 & #3 – 22 3 |#3 .
§§ 3; 3) # 35 ; # 3'S g| #3 ||3: P = | # 33 3
ã3 ||3:3| 33 ||3:3| 33 ||3:3| 33 ºf H;3| 33 ||3:3
šā āšš Šà |###|##|###|##|###|##|###
... § |: S. Sº | < *s P. S. ... as Q. C. -, - © | *- :- CAS
o 3 ||3:24 = o º 5.24 E. Sº |E|34 B | Sº F24 E| o ż #24 E.
## 3:#| ##|###| ##|###| ##|###| ##|###
#" |###| #" |###| #" |###| #" |###|#" |###
5 § 5 |###| 5 |###| 5 |###| 5 |###
f Z |<! Z, -d 2 |<! Z, -ſ; Z, -d
Recitation. ----------------------------- 1584 | 1.92 || 138% | 1.78 54 | 1.66 | 124 2.27 || 475 1. 89
Lecture--------------------------------- 38; 3.95 || 36% 2.85 25 | 3.72 74 2.28 174, 2.98
Mixed lecture and discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2, 37 83 ſ 2.36 37 || 2. 71 || 2.46 257% 2.41
Oral quiz------------------------------- 21 1. 52 133 | 1.57 ------|------ 13 | 1.84 || 47% 1.62
Scheduled conference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13} | 1.00 1.37 ------|------ 23 | 1. 13 || 79% | 1.18
Seminar---------------------------------------|------ 2.82 6 || 2.82 14} | 1.64 29% 2.24
Laboratory----------------------------- 1794 | 1.26 187 | 1.23 73 | 1.09 58; 1.29 || 498} | 1.23
Shop.------------------------------------ 60 | 1.30 3 | 1.00 ------|------|------|------ 63 1.28
Field.-----------------------------------------|------| 60 | 1.17 ------|------|------|------ 6() i. 17
6. Repetition in concurrent sections as a factor.—Table 16 was as-
sembled for the purpose of investigating the influence of repetition
of courses in parallel sections upon the instructor's teaching load.
Repetition here means repetition in concurrent sections by the same
instructor, not by different instructors. In the columns headed “Re-
peated * are set down the averages of the numbers of hours of work
done in connection with a clock hour of instruction in such repeated
sections, and in the columns headed “Nonrepeated ”the averages of
the numbers of hours of work done in connection with a clock hour
of instruction of courses or work not being presented by the instruc-
tor in such parallel sections. In the computation of these averages
no figures for work in subject groups containing no repeated sections
were used, as it was believed that these might improperly affect the
FACTORS DETERMINING TEACHING LOAD. 41
results. To avoid undue influence of the factor already designated
as the “elementary or advanced character of the work,” the compari-
sons are made by the divisions in which the work is found, as “Lower
division ” and “Upper division,” but the averages for the totals of
these two divisions have also been introduced (“Both lower and
upper division ”). Because of the frequent statement in college and
university circles to the effect that repetition tends to lighten the
teaching load, one is not a little surprised that these figures disclose no
consistently appearing or notable differences between the averages for
repeated and nonrepeated work. In fact, the differences found are
more frequently in favor of the nonrepeated than of the repeated
work. Only in the lecture and mixed lecture and discussion modes
of upper-division work do we find the anticipated difference. In the
former instance, while large, we can have but little confidence in the
difference, because only 6 clock hours were involved in the computa-
tion of the average for repeated work. In the latter case the difference
is only 0.2 of an hour. Partial explanation of this absence of a marked
difference in favor of repeated work may be found in the policy in
this institution—common to many higher institutions—of avoiding
much repetition of the sort under consideration in the assignment of
courses. It is to be noted that even in the lower division there is a
relatively small proportion of repeated work. Examination of the
Original questionnaires shows that such repetition as appears is usu-
ally two-section repetition, three-section and four-section repetition
being very infrequently reported. Furthermore, the numbers of hours
of work per clock hour of instruction include all work done in con-
nection with a course, comprehending the reading of papers as well as
preparation. While time spent in preparation per clock hour of in-
struction may be reduced by repetition, this would not be true of the
reading of papers. On the basis of the findings of the present investi-
gation, there seems to be no justification, with conditions similar to
those obtaining at the time the data were gathered, for admitting
repetition as a significant factor in fixing teaching loads for members
of the faculty of a university.
42 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
TABLE 16.-Average number of hours of work per clock hour of instruction by
mode of presentation and by repetition or nonrepetition of the work.


iv-ici & gº º Both lower and upper
Lower division. Upper division. division.
Non- Non- lº Non-
Repeated. repeated. Repeated repeated. Repeated. repeated.
* U2 — **t C/2 ;- **t U2 — *H to $– &t=| tº *=4 º 8–
; ; ; ; #3 || 3 |## | 3 |## | 3 |## | 3 |##
Mode of presentation. #3 || 9,5 | * |9,3 # 35 | 5 ©,3 || 3 |9.3 | #: S.E.
# =2 | 3 || 3 || 3 ||=2 | # 52 || 5 ||=2 | 3 |52
# = |s|3 | H = |33 || 5 a 33 | H = 33 || 5 = 33 | H = |33
#3 |#9 g|#3 |gºal #3 |#9 a £3 |$º g|#3 |#3; #3 |#9 a
3 & 3 tº 3 | < 3 ||3: 3| |& & F : 3 || |& 3 ||3 = 8 || 3 & 5 tº 5 || 3 & # = 3
& 5 |E|3: e = 5 §§ 3 ; 5 § co º äää s = |E 33 c = |E 3:
35 |E *š| E |E *š| 5 |E *š| 35 | E ºff 35 |E P-3| <5 |E *ś
9 : |H|24 E| o ż |#24 E|| C ; ; 14 E o ż 5.84 E. © 2 || 8,14 E | C Z | H 24 E.
* E |sº E! tº £ as #5 | ##| |<º E | #3 |&#5 | #3 |&# = | # E | < * :
9 " | St S ºn g?" | Sº S v || 2 " | S6 oz. do “r- St. Sº 2 g- $6 c ≤ | g " 86 Sº 2
£ 3 > 3 || 5 |###| 3 ||3: #| 3 |###| = |3 =3| 3 ||3: E
5 :- C C | E > C C ºd ... o o ºf : o c | B : C C : B > o o
Z |<! Z |<! Z |<! Z |<! Z |<! 2. -d
Recitation. ---------------- 70} | 2.58 224 | 1.72 | 12 3.00 62 2.04 || 82} | 2.01 || 286 | 1.79
Lecture-------------------- 14 . 17 33 62 || 6 1.94 30 || 3.31 || 20 2.80 63 2.95
Mixed lecture and discus-
Sion---------------------- 19% 2.06 36 | 1. 72 16 2. 22 81 2.42 || 35% 2. 13 || 117 2.20
Oral quiz------------------- 12 | 1.88 7 | 1.37 ------|------|------|------|- .* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | * * * * * *
Laboratory.------.......... 78 || 1. 26 97 | 1.26 41; 1.19 92 | 1. 16 || 1193 | 1.24 189 | 1.21

7. Size of class as a factor.—The last of the hypothetical factors
in the determination of the teaching load whose influence this study
was aimed to discover is the size of the class. Before turning our
attention to the averages presented in Table 17, which essays an
analysis for this factor, it is advisable to point out the weaknesses of
the data from which they have been computed. Question 6 of sheet
2 of the blank inquiry (see appendix) calls for the enrollment of
each class and section during the semester. Under fully normal
conditions as to class enrollments, the answers to this question would
have served adequately the purpose under consideration. At the
time the investigation was originally projected this would have been
true; but, owing to the large exodus of students that took place dur-
ing the spring of 1917 in response to the war emergency and before
the questionnaire was sent out to the members of the faculty for
those classes enrolling large proportions of male students especially,
the enrollment during the semester would not in many cases cor-
respond to the numbers in the same classes during the school week
of May 14–19 upon which instructors were asked to report. The
incidence of the withdrawals from all courses and classes obviously
can not be assumed to be proportionate to the enrollment for the
Semester. There is evidence that a few advanced classes were dis-
continued because of a loss of all students, while there were other
classes that suffered the loss of not a single student. We have here,
therefore, a source of weakness that must cast a large measure of
doubt upon the dependability of findings that concern the average
number of hours of work per clock hour of instruction as influenced
FACTORS DETERMINING TEACHING LOAD. 43
by size of class. Another source of weakness is found in the fact
that, while there were a number of large classes, they were not suffi-
ciently numerous to make possible satisfactory comparisons for the
purpose in hand. In the first effort at this analysis the classifications
of size of class used were 1–14, 15–29, 30–44, 45–59, 60–74, etc., ad-
vancing by 15 students for each larger classification. While there
were usually fairly large numbers of clock hours of instruction in
each of the first three groups, the distribution in many of the upper
groups was so attenuated as to make comparisons both impossible
and impracticable.
TABLE 17.-Average number of hours of work, per clock hour of instruction by
mode of presentation and by size of class.

ſº e is Both lower and upper
Lower division. Upper division. ivision.
Less than 30 30 or more | LeSS than 30 || 30 or more | Less than 30 30 or more
in class. in class. in class. in class. in class. in class.
ta “– ºld e up “: , S: , ; Uſ) *:: ** – U2 “– ºd : Ca *:: *d (A) *:: *d º
Mode of presentation. | 3 || 33| 3 || 33| 3 || ##| 3 || ##| 3 || ##| 3 || 35
d * $2 + | F. -: * Sº º c → $– C. --> * -: 5-4 Q --> R → $- C --> ºf ~ * Q
gā ā; É|33 |###|33 ||3:#|33 |###|33 |###| gă ă ă ă
3: E PE|| 3: E. F.;| 3: |E ##| 3: E. §§ 3 ; B &#| 3: |E #3
3 E is ſº § E :- - Sº E Tº F. St E 5.5 Sº E ### $2 B tº gº!
* P. 3.3 &= ºf 3.: º St. 3.5 &t=4 a 3. &=t gº. 3. *4 ºf 5.5
C +3 E. c +3 B: of; B: o: B: o tº t o +3 * . .
## 338|33 |gå's gé gé's ##|gº's ##|###| ##|##'s
18- gº tº 3- || 3 ºz. ~ & #3 Bº || 3 A tº 3 || 3 A *: | 93 ºn
# * |###| 5% 5 ##|5% |3} = 5? |###| 5 ° |###| 3 |###
p - 5 }- : | d > c P E P- P
2, 33.3| 2 |3.33 Z 33.3| 2 |333 Z 33.3| 2 |333
Recitation. . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 227 | 1.76 594 | 1.88 91% 1.86 14 || 3. 12 318} | 1.7 73% 2, 12
Lecture. --------------..... 31 2.58 || 27 | 2.76 || 39% 2.96 10 2.78 || 70% 2.79 . 77
Mixed lecture and discus-
Sion---------------------- 49 | 1.69 || 13% 2.93 || 69 2.25 34 |2. 52 | 118 2.02 || 473 2.64
To be able to make any use of the data for the purposes of studying
the influence of size of class it was necessary to retabulate them in
two groups only—viz, for classes (a) of less than 30 and (b) of 30
or more. The results of this effort are presented in Table 17, which
sets forth the averages by the division in which a course is taught
and by mode of presentation. Figures for the graduate division are
omitted, as there are few strictly graduate classes enrolling 30 or
more students. Averages for the recitation, lecture, and mixed lec-
ture and discussion modes only are included in the table because
there were too few or no clock hours of instruction in the remaining
modes on which to compute averages. For example, very few labora-
tory sections enroll 30 or more students.
Notwithstanding the weakness just indicated, large class enroll-
ments are seen in Table 17 to add appreciably to the average amount
of time spent in connection with a clock hour of instruction. This is
shown in the averages for lower-division and upper-division work
for the recitation and mixed lecture and discussion modes of pre-
44. THE TEACHIN G. LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
sentation and in lower-division work for the lecture mode. In this
table, where there are large numbers of clock hours of instruction
involved, the differences between the averages are not very large.
This is the case for the averages for recitation and lecture in the
lower division, and mixed lecture and discussion in the upper divi-
Sion. The large differences are found in two of the three instances
in which small numbers of clock hours of instruction have been used
in the computation of the averages, viz, in mixed lecture and discus-
sion in the lower division and in recitation in the upper division.
The difference in favor of classes of 30 or more in upper-division
lecture must also be explained by the small number of clock hours
of lecture used in computing the average. (The column headed
“Both lower and upper division,” containing, as it does, the figures
for all the work in both divisions, the averages for each of which
are reported in the preceding columns of this table, is given no spe-
cial attention in our discussion because the averages it contains must
obviously be influenced by the factor we have called “the elementary
or advanced character of the work.”)
We may sum up the discussion of our investigation of the effect of
size of class upon the teaching load by saying that it is a factor, but
that, on account of the uncertainty of our figures on the size of classes
at the time the investigation was made and the attenuation of the
distribution of classes when grouped by size, no recommendation can
be made as to how much recognition is to be given for large classes
in fixing the teaching load of an instructor. It is the writer's opinion
that the difference due to size of class is largely attributable to the
difference in time spent in reading papers and correcting work handed
in by students. If this is true, an appropriate recognition for large
classes might be made after the making of a small supplementary
investigation into time spent in reading and correcting papers in
classes of different sizes.
D. A METHOD OF ADJUSTING THE TEACHING LOAD IN A
UNIVERSITY.
In preceding sections of this study we have presented the facts as
to the total time spent in all professional activities by members of a
university faculty and the proportional distribution of this total time
to teaching work, and to such noninstructional activities as personal
research, other official duties for the university, and professional
activities not otherwise reported. We have also analyzed out the in-
fluence on the clock hour of instruction of certain factors determining
the teaching load of a member of the faculty. Our next task must be
the application of the findings in these preceding portions of the
investigation in a method of adjusting the teaching load that will
METHOD OF ADJUSTING TEACHING LOAD. 45
assure the university an approximately uniform amount of service by
all members of its faculty and at the same time be just to them by
not requiring much more service of some instructors than is required
of others.
Computing the weighted values of clock hours of instruction.—The
first step taken in the application of the findings of this investigation
in a method of adusting the teaching load was the computation of a
set of weighted values of clock hours of instruction—i.e., values into
which has been introduced the influence of the several factors that
have been found to affect the “total time consumed '' in connection
with a clock hour of instruction. These weighted values are pre-
sented in Tables 18–22. As will be seen in the following description
of the procedure in computation, the only factor found to be notably
influential which has been omitted is what we have termed the size of
class. The reason for omitting it may be inferred from what has been
said on page 44.
The detailed procedure in the computation of the weighted values
of Tables 18–22 may be illustrated by describing how they were ar-
rived at for foreign language, the first of the subject groups listed in
Table 18. It may be seen from Table 12 that a total of 263 clock
hours of the recitation mode of instruction were reported by the teach-
ers of foreign language, and that the average number of hours of
work per clock hour of instruction was 1.77. Before it was possible
to compute, e. g., the average number of hours of work for a clock
hour of recitation in foreign language in the lower division, it was
necessary to know the average year place of these 263 clock hours of
recitation. This was found in the following manner:

Average year place of clock hours of recitation.
*:::::. Year place Number of Product of
y i. assigned. clock hours. §. §
taken.
1 1 87 87
2 2 54 108
3 3 22 66
4 4 6 24
5 5 12 60
1–2 1 43 64%
2–3 7 17;
3–4 20 70
1–3 2 2 4
2–4 3 4 12
3–5 4 3 12
1–4 2% 3 7%
263 532%
Average year place, 2.02.
46 TEIE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
In this illustration, the “ year place assigned ’’ is taken from the
“year or years normally taken.” For clock hours reported for years
1–2, this year place assigned is midway between 1 and 2 or 1%. Year
place has been assigned by a similar method for clock hours reported
for years 2–3, 3–4, 1–3, 2–4, 3–5, and 1–4. The average year place,
obtained by dividing the total at the foot of column (d) by the total
number of clock hours at the foot of column (c), is 2.02—for prac-
tical purposes, 2. That is to say, the average number of hours of
work per clock hour of recitation in foreign language, 1.77, may be
assumed to be the average for work normally taken by the student
in his sophomore year. JTo compute the number of hours of work
per clock hour of recitation in foreign language for the lower divi-
sion for Table 18, we may proceed by the following proportion:
a; ; a 3–b: æ, where a, is the number of hours of work per clock hour of
recitation for second-year courses for all subjects, a, is the number of
hours of work per clock hour of recitation for second-year courses
in foreign language, b is the number of hours of work per clock
hour of recitation in the lower division for all subjects, and as is the
number of hours of work per clock hour of recitation in the lower
\ division in foreign language." The second term in our proportion is
seen from our recent computation to be 1.77. The third term is seen
in Table 10 to be 1.74. The first term is still needed for the compu-,
tation of a., and this may be derived from the figures in Table 13 by
the following procedure: Lower-division recitation for all subjects
having a year place of 14 –midway between 1 and 2—requires, as
has just been pointed out, an average time expenditure of 1.74 hours.
Upper-division recitation for all subjects from the same table hav-
ing a year place of 34—midway between 3 and 4–requires an average
time expenditure of 2.13 hours. Second-year work, being one-half
year in advance of the year place of lower-division work and 14 years
below upper-division work, should require on the average, in addi-
tion to the number of hours per clock hour of lower-division recita-
tion, one-fourth of the difference in time between that required for
upper and lower division recitation—i.e., 1.74 plus + (2.13–1.74), or
1.84. Introducing this as a , into our proportion, we have—
1.84: 1.77–1.74: 3,
1.84 ag-3.08
ac-1.67
This value of a, the number of hours of work per clock hour of reci-
tation in foreign language in the lower division, is to be found under
the column headed “All work” in Table 18.
*Actual computation of the average year place of recitation work in the lower division
that has entered into the computation of the average number of hours reported in
Table 13 finds it to be so near 13, that, for all practical purposes, this figure may be
Safely used. The same is true for the other modes of presentation, as well as for the
average year place of 33 for upper-division work.
METHOD OF ADJUSTING TEACHING LOAD. 47
The method of recognizing in the weighted values the influences of
the factor previous experience or inexperience with the work needs
still to be presented. We have in Table 14 figures to indicate that the
ratio of the average number of hours of work per clock hour of reci-
tation for all work to the average number of hours of work per clock
hour of recitation for first-time work is 1.89: 2.07. Assuming that
this relationship remains constant irrespective of the division—upper,
lower, or graduate—in which the work is found, we resort again to
a proportional equation, c. : Cº-d: æ, in which c, is the aver-
age number of hours of work per clock hour of recitation for all
work, c, is the number of hours of work per clock hour of recitation
for all first-time work, d is the average number of hours of work per
clock hour of lower-division recitation, and a is the number of hours
of work per clock hour of recitation for lower-division first-time
work. We have—
1.89: 2.07=1.74: æ
1.89 ac-3.60
ag-1.91
This weighted value for first-time lower-division work will be found
at the foot of Table 18. By means of a similar proportional equation
we find the weighted value of nonfirst-time recitation in the lower
division to be 1.71.

TABLE 18.-Weighted values for clock hours of recitation.
Lower division. Upper division. Graduate.
Subject or group. e Non- tº Non- Non-
J group . º: # . *::: All ; first- || All
ime work. ** lme. Work. time. Work.
Work. work. work. . Work. wº.
Foreign language. . . . . . . . . . . . 1.83 1.64 1. 67 2. 24 2.02 2.05 3.15 2.83 2.88
English.--------------------- 1.96 1.76 1. 79 2.40 2. 16 2.19 3.37 3.03 3.08
Mathematics. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.77 1.58 1.61 2. 15 1.94 1.97 3.03 2.72 2.77
Social studies........ . . . . . . . . 2.17 1.94 1.98 || 2.64 2.38 2.41 || 3.71 3.33 3.39
Philosophy and psychology1. 1.75 1.56 1.59 2. 12 1.91 1.94 2.99 2.68 2.73
Science---------------------- 2. 16 1.94 1.97 2.61 2.36 2. 39 3.66 3.29 3.35
Home economics. . . . . . . . . . . . 1.91 1.71 1.74 3.33 9. 10 2. 13 3.27 2.94 2.99
Physical education. . . . . . . . . . 1.91 1.71 1.74 2. 33 9. 10 2. 13 || 3.27 8.94 2.99
Journalism.................. 1.91 1.71 1.74 2.33 3. 10 2. 13 3.27 2.94 2.99
Architecture....... 4 * * * * * * * * * 1.91 1.71 1.74 2. 33 2. 10 9. 13 3.27 2.94 2.99
t-------------------------- 1.64 1.46 1.49 2.00 1.80 1.83 2.81 2.53 2.57
Music----------------------- 2. 19 1.97 2.00 2. 68 2.42 2.45 3.76 3.38 3.44
Engineering----------------. 1.96 1.76 1. 79 2.40 2. 16 2. 19 3.37 3.03 3.08
Forestry-------------------- 1.91 1.71 1.74 3.33 9. 10 2. 13 3.27 2.94 2.99
Mining---------------------- 1.91 1.71 1.74 2.33 2. 10 2. 13 3.27 2.94 2.99
Pharmacy------------------- 1.91 f. 71 1.74 9.33 2. 10 , 2, 13 3.97 2.94 2.99
Library economy............ 1.91 1.71 1.74 3.33 2. 10 2. 13 3.27 2.94 2.99
*W-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.19 2.89 2.94 3.94 3. 55 3.60 5. 52 4.97 5.05
All-------------------- 1.91 | 1.71 | 1.74 2.33 2.10 | 2.13 | 3.27 | 2.94 | *2.99
* See p. 49.
48 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
TABLE 19.--Weighted values for clock hours of lecture.
Lower division. Upper division. Graduate work.
Subject or group. * Non- tº Non- :..., | Non-
º; first || All #. first || All | #. first || All
W. time work. . time work. v. time work.
ork. work. * | work. * | work.
Foreign language............ 6. 37 3. 67 4. 24 6.85 3.93 4. 55 8.67 4.99 5. 77
nglish *-------------------. 3. 89 2.24 2.59 4.20 2.41 2.79 5. 29 3.04 3.52
Mathematics..... * * * * * * * * * * * 5, 12 2.95 3.41 5. 52 3.17 3.67 6.99 4.02 4.65
Social studies.... . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 37 3.67 4.24 6.86 3.94 4. 56 8.68 4.99 5. 78
{jºy and psychology...| 3.53 2.03 2.35 3. 79 2. 18 2. 52 4.80 2.76 3. 20
Oriental..................... 2, 19 1. 26 1.46 2.38 1.36 1. 57 2.99 1. 72 1.99
Education 1................. 4, 65 2.68 3.10 5.03 2.89 3.34 6.34 3.65 4. 22
Science---------------------- 3.63 2.09 2.42 3.91 2.25 2.60 4.94 2.84 3.29
Home economics. . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2% 2.44 9.82 4. 56 2.6% 3.03 3.77 3. 39 3.84
Physical education. . . . . . . . . . 4.24 3.44 2.8% 4, 56 9.69 3.03 B. 77 3. 32 3.84
ournalism.................. 4.24 2.44 9.83 4, 56 2.69 3.03 3.77 3. 32 3.84
Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.24 8.44 2.82 4.56 2.6% 3.03 B. 77 3. 39 3.84
Art”------------------------ 3, 62 2.09 2.41 3.91 2.25 2.60 4. 97 2.85 3.30
Music *---------------------- 4.87 2.80 3.24 5.24 3.01 3.48 6. 64 3. 87 4.42
Engineering ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.25 2.45 2.83 4.58 2.66 3.04 5. 79 3.33 3.85
Forestry.................... 4.2% 2. 44 2.89 4.56 2.6% 3.03 5.77 3. 32 3.84
Mining---------------------- 4.24 8. 44 2.82 4. 56 2. 69 3.03 3. 77 3. 32 3.84
Pharmacy........ . . . . . . . . . . . 4.24 2.44 2.8% 4. 56 9.62 3.03 3.77 3. 39 3.84
Library economy. . . . . . . . . . . . 4.24 8. 44 2.8% 4. 56 2.5% 3.03 3. 77 3. 32 3.84
All-------------------. 4. 24 2.44 2.82 4. 56 2.62 3.03 5. 77 3.32 3.84
1 See p. 49.


TABLE 20–Weighted values for clock hours of mia!ed lecture and discussion.

Lower division. Upper division. Graduate.
Subject or group. e Non- * Non- g Non-
º: * | *. . * | *. i. * | *
1Ine | WOTR. IIIlê WOTK. 1IIlê WOIK.
Work. wº. Work. v. work. v.
Foreign language. . . . . . . . . . . . 2.44 1.84 1.92 3.30 2.48 2.59 4.86 3.63 3.81
nglish.----................. 2. 15 1.62 1.69 2.91 2, 18 2. 28 4.26 3. 18 3. 34
Mathematics.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.01 1.51 1.58 2.73 2.05 2. 14 3.99 2.98 3. 13
Social studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 66 2.00 2.09 3. 58 2. 69 2.81 5. 26 3.94 4. 13
Philosophy and psychology...| 2, 14 1.61 1.68 2.88 2. 16 2, 26 4. 23 3. 17 3.32
Education * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2, 57 1.93 2.02 3.48 2.61 2.73 5. 10 3.81 4.00
Science. . . . . . . . . ------------- 2. 31 1.74 1.82 3.13 2.36 2.46 4. 60 3.31 3, 61
Home economics............. 2.84 1.76 1.84 3. 16 || 2. 37 3.48, 4.64 3.47 8.64
Physical education. . . . . . . . . . 2.84 1.76 1.84 3. 16 2, 37 2.48 4.64 3.47 3.64
Journalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 34 1.76 1.84 3. 16 2. 37 2.48 4.64 3.47 8.64
Architecture.......... . . . . . . . 2.84 1.76 1.84 3. 16 2. 37 2.48 4.64 3.47 8.64
t”------------------------. 2.01 1.51 1.58 2. 71 2.04 2. 13 3.99 2.98 3. 13
Music "...................... 2.68 2.02 2. 11 3.63 2.72 2.85 5. 34 3.99 4. 19
Engineering................. 2.35 1.77 1.85 3.17 2.38 2.49 4.65 3.48 3.65
Forestry..................... 2.84 1.76 1.84 3. 16 2. 37 2.48 4.64 3.47 8.64
ining...................--- 2. 34 1.76 1.84 3. 16 2. 37 2.48 4.64 3.47 8.64
Pharmacy............... Tº tº s ºn 2.84 1. 76 1.84 3. 16 2. 37 2.48 4.64 3.47 3.64
Library economy............ 2. 34 1.76 1.84 3. 16 2.37 2.48 4.64 3.47 3.64
All-------------------. 2. 34 1.76 1.84 3. 16 || 2.37 2.48 / 4.64 || 3.47 3. 64
1 See p. 49.
METHOD OF ADJUSTING TEACHING LOAD,
49
TABLE 21.-Weighted values of clock hours of oral quiz, of scheduled conference,
and Of Seminar.

Lower division. Upper division. Graduate.
Subject or group. * Non- & Non- wº ſº; e. Non-
#: | . . All | #| || All | #: | . . .
Work. § work. Work. j * Work. work. j * WOTR.
ORAL QUIZ.
Šćience---------------------- 1.98 | 1.94 | 1.94 | 2.20 2.16 2.16 |........!--------|-- - - - - - -
All subjects------------------ 1. 67 1.64 1.64 1.86 1.83 1.83 |--------|----------------
SCHEDULED CONFERENCE.
Pnglish----------------------|-------- 1.11 1.11 l-------- 1.33 1.33 l-------- 1.11 1.11
All subjects------------------|-------. 1.07 1.07 -------- 1.28 1.28 -------- 1.08 1.08
SEMINAR.
All subjects------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------- 3.21 1.99 2.24
TABLE 22.-Weighted values of clock hours of laboratory, shop, and field.

Lower division. Upper division. Graduate.
Subject or group. g Non- & Non- Non-
. # | * . * | * . # wº.
IIIle | WOrk. 1Ine I WOrk. IIIle WOTR.
work. work. - work. work. work. work.
LABORATORY.
Philosophy and psychology. - 1.86 1.25 1. 26 1.27 1. 16 1. 17 1.46 1.84 1.85
Science---------------------- 1.39 1.26 1. 29 1.30 1. 19 1. 20 1.49 1.37 1. 38
Home economics- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.54 1.42 1.43 1.44 1. 32 1.33 1.65 1.52 1. 53
Physical education..... ----. 1.27 1. 17 1.18 1. 18 1.08 1.09 |--------|--------|-------.
Architecture................. 1.36 1. 95 1.26 1.27 1. 16 1. 17 1.46 1.84 1. 35
Art-------------------------- 1.28 1. 18 1. 19 1. 19 1.09 1. 10 1.37 1.26 1.27
Engineering-................ 1.32 1.21 1. 22 1.25 1. 14 1.15 1.43 1.31 1.32
Forestry--------------------- 1.36 1. 25 1. 26 1.97 1. 16 1. 17 1.46 1.84 1. 35
Mining---------------------- 1. 18 1.08 1. 09 1. 10 1.00 1.01 1.25 1.15 1. 16
Pharmacy------------------- 1. 36 1.25 1. 26 1.27 1. 16 1. 17 1.46 1.84 1.35
Library economy. -----------|--------|--------|-------- 1. 38 1. 26 1.27 1.58 1.45 1.46
*W*-----------------------|--------|--------|-------- 2. 26 2.06 2.08 2. 60 2.38 2. 40
All subjects............ 1.36 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.16 1. 17 1.46 1. 34 1.35
SHOP.
Engineering and mining ....|........ 1.28 --------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------
FIELD.
Forestry--------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------- 1.17 1--------|--------|--------|--------
1 Computed from six hours of moot court.
We are now ready to compute the weighted values in foreign lan-
guage for first-time and nonfirst time recitation in the lower divi-
sion as required for complete illustration. For the first-time work
we have the proportional equation
e, is the number of hours of work per clock hour of recitation for
all subjects in lower-division, e, is the number of hours of work for
all subjects per clock hour of recitation for first-time work in lower-
e 1:e 2-f: a,
in which
50 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
division, f is the number of hours of work per clock hour of recita-
tion in foreign language in the lower division, and a is the number
of hours of work per clock hour of first-time recitation in foreign
language in the lower division. Substituting the known values, we
have—
1.74: 1.91 =1. 67: a)
1.74 as -3.19
a =1.83.
By means of a similar proportional equation we obtain the weighted
value 1.64 for nonfirst time work in foreign language in the lower
division. -
With exceptions to be noted, the procedure just described has been
used in computing all weighted values appearing in these tables.
Table 12 shows that for some subjects or subject groups the numbers
of clock hours of some of the modes of presentation are so small as
to make a weighted value based on their averages a relatively unde-
pendable figure. For instance, for the group of social studies only
7% clock hours of recitation are reported. To compute a weighted
value with the average number of hours of work per clock hour of
recitation for this subject group as a foundation would be unsafe.
So, in this case the weighted value for recitation was obtained by
the solution of a proportional equation introducing the weighted
value of a clock hour of the most common mode of presentation re-
ported for this group, viz, mixed lecture and discussion. The pro-
portional equation used here was c: d=v : as in which c
is the average number of hours of work per clock hour of mixed
lecture and discussion for all subjects in the lower division, d is the
average number of hours of work per clock hour of recitation in all
subjects in the lower division (for c and d see Table 13), w is the
weighted value of a clock hour of mixed lecture and discussion in the
social studies in the lower division (see Table 20), and as is the
weighted value of a clock hour of recitation in the social studies in
the lower division. Substituting the known values, we have—
1.84: 1.74=2.09: as
1.84 ag-3.64
ag=1.98.
This value of a is introduced in its proper place in Table 18 and
from it the two remaining weighted values for lower-division work
also to be found in this table have been computed in a manner pre-
viously described. The method of calculation of the weighted values
for the social studies in the upper and graduate divisions may be
inferred from the preceding. This method of obtaining weighted
METHOD OF ADJUSTING TEACHING LOAD. 51
values has been used whenever the number of clock hours of the
mode of presentation has been less than 10, and when, at the same
time, the subject or subject group is represented in Table 12 by 10
or more clock hours of some other mode of presentation. This mini-
mum was rather arbitrarily chosen after a number of trial compu-
tations of averages had been made, and is considered large enough
to eliminate the worst of the variation due to a small representation
of a subject or group in a mode of presentation. Resort to this
method is signified by the use of the superscript (*) immediately fol-
lowing the name of the subject or subject group.
In instances of subjects or subject groups which are represented in
none of the three modes of recitation, lecture, or mixed lecture, and
discussion by as many as 10 or more clock hours, it has been necessary
to introduce in Tables 18–20 the weighted values found for all sub-
jects, which are shown in the lowest horizontal columns of each of
the tables of weighted values. This is not the method to be desired,
but seems to be the only recourse in the circumstances. Such intro-
duction is indicated by the use of italics. .
It was stated at the beginning of the description of the method
of compilation of the tables of weighted values that they are designed
to recognize all factors found to be notably influential in determining
the teaching load per clock hour of instruction except size of class.
(a) The mode of presentation as a factor is recognized by having
each of the tables give the weighted values for different modes, as
recitation, lecture, mixed lecture and discussion, oral quiz, Scheduled
conference, seminar, laboratory, shop, and field.
(b) The subject or subject group as a factor is recognized by hav-
ing the weighted values entered by subject or subject groups listed
in the left-hand columns of the tables. In instances where certain
modes of presentation are not reported for certain subjects or subject-
groups, or where the work infrequently classifies under a mode, these
subjects or subject groups are omitted from the table. For these
reasons, e. g., education and oriental are omitted from Table 18.
Law is omitted from Table 19, not because the lecture mode of pre-
sentation is not used in this subject, but because a combination of
modes is used which the instructors of that subject designate as
recitation. Tables 18, 19, and 20 are more nearly complete in the
recognition of subject differences than are the succeeding tables.
Table 21, giving weighted values for oral quiz, because of the small
number of clock hours of this mode reported for most subjects, pre-
sents weighted values for the science group and “All subjects”; it
also contains weighted values for scheduled conference, and recog-
nizes only English and “All subjects”; containing weighted values
for seminar, it gives no subject distinctions. Table 22, presenting
52 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY,
weighted values for laboratory, shop, and field, recognizes all subjects
for which these modes of presentation were reported. -
(c) The influence of the elementary or advanced character of the
work as a factor is recognized in the tables in presenting the weighted
values by lower, upper, and graduate divisions. In Tables 18, 19,
and 20 a complete set of weighted values has been computed for all
three divisions. As the oral-quiz mode seems not to be used in
the graduate division, Table 21 contains no weighted values for that
division. As the seminar mode is used almost exclusively in grad-
uate classes, it does not seem necessary to compute weighted values
for the mode in the lower and upper divisions. Weighted values for
laboratory have been omitted from the lower division in library econ-
omy and law and from the graduate division in physical education,
as there was no laboratory work of these divisions reported in these
subjects. Similar explanations will account for the omissions of
figures for two of the three divisions from Table 22.
(d) Previous experience or inexperience of the instructor with the
work taught is recognized in these tables by the figures for weighted
values presented under the rubrics “first-time” work and “non-first-
time ’’ work. The tables not giving recognition to this factor are
those presenting weighted values for scheduled conference, shop,
and field, and these omissions are to be explained by the attenuated
distributions or complete absence of “first-time” work in these modes
in the data used in this study.
Concerning the validity of the method of computing the weighted
ovalues.—Throughout the description of the method of computing the
weighted values of Table 18, etc., some such queries as the following
may have arisen in the mind of the reader: Why obtain the weighted
values by the method of proportional equations here used instead of
from one large original distribution table, which should be so or-
ganized as to analyze the influence of all the hypothetical factors at
One time, and from which the correct average number of hours of
work per clock hour of instruction could be directly taken without
the interposition of the method of proportional equations? And,
again, is there not a measure of fallacy in this method of indirect com-
putation through proportional equations, due to a confusion of fac-
tors in the tables devised to analyze the influence of these factors?
The former of these queries may be answered by saying that the
method it implies to be the more satisfactory was the first one tried in
attacking the data, but was found to be impracticable because the
distributions of clock hours became so attenuated in a table providing
So many refinements that no dependable averages could be obtained.
This impracticability will come home to the reader if he will imagine
the distributions of clock hours in Table 12 again broken into the
METHOD OF ADJUSTING TEACHING LOAD. 53
three classes of lower, upper, and graduate division work, and these
distributions again divided into “first time,” and “nonfirst time”
groups. Manifestly, to have fairly large numbers of clock hours
from which to calculate the averages, resort must be had to a method
similar to the one used.
A frank answer to the second query must admit the possibility of a
slight extent of fallacy, due to the confusion of factors in the tables
planned to analyze the influence of the factors, but careful reconsid-
eration of the construction of these tables and the method of calculat-
ing the weighted values will show that the possibility of error is by
no means large. In addition to the original distributions used to com-
pute the average year place of the work reported in a subject or sub-
ject group, as illustrated on page 49, it may be remembered that
the only tables that have been used in the computation of the weighted
values are 12, 13, and 14. Table 12 recognizes mode of presentation
and subject, leaving out of consideration the elementary or advanced
character of and previous experience or inexperience with the work.
That is, in attempting to analyze the influence of the former two
factors the averages thus obtained have also been influenced by the
two remaining factors. It must be recalled, however, that before the
averages for subjects in this table were used in computing the
weighted values, the average year place of the work reported in a
subject was computed, and this year place given recognition in the
computation. In this way the confusion that ignoring the influence
of this factor of the elementary or advanced character of the work
would bring has been largely eliminated. The remaining factor—
previous experience or inexperience with the work—is the only one
that has been ignored in utilizing this table. That disregard of this
factor in using the averages of this table is not disastrous to the re-
liability of our method may be judged by comparison of the averages
for nonfirst time work and all work in Table 14. Except in two in-
stances—lecture and seminar—these averages for nonfirst time work
and all work are equal or almost equal, and in these two cases they
differ by 0.40 and 0.25 of an hour, respectively. This tendency toward
a small difference or identity in these averages is due to the relatively
small proportion the “first time ’clock hours are of all clock hours
reported. As the averages in Table 12 are for all work, it should
be clear that weighted values based upon them are not much dis-
credited by the fact that this factor of previous experience or inex-
perience with the work has been disregarded.
Table 13 analyzes the influence of mode of presentation and the
elementary or advanced character of the work, but disregards the
incidence of the influence of subject and previous experience or in-
experience with the work, while Table 14 analyzes the influence of
mode of presentation and previous experience or inexperience with
54 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
the work, disregarding subject and the elementary or advanced char-
acter of the work. The subject as a factor is disregarded in both
these tables, but by using as our basic figures in the computation of
the weighted values the averages by subjects in Table 12, the in-
fluence of this factor has been introduced in the weighted values.
The relative inconsequence of disregarding previous experience or
inexperience with the work has already been discussed in connection
with the use of the figures in Table 12 in a preceding paragraph.
The disregard of the influence of the elementary and advanced
character of the work that follows from using the averages of Table
14 may to a slight extent affect the weighted values in undesired
directions.
In the face of these admissions of sources of partial weakness of
the method of computing the weighted values, we ought not to forget
that the incidence of such untoward influence, where such large num-
bers of clock hours are concerned as in these tables, will tend to be
so distributed as in large part to mitigate the evils that may arise.
Application of the method of adjusting the teaching load-We
may now proceed to illustrate the method of application of the
weighted values to the adjustment of the teaching load. In doing
so, in order to make the illustrations readily intelligible, any neces-
sary special allowance for the remaining components of the total
working load, viz, Supervision of students working on individual re-
search problems, personal research, office hours, committee, and ad-
ministrative work, and other professional activities, will at first be
left out of consideration. That is, we shall set out by illustrating
the application to instructors who are expected to carry a full teach-
ing load without special additional activities. For such illustration
we must first have before us the normal number of hours per week
devoted to teaching work by full-time instructors. Group 3 of
Table 9 (p. 23) shows the average length of the teaching day of such
full-time instructors to be 6.1—approximately 6 hours. As this has
been calculated from a school week containing 54 teaching days, this
will mean an average total teaching week of 33 hours, which will be
used as the point of departure in ascertaining the clock hours of in-
struction that should be carried. Reference to the remaining figures
for group 3 in this table will discover that this allows to the average
full-time instructor approximately 2 hours (column 4b) of an
average approximate eight-hour day (column 5b), or 11 hours per
week for noninstructional activities. - - -
The illustrations to follow aim to demonstrate the application of
the weighted values to some of the main types of problems likely to
arise in the adjustment of the teaching load. To illustrate for all
types of problems and for all subjects or subject groups would be
both unnecessary and a waste of space and time.
METHOD OF ADJUSTING TEACHING LOAD. 55
(a) The first illustration—a very simple one—is that required to
answer the question, how many clock hours of instruction should be
assigned to a teacher of foreign language who carries only lower-
division work and has had previous experience with the courses to be
taught? Table 18 shows the weighted value of a nonfirst-time clock
hour of lower-division recitation (the mode of presentation almost
universal in this subject group in this division) to be 1.64 hours.
Dividing 33 by 1.64 we have a quotient of approximately 20, the
number of clock hours of such instruction that should be carried.
If the instructor is new to his work, we should divide 33 by the
weighted value 1.83 (see first-time column of Table 18), the quotient
obtained signifying that he should carry 18 clock hours—i. e., .2
clock hours less than if he had had previous experience with the
work.
(b) However, in practice few instructors are assigned work solely
in one division, as has been assumed in this illustration. More fre-
quently the work is distributed in two or three divisions. The prob-
lem here might come up in something like the following manner: Is
an instructor in foreign language carrying a full teaching load if he
is responsible for a 5-hour course in lower division; two 3-hour
courses in upper division, one of these being conducted by the recita-
tion mode of presentation, and the other being a course in the history
of the literature in this language, by the mixed lecture and discussion
mode; and a 2-hour seminar—all these courses except the last having
been previously taught by him? From Table 18 we find that the 5-
hour course in the lower division represents a total weighted value
of 5X1.64=8.20; the 3-hour upper-division recitation course has a
total weighted value of 3×2.02=6.06; the 3-hour upper-division
mixed lecture and discussion course (Table 20), 3×2.48=7.44; the
2-hour seminar, 2×3.21=6.42. The total weighted value is 8.20
plus 6.06 plus 7.44 plus 6.42=28.12—i.e., 4.88, or almost the equiva-
lent of a 2-hour upper division mixed lecture and discussion course
less than should be carried.
(c) Application may also be made for instruction in English. It
may be asked how many clock hours should be assigned to an in-
structor carrying work solely in the lower division, provision first
being made for 10 clock hours of scheduled conference? According
to Table 21 the total weighted value of these 10 hours of scheduled
conference is 10×1.11=11.1. Subtracting these from the total of
33 hours, we have 21.9 hours to be assigned to recitation clock hours
at the weighted value of 1.76 hours each. This means 21.9 divided by
1.76, or approximately 12 such clock hours.
(d) If the problem is that of the adjustment of the teaching load
of an instructor of English who carries a 5-hour recitation course in
the lower division, the remainder of his time, exclusive of 10 hours
56 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
of scheduled conference equally divided between lower and upper
division, being devoted to mixed lecture and discussion work in the
upper division, it will be solved as follows: The total weighted value
of the lower-division recitation (Table 18) course is 5X1.76=8.80; of
5 hours of lower-division conference (Table 21), 5×1.11=5.55; of
5 hours of upper-division conference (Table 21), 5×1.33=6.65. So
far, 8.80 plus 5.55 plus 6.65, or 21 hours of the total of 33 have been
disposed of, leaving 12 hours for assignment to upper-division mixed
lecture and discussion. This will mean 12 divided by 2.18, or ap-
proximately 5 or 6 hours of such work.
(e) Illustration of such application in the department of education
is a relatively simple matter. The most frequent mode of presenta-
tion here is mixed lecture and discussion. For an instructor who is
teaching only upper-division work with which he has had previous
acquaintance, this proper number of clock hours of instruction will be
33 divided by 2.61 (see Table 20), or approximately 13. -
(f) Illustration for the field of science is not as easy, as almost
always two or more modes of presentation are involved. The prob-
lem may arise in the following manner: An instructor carries the
lecture and oral-quiz work of two lower-division courses in science
with which he has had previous experienge. These include, together,
6 lecture hours and 2 quiz hours. He is to carry laboratory hours in
addition up to a full teaching load; it is desired to known what this
number of laboratory hours should be. According to Table 19 the
weighted value of the lecture hours is 6×2.09, or 12.54. From Table
21 we find that the weighted value of the quiz hours is 2X1.94, or
3.88. This is a total of 16.42 hours, leaving 16.58 of the average of
33 hours to be applied to laboratory at a weighted value of 1.28 (see
Table 22), which means 16.58 divided by 1.28, or 13 clock hours of
laboratory. -
(g) As it is a relatively new field, some interest may attach to
an illustration of application in the adjustment of the teaching load
in home economics. Our illustration may assume 3 clock hours of
mixed lecture and discussion and 12 clock hours of laboratory, all
nonfirst time work, in the upper division, the remaining portion of
the instructor's teaching load to be given to lower-division labora-
tory. The 3 hours of mixed lecture and discussion * (see Table 20)
have a weighted value of 3×2.37, or 7.11. The 12 clock hours of
laboratory (see Table 22) have a total weighted value of 12×1.32,
or 15,84. Thus, 7.11 plus 15.84, or 22.95, hours of the average teach-
ing load of 33 hours are used in this upper-division work, leaving
10.05 hours to be devoted to lower-division laboratory at a weighted
1. As has been previously explained (p. 43), because of the Small number of clock hours
of mixed lecture and discussion reported for this department, the weighted values for all
subjects given in the lowest horizontal column of this table are used.
METHOD OF ADJUSTING TEACHING LOAD. 57
value of 1.42 hours (see Table 22) per clock hour. This means
approximately 7 such lower-division laboratory clock hours.
(h) As a last illustration let us apply the weighted values for
teaching work in law to the adjustment of the teaching load. It has
already been stated (p. 49) that the mode of presentation commonly
reported for law is recitation. The weighted value for the upper-
division recitation clock hour in law (see Table 18) is 3.55. Dividing
the average teaching load, 33 hours, by this value, we arrive at a
teaching load of 9 clock hours.
Having illustrated the method of adjusting the teaching load of
full-time instructors, it is now appropriate to address a word of
explanation and justification to one feature of this study—the con-
sistent use of and dependence upon the average or arithmetic mean.
The reader has noted its use in computing the foundation measures
of the number of hours of work done in connection with a clock
hour of instruction; these are the averages upon which the tables of
weighted values were constructed. It was also used to arrive at the
number of hours per day which the full-time instructor may be ex-
pected to devote to instruction (approximately 6 hours) as well as to
all professional activities (approximately 8 hours). It has been intro-
duced into computations at other points in the study. The average
has been consistently used because it is the average instructor (here
used in terms of rate of working) for whom the university must
adjust the teaching load. It would clearly be out of question for
the university to adjust teaching loads by the rates of working of
ândividual instructors. For instance, because the university admin-
istration must expect an approximately equal amount of service of
all instructors, it would be unfair to the university to adjust teach-
ing loads of individuals who are slower than the average to their
rate of working. On the other hand, it would be unfair to those
who work at a more rapid rate than the average to adjust their
teaching loads to their rates of working. In other words, the instruc-
tor slower than the average must expect to pay the penalty of his
slowness in longer hours of work, whereas the instructor who is
more rapid than the average of his colleagues should have the margin
of time which he gains by his more rapid rate to dispose of as he
chooses.
It remains to comment briefly on the adjustment of the teaching
load by the making of necessary special allowances for other possible
components of the total working load—viz, (1) supervision of stu-
dents working on individual research problems, (2) personal re-
search, (3) office, committee, and administrative work, and (4) other
professional activities.
(1) On page 10 it is stated that the time required for the super-
vision of students working on individual research problems averaged
58 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
0.76 hour per student. One or two such students could not affect the
total working load of an instructor sufficiently to necessitate a special
allowance on account of the amount of supervision required, and, as
it may be seen from Table 2 (p. 11) that only 20 instructors report
as many as three or more, such a special allowance will need to be
made in only a relatively small proportion of cases. As has already
been stated on page 11, if no adjustment has already been made in
assigning to the instructors the courses in which these students who
are working on individual research problems are enrolled, it will be
advisable to make some reduction in the teaching schedule for those
who must supervise four or more students in such work. Such ad-
justment may be made by subtracting from the basic 33 hours of in-
structional time the number of hours that will probably be required
for the work of supervision—this number of hours to be obtained by
multiplying 0.76 by the number of such students—before proceeding
to fix the number of clock hours of instruction to be carried.
(2) . As in the case of the supervision of students working on indi-
vidual research problems, the essential principle to be recognized in
making special allowances for personal research has already been
enunciated in an earlier section of this report (p. 25). The recom-
mendation has been against a general reduction of the teaching
schedule, because the facts indicate that this would not be an eco-
nomical method of encouraging personal research. The method sup-
ported by the facts presented is the reduction of the teaching schedule
for individual instructors who have demonstrated their inclination
toward and ability in research by some measure of productivity in
spite of a normal teaching schedule. The exact extent and signifi-
cance of any allowance made will be more nearly measurable if
made either as a reduction of the normal load of 33 hours of teaching
work (a) by some definite number of hours of this teaching load or
(b) by a definite number of some specific kind of clock hour of in-
struction whose weighted value is known than if stated in terms of
unspecified clock hours. For instance, a reduction by 10 hours of the
normal teaching load of 33 hours would leave 23 hours of teaching
work to be distributed by means of known weighted values to a defi-
nite number of clock hours of instruction. Again, a reduction of this
normal load by two clock hours of nonfirst time upper-division
mixed lecture and discussion in science would leave 33– (2X2.36), or
28.28 hours, to be distributed by means of known weighted values to
a definite number of clock hours of instruction. It is easily conceiv-
able that a reduction in terms of unspecified clock hours for an in-
structor who has been teaching nonfirst time lower-division work
might be offset by assigning to him a less number of clock hours of
first time upper-division work and such an assignment might still be
in compliance with the terms of the provision for a reduction. If a
METHOD OF ADJUSTING TEACHING LOAD. 59
reduction is to be made in terms of clock hours, the kinds of clock
hours ought at least to be specified, since, assuredly, judging from our
weighted values, a reduction, e. g., of 2 clock hours of nonfirst time
lower-division recitation in foreign language would not be the
equivalent of a reduction of two clock hours of first time upper-
division lecture in the same subject group. Of the two methods of
specifying an allowance of teaching time for personal research which
are here recommended, the former is the preferable, unless in using
the latter it is understood that the equivalent in weighted value of the
specified clock hours, not the specified clock hours themselves, is
meant. To insist on a reduction in specified clock hours themselves
might bring inconvenience to those who are responsible for distrib-
uting courses within a department. -
(3) It has been pointed out on page 16 that relatively few full-
time instructors (i. e., instructors who are not also heads of other
than one-man departments or deans) will require special reductions
of their teaching schedules for office hours, committee and adminis-
trative work. Such reductions are to be made only when the regular
demand upon an instructor for this type of activity is much more
than the average of 3.6 hours per week found for full-time instruc-
tors. The need for this average amount of time is recognized in the
2 hours per day of leeway between the average teaching day of
approximately 6 hours and the average total working day of approxi-
mately 8 hours. It was also stated that allowances should be made for
heads of other than one-man departments and for deans. The
difference between the average number of hours spent in the activi-
ties under consideration by heads of departments (exclusive of the
one reporting 41.3 hours for the week) and by full-time instructors
being approximately 7 hours, for the average head of a department
the normal load of 33 hours of teaching work should be reduced by
this amount or its equivalent in specified clock hours of instruction.
The difference between the averages for deans who are also heads of
departments and for full-time instructors being approximately 15
hours, for the average dean the normal load of 33 hours of teaching
work should be reduced by this amount or its equivalent in specified
clock hours of instruction. But, since the demand for such activity
must be heavier for some heads of departments and deans than for
others, such reductions, to be just and economical, should not be uni-
form for all heads of departments and for all deans. On account of
the short period of time—one week—covered by the reports used in
this study, no recommendation can be made here for specific heads
or deans. A supplementary investigation extending through a
longer period of time must be made before reductions may be made
in whose justice we may place much confidence. *
60 THE TEACHING LOAD IN A UNIVERSITY.
. (4) In an earlier section of this report (pp. 17–18) such facts as
have been available touching the time spent in “professional activi-
ties not otherwise reported * have been presented and interpreted.
Noth withstanding that no recommendation could be made in the
matter of reduction of teaching time for most of the subjects and
Subject groups represented in this investigation, the facts indicated
that for some subjects—the newer and more rapidly developing
ones—the demand upon the instructor of these other professional
activities is heavier than for others, and that for the former subjects,
when the average number of hours per week exceeds notably the
average of 5 to 6 hours found for all instructors, there should be a
corresponding reduction in the teaching schedule for particular sub-
jects or instructors. For subjects in which and instructors for whom
the demand for such activity is at this average or less, there should
be no such allowance, as it is already cared for by the leeway between
the average 6-hour teaching day and the average 8-hour working
day of full-time instructors. When allowances are made they should
be made as reductions of the normal load of 33 hours per week of
teaching work or the equivalent of the reductions in specific clock
hours of instruction. As soon as it appears that such concessions
are no longer necessary or are no longer properly utilized, they
should be withdrawn. Because of the paucity and weakness of the
figures for subjects and subject groups as presented in Table 7, be-
fore the extent of such concessions may be justly determined a sup-
plementary investigation should be made into the time spent in these
other professional activities either by a larger number of instructors
or through a longer period of time, or both. Such a supplementary
investigation should distinguish between activities that bring addi-
tional remuneration and those that do not—an important distinction
which was overlooked in the present investigation.
APPENDIX.
THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE INVESTIGATION.
Sheet 1. sº
This questionnaire is being sent to all teaching members of the faculty with
the aim of Securing data that will throw further light on the problem of the
proper assignment of teaching hours. In this instance we are investigating one
important aspect of the relative difficulty of the several types of work, that
Which is represented by the total time consumed in carrying them on. You are
asked to take note of all time spent outside the class period in preparation for
and in Connection with the courses and sections you are teaching, as well as in
Other activities, and to record the time in the appropriate spaces. Your report
Should cover the class and other work included in the school week beginning
Monday, May 14, and ending Saturday, May 19.
In this investigation there is no intention to check up the total time earpendi-
ture of the individual faculty member with a view to measuring his teaching
efficiency.
IMPORTANT DIRECTIONS.
(a) Read the questionnaire carefully as soon as possible, noting the classi-
fications of time expenditure, in order to avoid making a report that can not
be used when the data are finally assembled.
(b) Your reports on the time spent outside the class period in preparation
for and in connection with the class work and in other activities outside the
class periods should not be mere guesses but should be based on reference to a
timepiece.
(c) Make a report for each course or section for which you have teaching
responsibility. If you are conducting only a part of the work in a course, e. g.,
quiz, laboratory or lecture section, reading papers, etc., the remainder of the
work being Conducted by Some other person, be sure to make this fact clear in
your report. Give the time only for the work for which you are responsible and
state specifically what parts of the work are done by others.
(d) If the same preparation suffices for two or more sections of the same
course, distribute the time in equal parts to each of the sections.
(e) Be careful otherwise to avoid recording the same time expenditure in
more than one place.
1. Number of students working on individual research problems under your
supervision during the present semester . Number of minutes
Spent in Such supervision, if any, during the week of May 14–19
2. Time spent during the week in research other than that reported elsewhere
On this and the accompanying Sheet, minutes.
3. Time spent on other official duties for the university (office hours, com-
mittee work, administrative functions, etc.), minutes.
61
62 APPENDIX.
4. Time spent in professional activities not otherwise reported,
minutes. List here these activities.
5. If it is your opinion that any of the courses on which you are reporting
should be conducted in some manner (lecture, laboratory, recitation, etc.)
other than that which you indicate on page 2 as now obtaining, state Specifically
in what manner it should be presented, and why. (USe back of this Sheet for
answer.)
(Answer the following two questions after having filled out the remainder
of the questionnaire :)
6. Has the week reported upon been a fairly normal One?
If not, in what specific respects has it been exceptional?
7. State your opinion of the use of the “total time consumed ” as a factor
in the determination of the proper number of teaching hours.
Name
- * = ** - - - sº * - - - sº ºmº
Sheet 2.
Record totals for week in the appropriate spaces below. Report under Nos. 8, 10, 12,
14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 24 in the left-hand column time spent outside the class
periods only.”

1. Department.
2. Course and section (make a sep-
arate report for each section).
3. Credit carried by course.
4. Is this the first time you have
taught the course?
5. Year or years in which course is
normally taken,” 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
6. Enrollment during Semester.
7. Hours of recitation.
8. Total minutes of preparation for
recitation.
9. Hours of lecture during the week.
10. Total minutes of preparation for
lectures during the week.
1 Data relating to one course or section should all be placed in one vertical column.
* 1 for freshmen, 2 for Sophomores, 5 for graduate courses and professional courses
requiring four years of previous training, etc.
APPENDIX.
63

• 11.
Hours of oral quiz during week.
12.
Total minutes of preparation for
oral quiz.
º 13.
Hours of mixed lecture and dis-
cussion.
14.
Total minutes of preparation for
mixed lecture and discussion.
• 15.
Hours of laboratory.
16.
Total minutes of preparation for
laboratory and reading of lab-
oratory notes.
* 17.
Hours of shop and practice.
18.
Total minutes of preparation, or
other work in connection with
shop and practice.
~ 19.
Hours of seminar.
20.
Total minutes of preparation for
seminar. t
* 21.
Hours of scheduled conference
(not office hours).
22.
Total minutes of preparation for
scheduled conference hours.
23.
Total minutes of correction of
written and other work (not
laboratory notes) outside the
class period.
. Total minutes in other work for
the courses listed not reported
elsewhere. Specify the kind
of work.
Gaylord Bros.,
|||
|
UNIVERSITY |||
3.961506923.8388" |
||||
Makers
Syracuse, N. Y.
PAT. JAN 21, 1808
ºsaesae·•≤
●&-¿șț¢--、、、、、、、、、、、&=&§§§§
§§*、、、、、、、、、。£
§§§§
§:№ſſae§§§§§§§§
¿¿.*?）&（?:&&!！！！！！！.>>:*********łaeaeae
*，************æ√∞








:::::85%;};
* * * . ：：
:！-！ *（?:（?:.
?-::::::: ~~~r:
s's
jº:
:::::::::::::：::：:::::-
***************…*..*..*¿¿ă șĀĶīg.）
§: faex; * :::::::::：：::：:::：:
$ 4
！！！！！！ *s*.* # * & * & * && -3&ā3，3%）， ș3，
?！!?！！?!！?！！?！！?Ş:::$:$
ţſ.--šºšºſ;*&#！§ =+&-*** º *.·
§§; :::::::::::::::: ***::::::::：:：::::~--·-**** - º *.&& （~& 3.。、::··~· -·§§§§§§$3:2:$）;-
~---·-…- * . ：:-::：：--~~~~）;-·~~~~•* • • • » »-&&， +，3，*， * 3-· *·******** Ō;&& && （！3=***** 9 ********
|-* · · -*** * * * *·* - * *º------• •*… », -ae..:::::::::：-*** & * & * & * ¿¿ ）;***************è … --★ → ·→ → → → → →
~--~--~·-：：f ：© ® ° ′ '，-ș:r ***& * * * · · · · -:' … ''·«… :）· * - * * · · --№gº: ， ::::::::::：:::::：::：ț¢，，，，，，，，,::::：:№gº§§§§
§§###
ſae
§}
§
§