by Jarek Janio, Ph.D.
Inspired by a recent Friday SLO Talk featuring Dr. Leslie Jennings, Missina Minter, Megan Zara, and Dr. Stacy Greathouse from The University of Texas at Arlington.
Imagine registering for a course that looks manageable only to find out halfway through that the reading load is crushing, the assignments are endless, and nobody warned you.
Students everywhere know this feeling.
And educators often unintentionally contribute to it through what the Motley Crew at The University of Texas at Arlington boldly called “time terrorism.”
In their recent Friday SLO Talk, this team made it clear:
Transparent, honest workload planning is not optional. It’s a matter of educational integrity.
When we expect students to demonstrate mastery of Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs), we must also ensure they have the time, tools, and clarity to get there.
Otherwise, assessment becomes a stress test not a measure of learning.
Here’s why workload transparency matters so much and how institutions can start making it a norm rather than an exception.
What Is “Time Terrorism”?
Time terrorism happens when instructors, often unintentionally, hide or underestimate the time needed to complete a course’s learning tasks.
It happens when:
- Assignments balloon beyond their described scope.
- Readings pile up without clear guidance or pacing.
- Projects require mastering hidden technologies or skills students weren’t prepared for.
- “Participation” expectations are vague and endless.
The result? Students fall behind, disengage, or simply survive the course rather than thrive in it.
The Motley Crew at UTA was determined not to let that happen.
In designing their accelerated nursing course, they built transparent workload estimations into the very structure of the course and shared these calculations openly with students.
Why Workload Transparency Matters for SLO Assessment
Workload transparency is not just about fairness. It directly impacts whether SLO assessment is valid.
Here’s why:
1. Learning requires time.
Mastery of complex skills like analyzing surgical procedures or applying perioperative nursing protocols can’t happen without deliberate practice. If students are rushed, they might “complete” tasks without actually learning.
2. Hidden workload creates inequity.
Students with more time flexibility (often wealthier students) can absorb unexpected demands. Those balancing jobs, caregiving, or disabilities cannot. Hidden workload punishes the most vulnerable.
3. Fatigue undermines performance.
When students are overloaded, they cannot produce work that authentically demonstrates what they can do. Assessment becomes a measure of endurance, not learning.
4. Transparent pacing improves motivation.
When students can see a clear, reasonable path to success, they are more willing to persist and invest in the learning process.
In short:
A fair workload is part of what makes assessment trustworthy.
How the Motley Crew Designed for Transparency
Designing a high-stakes, accelerated course could easily have become a nightmare.
Instead, the team used a range of strategies to protect students:
- Workload Estimator Tools:
They used Rice University’s Workload Estimator 2.0 to calculate the expected time for every reading, video, assignment, and quiz. The tool allowed them to model reading density, difficulty level, assignment complexity, and more. - Intentional Overestimation:
Rather than using “best case” time estimates, they planned for real-world conditions. If a video was 10 minutes long, they assumed students would need 15–20 minutes to take notes, pause, and reflect. - Task-by-Task Transparency:
Students weren’t left guessing. Every module listed estimated times for reading, assignments, and assessments, giving students the ability to plan their schedules accurately. - Clear Pacing Guides:
For each destination (“module”), students were provided with pacing suggestions that mapped onto learning objectives, ensuring that no SLO was neglected due to time crunches. - Alignment Between Effort and Value:
Assignments that took substantial time were worth a proportional amount toward the final grade respecting students’ investment.
The result? A course design where learning expectations and time expectations were aligned and humane.
Why Many Courses Still Hide the Workload
Despite the obvious benefits, many courses still suffer from time terrorism.
Why?
- Faculty underestimate the time tasks require. Especially when content feels “easy” to the instructor.
- Workload accumulates piecemeal. Adding a video here, a quiz there, a discussion post there without recalibrating the total effort.
- Cultural resistance to workload transparency. Some educators fear that if students see how much time a course really demands, they might not sign up or might demand changes.
But avoiding transparency doesn’t protect learning.
It undermines it.
And students are not fooled. They feel when a course is reasonable and when it demands more than was advertised.
How to Build Workload Transparency into Your Course
Even if your institution doesn’t mandate it, you can build a more transparent course yourself. Here’s how:
1. Estimate honestly
Use a workload estimator (like Rice’s) to model the time needed for each reading, video, assignment, and exam. Assume that students will need to pause, reflect, and revisit content.
2. Communicate expectations
Publish pacing guides and weekly workload estimates. Tell students explicitly: “Plan to spend about 6 hours this week completing the required tasks.”
3. Respect students’ investment
If an assignment is complex and time-consuming, make sure it counts for a meaningful portion of the grade.
4. Balance rigor with realism
Challenging students is important. Crushing them is counterproductive. Choose fewer, deeper assignments over many scattered ones.
5. Adjust based on feedback
If multiple students report that a task took twice as long as planned, recalibrate. Build flexibility where you can.
Workload planning should be dynamic, not static.
Final Thoughts
When we talk about equity, rigor, and authentic learning assessment, workload transparency often gets left out of the conversation.
It shouldn’t.
Learning outcomes are promises.
They are promises that if students do the work, they will gain the skills and knowledge we claim to offer.
But those promises are only meaningful if students have the time and the opportunity to fulfill them.
The Motley Crew model reminds us that respect for students’ time is respect for their learning.
Ending time terrorism is not just an administrative fix.
It’s a human one.
It’s how we build courses that students survive not by grit and guesswork but by clear pathways, fair opportunities, and authentic achievement.