Analysis of Time Investment in Online Teaching: Log
Diary Approach
Alka Dwivedi, Anita Sengar, Manisha Solanki
School of Business, University of Petroleum& Energy Studies,
Energy Acres, Dehradun, India
+911352770137
adwivedi@ddn.upes.ac.in; asengar@ddn.upes.ac.in; ms_solanki@ddn.upes.ac.in
ABSTRACT An online learning is the one in which the students access the
The present paper aims at analysing the time investment involved
in delivering blended and online courses and assess the increasing
work load of faculty in online and blended teaching environment.
For the study, twenty two faculty members from different
departments agreed to log their daily activities related to their
respective online and blended courses. The log diary data which
was collected over a period of one semester shows individual
variation in the performance of different activities by the instructor.
However, it also reflects considerable increase in the time spent by
the instructors in delivering online/blended courses. This time is
over and above the contact hours scheduled for the class. Analyzing
the time spent in different activities, clearly shows that developing,
delivering and administration of online sessions increases the
workload of instructors. Inferences are also drawn regarding the
changed skill set required for delivering online courses as well as
the changed expectations of the online students. The paper suggests
the need to review and rationalize the work load of faculty members
delivering online courses.
CCS Concepts
• Human-centered computing➝User studies
Keywords
Online teaching, blended courses, log diary
1. INTRODUCTION
Increasing use of ICT in modern higher education is slowly but
surely changing the education landscape. Higher education
institutions are increasingly implementing e-learning in their
traditional and distance education programs. [5] In e-learning or
web based learning students interact with their courses online via
some technological platform. E-learning has two distinct formats
viz. Blended learning and online learning. A blended learning
environment uses real time or asynchronous online instructions
along with traditional onsite learning to meet the learning
objectives. [15]
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for
components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored.
Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to
post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org.
ICDTE 2019, October 25–27, 2019, Yamanashi, Japan
© 2019 Association for Computing Machinery ACM
ISBN 978-1-4503-7220-6/19/10…$15.00
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3369199.3369237
237
complete course through internet. Online courses do not involve
in-person interaction of the teacher and the student. The
communication in the course is done through an online medium.
Online learning is relatively new but rapidly growing within and
outside university setting. Enrolments in online courses are
increasing rapidly. More than thirty percent of higher education
students now take at least one course online [9]. 69.1 percent of
the primary academic leaders consider online learning
significant for their long term strategy.
(onlinelearningconsortium.org/2015 survey). Given this context
the faculty is increasingly expected to develop and deliver
quality online courses
2. OBJECTIVE
Online teaching differs from face to face teaching on a few
important parameters. [5]. One of the major elements of
difference is the investment of time required for delivering
online courses. Online teaching redefines faculty members‟
schedule. [16] The present paper aims at in-depth analysis of the
time invested by the instructors on various activities and thus
the increase in workload of the faculty involved in delivering
online courses.
3. METHODOLOGY
This study was conducted with the support of 22 instructors
from different departments of two different schools under a
private university in India. Each of these instructors was
teaching a different course. The online sessions of these courses
were delivered through Blackboard, the Learning Management
System (LMS) of the university.
Some of the courses considered for study were delivered in
online mode while others were taught in blended mode. The
online courses were taken by off-campus students. In blended
courses the students attended lectures in the classroom and were
also required to attend online sessions of the course on
Blackboard. The student strength varied from 40 to 350 in
various courses. The digital content of the course was uploaded
on the blackboard at the start of the semester. However, the
instructors could make relevant changes in the content by
adding, deleting or modifying the basic content provided on the
LMS. As the course progressed, the instructors could engage
students in course related discussions and assess their learning
by creating quizzes/ tests and assignments. The communication
was done through online announcements on Blackboard, emails
or over phone. The students enrolled in blended courses met
their professor in class and could discuss about the course in
person during the office hours.
Log Diary: Most of the e-learning research focuses on the
student satisfaction and learning outcomes. Studies are also
 available describing the perception of students and the faculty scheduled activities in the course. A contact hour is “a unit of
about e learning. However, very few go into the nuances of e measure that represents an hour of scheduled instructions given to
learning showing what actually entails in online teaching. Such students” [10]. The courses which required 36 hours of teaching
a nuanced study is necessary to get a clearer picture of skill for requisite credits, when delivered in blended mode required the
requirements for online teaching and to understand what set of instructor to spend approximately 77 (36 + 41) hours, which
activities impact the effectiveness of online teaching. An online increases the workload by 113.89 percent.
instructor can collect such detailed information only through
In an online course, the presence of a strong operations team, in
daily logging of every single activity. Therefore, log diary
addition to the IT staff, handled course development and
method was chosen to collect the real time
administration related issues. Since it also worked as the interface
After conducting preliminary discussions and interview with the between the faculty and students, the instructors were relieved of
faculty about the activities required in online teaching, log diaries query handling and trouble shooting in the case of off- campus
were prepared. The daily log required data related to the course students. In an online course, the instructors were mainly involved
development, course delivery and course administration and in the course delivery. On an average, each instructor spent 57.43
troubleshooting. The log diaries captured only the work done in the hours in course delivery in an online course.
course outside the classroom. The time spent in the class or a
scheduled online lecture is to be understood as the timetabled 4.2. Type of Activities
activity. The lag diaries recorded only the activities which were Course development activity usually entails creating digital
done in addition to the timetabled sessions for the blended courses. learning resources in text, audio and video formats. In many
For online courses, the instructors were supported by a strong instances, e-learning software is used to create interactive videos
operations team, which managed most of the interactions with the and assessment exercises. In this study, the learning resources were
students. Operations team communicated with the students and available on Blackboard for all the 22 courses. This content was
provided them the support related to course administration. designed and developed before the start of the semester by the
faculty members with the support of IT staff and instructional
Collecting data through detailed logs had its benefits as well as designer appointed for this purpose. For online courses, also, the
disadvantages. On one hand, it was expected to get exhaustive content was made available on the Blackboard and the operations
details of the instructor‟s daily activity in their online course at the team supported the instructors throughout the semester.
other end it was viewed as adding to the, already heavy, workload
of the instructors. Such data collection may also be apprehended The data showed that course development took 330 hours in the
as monitoring of the daily activities of the instructors for entire semester, which was 15 hours per instructor.
management purposes. Therefore, at the beginning of the semester Course delivery per instructor was calculated to be 18.7 hours and
30 minute meeting was conducted with the instructors to explain course administration issues took 7.8 hours per instructor in the
them the objectives of the study, distribute the log diaries and semester. Creating assignments and assessments took considerable
clarify their doubts. During the semester, emails were sent to the time in the online mode.
participants of the study gently reminding them to complete their
daily logs. The log diaries were collected at the end of the Table 1.Total and Average Time Spent per Instructor in
semester. Course Development Activities
Time Spent (in
Twenty-two, completely filled, diaries were considered for minutes)
analysis. It can be safely assumed that some of the data recorded Activities
was based on guesstimates about how the time was spent. Some
Total Average
responses were recorded as total time spent in the week in that
activity rather than the time spent in each day.
Developing digital content 5585 253.9
4. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Creating Assignment 4900 222.7
The data was entered into excel sheets, coded and analyzed to
understand the activities performed and the time spent on each of
Creating Test 3405 154.8
them while delivering online sessions. The analysis was done at
three different levels viz. the level of course design, the type of
Creating Discussion Thread 1570 71.4
activities and at the level of administrative positions of the
instructors. The data showed individual variations in the type of Recording Lectures 4340 197.3
activities and the time spent by the faculty at all levels.
Total 19800 900
4.1. Course Design
Out of the 22 courses considered for the study, 14 were delivered Time in Hours 330 15
in blended mode and eight were taught in online mode. In a
blended course the instructors spent an average of 40.8 hours in
online activities. This included revising and updating the content, Table2. Total and Average Time Spent per Instructorin
communicating with the students and assessment. It also includes
Course Delivery Activities
the time instructors spent on helping students sort out the technical
Course Delivery Activities Time Spent (in minutes)
issues on Blackboard by coordinating with the IT staff. This time
was in addition to the time tabled contact hours and other Total Average

238
 Evaluation/Assessment
Creating Announcement
Communicating with
Students
Searching for relevant online
content
Total
Time in Hours
Table 3. Total and Average Time Spent per Instructor in
Course Administration Activities
Course Administration
Activities
Answering students question
about course
Dealing with Course
Administration
Interacting with student in
person regarding the
online/blended course
Any other Activity not
mentioned Above
11465 521.2 5. DISCUSSION
1219 55.5 It is well known that introduction of e-learning often increases the
staff time spent on tutoring [6,8] to an extent of doubling the
3059 139.1
workload of the instructors as compared to the traditional classroom
format [12]. Using content uploaded on Blackboard in blended
8931 406 courses did not save time in the classroom as the students requested
revision of the online topic in face to face class. Answering student
24674 1121.55 queries on Blackboard did not benefit from economy of scale.
Students posted similar questions on the Blackboard and expected
411.233 18.7
individual answers rather than communicating together as a single
class.
Due to tremendous interest and growth in online enrolments, faculty
are being asked to develop and deliver online courses. However, as
Time Spent (in minutes) the present paper shows, developing and teaching online course can
Total Average be very time consuming. Developed courses need to be revised and
updated regularly. The specific forms of communication and
3557 161.7 collaboration in online settings affect the time demands placed on
instructors; online courses create an additional and significant time
burden for instructors [14].
3680 165
Studies have examined the workloads and stress levels and the anti-
educational consequences of these. [3, 4] Online teaching has many
2478 112.6 implications for faculty work life and faculty needs greater support
in course development [11]. Management needs to review and
rationalize the work load of faculty As online course development,
delivery and administration involves massive component of IT a
620 28.2 strong, efficient and dedicated IT support is necessary for optimum
utilization of faculty‟s time and efforts.

Total 10285 467.5

Time in Hours 171.417 7.8
4.3. Administrative Positions
Data was further analyzed with respect to the administrative
positions. Instructors were divided into three categories. The
instructors who were heading a function or a department were
grouped together as HODs. Other group which coordinated one or
other courses in the school, along with teaching was named as
Coordinators and remaining were the Lecturers whose primary
responsibility was teaching. The average number of hours spent by
HODs in online teaching was 37.11 hours. Course coordinators
spent an average of 47.39 hours and lecturers spent 37.64 hours in
online teaching. This time was calculated considering both the
online and blended courses.
The above findings show that the online teaching places high
demands on time of the faculty and increases their workload to
almost twice that of the face-to-face course. This should be seen
along with the requirements of additional IT related skill sets. In the
traditional setting, the instructors use subject matter expertise to
engage students and achieve learning objectives, In case of online
teaching, the instructor requires IT skills to develop, deliver and
administer the course. Mulig and Rhame [9] suggest that the
professor should seek help from IT for this purpose. In addition to
the above, time management and planning is required to meet the
students‟ expectation of 24x7 availability of the instructor to
respond to their queries [7]
6. CONCLUSION
Published studies highlight the advantages of e-learning for both the
students and the faculty. With increasing number of students,
enrolling for online courses it becomes imperative that the process
of online teaching is understood in its entirety. Expected benefits
from e-learning systems can be reaped only when provisions are
made for the specific requirements of this new form of teaching. As
Simpson [13] rightly reminds that teachers should be seen as
navigators of information not the gatekeepers of knowledge and
professionalism, reflective practice and scholarship should remain
central to the teacher‟s role.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
These results are a part of the research funded by Laureate
Education Inc. The research aims at identifying the factors which
improve teaching effectiveness in higher education in the context
of e-learning environment. The authors of this paper are
coinvestigators in the study.
8. REFERENCES
[1] Allen, E. and Seaman, J. 2010. Class Differences, Online
Education in the United States, 2010. 2010 Sloan Survey of
Online Learning, Babson Survey Research Group.
[2] Bartolic-Zlomislic, S., & Bates, A. 1999. Investing in online
learning: Potential benefits and limitations. Canadian Journal
of Communication, 24,3. Retrieved March, 20014,
http://www.cjc-online.ca/viewarticle.php?id=534
[3] Batten, L. & Skinner, M. 1997. The Lecturers Job: A Survey
of Conditions of Service in New Universities and Higher
education, Commissioned by Natfhe. Epsom: Crossbow
Research.

239
[4] Earley, P. 1994. Lecturers’ Workload and Factors Affecting
Stress Levels: A research report from the NFER. Slough:
Natfhe.
[5] Fred J. de Vries, Liesbeth Kester, Peter Sloep, Peter van
Rosmalen, Kees Pannekeet & Rob Koper.
2005. Identification of critical time-consuming student
support activities in e-learning, ALT-J, 13:3, 219-
229, DOI: 10.1080/09687760500376488
[6] Guri-Rosenbilt, S. 2005. „Distance education‟ and
„elearning‟: not the same thing, Higher Eudcation,49, 467–
493.
[7] James A. Visser. 2000. Faculty work in developing and
teaching web‐based distance courses: A case study of time
and effort, American Journal of Distance Education,
14:3,21-32, DOI: 10.1080/08923640009527062
[8] Jennifer A. Phillips, Christie Schumacher, and Sally Arif.
2016. Time spent, workload, and student and faculty
perceptions in a blended learning environment. American
Journal of Pharmaceutical Education: Volume 80, Issue 6,
Article 102.
[9] Mulig, L. and Rhame, S. 2012. Time requirements in an
online teaching requirements: how to be more effective and
efficient in teaching online, Journal of Accounting and
Finance vol.12(4) 2012.
[10] National center for educational statistics, integrated post
secondary data systems, https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
VisGlossaryAll.aspx ; Accessed on 17 June 2019
[11] Rogers, P., Morgan, D Cort, K. 2018. No one told me about
the dark Side: pitfalls for faculty teaching online, Global
Journal of Business Pedagogy, 2(1), 112-120.
[12] Rumble, G. 2001. The cost and costing of networked learning,
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5, 75-96.
[13] Simpson, P. 1998. Working with Uncertainty: Managing
Working Lives, Discussion Paper 5, Redefining Work
Project . London: RSA
[14] Spector, J.M . 2005. Time demands in online instruction,
Distance Education. 26,1, 5-27
[15] Suda, K. J., Sterling, J. M., Guirguis, A. B., & Mathur, S.
2014. Student perception and academic performance after
implementation of a blended learning approach to a drug
information and literature evaluation course. Currents in
Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 6(3), 367-
372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2014.02.017
[16] Young, J.R. (2002, May). The 24 hour professor. Chronicle of
Higher Education, A31-A33

240