Establishing Criteria For Measuring Faculty Members' Workload

AUTHORS

Hamideh Reshadatjo 1 , * , Saeed Zarein-Dolab 2 , Houssain Farahinee 3

1 Lecturer of Medical Education in Iran UMSHS.

2 Assistant Professor of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) in Shaheed Beheshti UMSHS.

3 Assistant Professor of Orthopedics in Iran UMSHS.

How to Cite: Reshadatjo H, Zarein-Dolab S, Farahinee H. Establishing Criteria For Measuring Faculty Members' Workload, J Med Edu. 2001 ; 1(2):e104948. doi: 10.22037/jme.v1i2.966.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Journal of Medical Education: 1 (2); e104948
Published Online: April 18, 2009
Article Type: Research Article
Received: April 18, 2009
Accepted: April 18, 2009
Crossmark
Crossmark
CHECKING
READ FULL TEXT

Abstract

Purpose: This article presents the results of a study aimed at devising comprehensive, standard and objective criteria for measuring faculty members' workload.Material  and  method:  The indicators for measuring faculty members' workload were collected through a comprehensive review of the literature, a survey of the available documents  and  methods  for  measuring workload  in  the  country,  and  interviews with         health authorities     and       faculty members.  In  all,81  indicators were identified     which  fell under  5 categories: instruction; research; consultancy  and academic services; administrative and managerial services; and personal and professional development.A questionnaire using these 81 indicators was designed and randomly mailed to 120 faculty members of Iran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services working in six faculties.   They were asked to rate each question using a seven scale response, from complete disagreement to complete agreement. 98 faculty members responded, that is, 15% of all the faculty members  of  the  university.  All  the indicators were ranked according to the scores received in the questionnaires.Results:  81 indicators were identified and weighted. The faculty members suggested Assistant Professor of Teaching that     25  more  indicators   needed  to  be added  to  the  list.  The  category  of instruction,  with  32  indicators,  was regarded as the most important category. Teaching  a new  course,  preparation  time for  class  and  number  of  students  in  the class, were considered  to be as important as the other instructional indicators.   The weighting given to each indicator was influenced by the specialty of the rater. Faculty   members   believe   the  workload data should be reported by themselves preferably  at  the  end  of  every  academic year or semester. Discussion and conclusion: The criteria and the guidelines  suggested in this study might  be  useful  for  evaluation, accreditation, ranking,  promotion, tenure decisions, policy making and improving the quality of education in medical universities.Each department  or faculty needs to have their  own  specific  indicators  weighted  by their faculty members. This provides consistency and stability in workload data collection.   The indicators for professional development  also need to be considered in measuring  faculty workload.

Fulltext

The body of the article can be found in the PDF file.

References

  • 1.

    References are available in the PDF file

  • © 2001, Journal of Medical Education. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
    COMMENTS

    LEAVE A COMMENT HERE: