Education for Mental Health Toolkit - Workload

These negative consequences of deadline bunching are an in-built risk within the modular structure, in which subjects are taught discretely and learning is assessed at the end of each module. Unless explicitly addressed in design, it is almost inevitable that students will be asked to submit work for every module on dates that are close together (4). Alternative approaches to the modular structure, such as Victoria University’s block teaching system offer ways of avoiding these inherent weaknesses (5).  

Students also identified that these negative impacts could be particularly problematic for students who had less flexibility in terms of time due to other commitments outside of university – such as caring, paid work or being an elite athlete (6). This means they must either fit the workload into the reduced hours they have available or begin sacrificing their health e.g., by reducing the number of hours they sleep. 

Modules in which students are only assessed at the end of term, can also create a see-saw effect between under-demand early in term, in which students can be under occupied, bored and lethargic, followed by over-demand. Moving between these two behaviours can be problematic and students may struggle to find the motivation to engage, even while cognitively recognising how important it is that they do so. Shifting emotional and motivational states is not easy and can lead to students feeling that they are falling behind, further eroding self-belief and motivation. 

There are a number of ways in which high workload can have a negative impact on wellbeing. 

1. Research has shown that the perception of workload and an individual’s belief in whether they can meet the demand can impact wellbeing (1, 7-8). This closely feeds into feelings of control – whether the individual perceives their workload to be within their control. How work is framed and explained to students is therefore important, as is their ability to understand how they can best approach the work they have been set.  

2. Research has shown that fatigue in students is an important part of the process of producing their state of wellbeing and that this is linked to workload (9). This is particularly problematic if students sacrifice sleep as this can have consequences for physical wellbeing, mental health and cognitive capacity, reducing learning and academic performance (10). 

3. Research has demonstrated that human beings have limited capacity to manage cognitive load. If there is a gap between the capacity available and the capacity required for a task, this can lead to unhelpful levels of stress, anxiety and burn out (11).  

4. Individual motivation is linked to this capacity. When the gap between the capacity available and the capacity needed is large, it can undermine a student’s motivation and self-belief.  

5. Students who are facing high workloads often respond by making quality sacrifices. Rather than engaging deeply with their assignments, they adopt surface level survival strategies to simply get the work completed to a reasonably successful standard. This strips them of the potential positive wellbeing benefits of engaging in academic work – such as deeper and more meaningful learning. Surface engagement in this way is also likely to lead to lower learning overall, thus undermining future learning, self-efficacy and motivation. 

All of which does not mean that hard work is bad for wellbeing. Research has also shown that sustainable challenge can be beneficial for wellbeing, especially in the medium to long term. A sustainable workload can provide stretching challenge and structure for ongoing development, leading to greater academic learning and achievement (1). It can also support students to build a sustainable knowledge base for future learning. 

Workload design is therefore a key consideration within curriculum design. Workload must be structured across the curriculum and between modules, to provide sustainable challenge that benefits learning and wellbeing. This can avoid the see-saw effect of under-demand followed by over-demand and students becoming overwhelmed by deadline bunching. 

Key lessons 

• While hard work can be good for wellbeing, the structure of a student’s workload can have negative consequences for wellbeing and the depth of their learning.  
• Deadline bunching can cause students to become overwhelmed and to adopt surface level strategies. Bunching can also undermine motivation and self-belief. 
• Negative impacts can be greater for students with other commitments who have less flexibility in their time. 
• Workload structures need to be planned into curriculum design and across modules to produce sustainable challenge. 

Top Tips 

• Consider the structure and spread of student workload across the curriculum in design.  
• Ensure students understand how to approach assessments, to create greater confidence that they can complete it competently and reduce perceptions that workload is too great. 
• Ensure students have stretching academic activity across the whole of term, to build sustainable challenge. 

References 

1. Smith AP. Student workload, wellbeing and academic attainment. In International symposium on human mental workload: Models and applications 2019 Nov 14. p. 35-47. Springer, Cham. Available from: doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-32423-0_3

2. Gusy B, Lesener T, Wolter C. Time Pressure and Health-Related Loss of Productivity in University Students: The Mediating Role of Exhaustion. Frontiers in public health. 2021;9. Available from: doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.653440

3. Bachman L, Bachman C. Student perceptions of academic workload in architectural education. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 2006 Dec 1:271-304. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030781.

4. Jones E, Priestley M, Brewster L, Wilbraham SJ, Hughes G, Spanner L. Student wellbeing and assessment in higher education: the balancing act. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2021 Apr 3;46(3):438-50. Available from: doi: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1782344

5. Ambler T, Solomonides I, Smallridge A. Students’ experiences of a first‐year block model curriculum in higher education. The Curriculum Journal. 2021 May 14.

6. McGregor I. How does Term-time Paid Work Affect Higher Education Students' Studies, and What can be Done to Minimise any Negative Effects? Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice. 2015 Sep 1;3(2).

7. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review. 1977 Mar;84(2):191. Available from: doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 

8. Dweck CS, Leggett EL. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological review. 1988 Apr;95(2):256. Available from: doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 

9. Smith AP. Cognitive fatigue and the well-being and academic attainment of university students. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioral Science. 2018 Feb 12. Available from: doi: 10.9734/JESBS/2018/39529

10. Curcio G, Ferrara M, De Gennaro L. Sleep loss, learning capacity and academic performance. Sleep medicine reviews. 2006 Oct 1;10(5):323-37.

11. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science. 1988 Apr 1;12(2):257-85. Available from: doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4