Advertisement

“Cheap” and “expensive” credit points: a case study of their causes and utility at a high course-load university

  • Alex DaviesEmail author
Original Paper
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Failures to standardize the work required to receive equal credit points from different courses make credit points unfit for their official purposes. Moreover, increasingly, institutions are found where students are required to take a high number of courses simultaneously. This study aimed to identify plausible hypotheses about how high course-loads and standardization failure interact by examining credit point standardization failure at an Estonian university where students are required to take twice as many courses as their peers at better performing universities. The hypotheses supported by the study are: the high course-load both made standardization failure useful to students seeking to manage the high course-load and contributed toward standardization failure because it rendered students’ assessments of workload untrustworthy to lecturers who regulate that workload. Existing advice on standardization of workloads within the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System is criticized for its insensitivity to the constructive effects of course-load on student workload preferences.

Keywords

Credit points Course workload Course-load Student preferences 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research of this paper was supported by the European Regional Development Fund through grant SHVHV16145T and the Centre for Excellence in Estonian Studies.

References

  1. Alshamy, A. (2017). Credit hour system and student workload at Alexandria University: A possible paradigm shift. Tuning Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 277–309.Google Scholar
  2. Beerkens, M., Mägi, E., & Lill, L. (2011). University studies as a side job: Causes and consequences of massive student employment in Estonia. Higher Education, 61(6), 679–692.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 73–85.Google Scholar
  4. Busby, S., Cloonan, S., Jordan, G., Murchu, P., Robinson, D., & Williams, I. (2014). “Report to Council on the Review of the TR071 Science Programme.” https://www.tcd.ie/teaching-learning/quality/assets/pdf/Report%20to%20Council%20on%20review%20of%20TR071.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2019.
  5. Chambers, E. (1992). Work-load and the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 17(2), 141–153.Google Scholar
  6. Chopik, W., O’Brien, E., & Konrath, S. (2017). Differences in empathic concern and perspective taking across 63 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
  7. Cook, M., Bankov, K., Beach, H., Heiskari, T., Groot, M. H., Stuchtey, B., Kirchin, S., & Farkas, K. (2015). “Assessment Report: Study Programme Group on Humanities - Tallinn University and Tartu University”. http://ekka.archimedes.ee/wp-content/uploads/Humanities_report_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2019.
  8. Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2017). “Revision of the Funding Model in Higher Education in Estona.” https://ec.europa.eu/education/compendium/revision-funding-model-higher-education-estonia_en. Accessed 05 July 2018.
  10. Gonzalez, J., & Wagenaar, R. (2006). Student workload, teaching methods and learning outcome: The tuning approach. In R. Wagenaar & J. Gonzalez (Eds.), Tuning educational structures in Europe. Universities’ contribution to the Bologna process. An introduction (pp. 82–89). Bilbao and Groningen: University of Deusto Press.Google Scholar
  11. Haldma, T., K. Ploom, and A. Lorenz. 2016. “Performance measurement and Management in Estonian Universities”. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Accounting, Auditing, and Taxation (ICAAT 2016), 108–19.Google Scholar
  12. Heffernan, J. (1973). The credibility of the credit hour: The history, use, and shortcomings of the credit system. The Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 61–72.Google Scholar
  13. Hofstede Insights. (n.d.). “Country Comparison: What about Estonia?” Accessed July 23, 2018. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/estonia,latvia,lithuania/. Accessed 23 July 2018.
  14. Jansen, E. (2004). The influence of the curriculum organization on study Progress in higher education. Higher Education, 47(4), 411–435.Google Scholar
  15. Karm, M., Sarv, A., & Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P. (2015). Üliõpilaste Tagasiside Õppejõu Pilgu Läbi - Uskuda Või Mitte. ENDC Proceedings, 20, 28–47.Google Scholar
  16. Karran, T. (2004). Achieving Bologna convergence: Is ECTS failing to make the grade? Higher Education in Europe, 29(3), 411–421.Google Scholar
  17. Karran, T. (2005). Pan-European grading scales: Lessons from National Systems and the ECTS. Higher Education in Europe, 30(1), 5–22.Google Scholar
