impact of hybrid instructional course design on faculty time

11/5/2015

1

IMPACT OF HYBRID INSTRUCTIONAL COURSE DESIGN ON FACULTY TIME

Peggy M. Martin, PhD, OTR/L

AOTA Education Summit, PL 09B

AOTA Education Summitt 2015; Do not copy without permission

Session Objectives

• Describe how faculty teaching in a 70%‐75% online curriculum spend their teaching time

• Describe one method to test the fit of a workload policy


11/5/2015

2

Background

Workload Policy

• June, 2013: Workload approved by faculty

• Based on % time (1 unit = 18.8 hours)

• How many units is needed to teach a course?

Implement Policy

• 2013: Determined per course workload totals

• Assigned faculty teaching assignments in units

• How accurate are the policy assumptions?

Test Policy

• 2014‐ 2015: Pilot methods of collecting time use

• 2015: What are the occupations in which the faculty engage?


Research Question


Within the context of hybrid course delivery: • How do faculty use their time?• What occupations most commonly align

with the teaching role?

Received U of M IRB approval

11/5/2015

3

Sample: Inclusion Criteria

• Courses taught in a hybrid manner: minimum 2 F2F sessions & required online content

• Taught spring/ summer 2015 rated agree or strongly agree by students in two course eval questions:– The online course layout, logistics, & navigation were clear and easy to

learn;

– The balance of online and F2F learning activities best facilitated my learning.

• Considered by faculty to be ‘mature’, and

• Faculty had taught the course at least 2 times before


Sample – 6/13 courses, 17 credits

No. Course Name Credits % Online(2011)

Study enrollment status

6200 Public Engagement 0.5; 0.5 0% Excluded

7201 Scholarly Inquiry 4.0 79% Excluded

6201 OT for Family 2.0 86% Included

6202 CompensatoryApproaches

5.0 75% Included

6203 Anat/ Kines 3.0 48‐70% Included

6213 Medical Contexts 2.0 72% Included

6301 Remediation 4.0 52% Excluded

6302 Neuroscience 5.0 54% Excluded

6312 Psychosocial 3.0 50% Included

6322 Work Contexts 2.0 73% Included

7394 Schol Projects 3; 4 0% ExcludedAOTA Education Summitt 2015; Do not copy without permission

11/5/2015

4

Methods: Data collection based upon Workload Policy

• 100 units = 100% FTE

• 1 unit = 18.8 hours

• Based upon roles

• Course Director

• Instructional Support Staff


Data Collection – Time Use Software


HARVESThttps://www.getharvest.com/tour

Faculty instructed to enter teaching time every day

11/5/2015

5

Data Collection‐ Occupations of Teaching

General F2F Online

Administration F2F instruction Grading

Assisting others/ coach ISS

Online instruction

Design & Develop Updates

Curriculum Development

Travel


• Faculty identified categories for teaching (Summer, 2014)• Reviewed and revised by faculty to include categories for

scholarship and service (September, 2014)• Reviewed and discussed operational definitions for teaching

categories (January 2015)

Results: Faculty hrs per activityHi/Lo Rank

Category TL hours Percent hrs[mean (sd)]

Online/F2F/ General

1 Grading 350 27.7% (0.15) online

2 F2F instruction 268.5 22.7% (0.13) F2F

3 Course updates 237 14.9% (0.11) online

4 Administration 200.5 13.2% (0.07) general

5 Online instruction 137.5 10.0% (0.15) online

6 Design & develop 122 8.1% (0.07) general

7 Assist others/ Coach ISS

46 3.3% (0.03) general

N= 6 courses; 17 credits 1361.5 hours


11/5/2015

6

Results: Faculty Overall Effort‐Online/ F2F/ General

Category Total Hours Percent per Category

Online 724.5 53%

F2F 268.5 20%

General 368.5 27%

Totals 1361.5 hours 100%


Conclusions


1. Results support use of percent time (units) within our workload policy

2. Faculty spend almost twice as much time involved in online activities than F2F

3. Faculty spend 13% of their teaching time in course administration

4. Faculty time occurs across at least 8‐9 months; difficult to align with traditional employment terms of adjunct faculty

11/5/2015

7

Conclusions‐Method


1. Time capture software was effective in capturing faculty time

2. Occupations of teaching can be identified3. Better understanding of teaching occupations can

inform faculty professional development

Limitations


• Difficult to fully operationalize time categories for accurate reporting

• Does not include the very large development time reported by faculty when creating new learning activities, new courses, transitioning to new faculty, or accommodating for significant changes in textbooks

• Results cannot be generalized to other curricula or faculty employment models

11/5/2015

8

Next Steps


1. Compare faculty time in a traditional to hybrid curricula2. Continue to refine time requirements of teaching

occupations3. Determine typical design and development time

demands

Thank you!

Peggy M. Martin, PhD, OTR/[email protected]

612‐626‐4358