  18. Kember, R. (2004). Interpreting student workload and the factors which shape students' perceptions of their workload. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 165–184.Google Scholar
  19. Kühlwein, W., Aijmer, K., Gonzalez Escribano, J. L., Fisiak, J., Rissanen, M., Skara, D., & Butkiene, J. (2008). Klaipėda University - Study Field of Philology External Assessment of English Philology Study Programme - Final Report. http://pluto.skvc.lt/_layouts/ListAttachment.aspx?Attachment=Lists%2FPublicUnderwayStudyProgram%2FAttachments%2F1118%2F8.8.isvados_KU.en.doc. Accessed 17 Jan 2019.
  20. Kustritz, M., Root, V., Molgaard, L. K., & Malone, E. (2017). Curriculum review and revision at the University of Minnesota College of veterinary medicine. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 44(3), 459–470.Google Scholar
  21. Lees, M. 2017. “Estonian education system 1990-2016”. 4Liberty.Eu Review, no. 6: 114–28.Google Scholar
  22. Lepp, L., Remmik, M., Leijen, Ä., & Leijen, D. (2016). Doctoral students’ research stall: Supervisors’ perceptions and intervention strategies. SAGE Open, 6(3), 1–12.Google Scholar
  23. Lorimer, M. (1962). How much is a credit hour?: A Plea for clarification. The Journal of Higher Education, 33(6), 302–306.Google Scholar
  24. Mägi, E., Jaakson, K., Aidla, A., Kirss, L., & Reino, A. (2012). Full-time employed students as university consumers - consequences and triggers of marketization of higher education. European Journal of Higher Education, 2(2–3), 248–266.Google Scholar
  25. Mason, T., Arnove, R., & Sutton, M. (2001). Credits, curriculum, and control in higher education: Cross-National Perspectives. Higher Education, 42(1), 107–137.Google Scholar
  26. Maupin, V., & Xu, C. Y. (2011). “Evaluation of the Master Programme in Geosciences, UiO, 2011.” http://www.uio.no/english/studies/programmes/geosciences-master/quality-assurance/FollowupReportExternalPanel.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2019.
  27. Min, M., Olsson, L., & Rivza, P. (2005). “Evaluation of the Academic Study Programmes in Computer Management, Information and Electronic Systems of Transport - Joint Accreditation Report.” http://www.aiknc.lv/zinojumi/en/RtuTrDatInfB05KZ.doc. Accessed 30 June 2018.
  28. Realo, A. (2003). Comparison of public and academic discourses: Estonian individualism and collectivism revisited. Culture and Psychology, 9(1), 47–77.Google Scholar
  29. Saar, E., and T. Roosalu. 2018. “Inverted U-Shape of Estonian Higher Education: Post-Socialist Liberalism and Postpostsocialist Consolidation”. In 25 Years of Transformations of Higher Education Systems in Post-Soviet Countries: Reform and Continuity, edited by J. Huisman, A. Smolentseva, and I. Froumin, 149–74. Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Shedd, J. (2003). The history of the student credit hour. New Directions for Higher Education, no., 122, 5–12.Google Scholar
  31. Souto-Iglesias, A., & Baeza_Romero, M. T. (2018). A probabilistic approach to student workload: Empirical distributions and ECTS. Higher Education, 1007–1025.Google Scholar
  32. Sullivan, K. (2002). Credit and grade transfer within the European Union’s SOCRATES Programme: Unity in diversity or head in the sand? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(1), 65–74.Google Scholar
  33. Vadi, M., & Buono, A. F. (1997). Collectivism and individualism in Estonia: An exploratory study of societal change and Organisational orientation. In N. Hood, R. Kilis, & J. E. Vahlne (Eds.), Transition in the Baltic States (pp. 62–79). London: Palgrave Macmillian.Google Scholar
  34. Valsdottir, K., Jakobsdottir, V., & Irwin, R. (2015). “Department of Arts Education Institution-Led Review”. https://lhi.is/sites/lhi.is/files/atoms/files/iaa_department_of_arts_education_institution_led_review_march_20151.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2019.
  35. Vassil, K., & Solvak, M. (2012). When failing is the only option: Explaining failure to finish PhDs in Estonia. Higher Education, 64(4), 503–516.Google Scholar
  36. Vitoratos, E., and A. Tampakis. 2009. “Estimation of Students Workload. Correlation of Teaching and Learning Methods with Examination Results. A Case Study”. In Proceedings of the 2nd EMUNI Conference on Higher Education and Research. Portoroz, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  37. Wagenaar, R. 2008. “Educational structures, learning outcomes, workload and the calculation of ECTS credits”. In Tuning educational structures in Europe. Universities’ contribution to the Bologna process. An introduction, edited by R Wagenaar and J Gonzalez, 57–81. Bilbao and Groningen: University of Deusto Press.Google Scholar
  38. Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The European Higher Education Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations