Practice What You Preach: A Hybrid Orientation to Online Pedagogy Catherine Kelley, Ph.D. Fairleigh Dickinson University

Copyright Copyright Catherine L. Kelley, This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non- commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

Abstract (with correction!) “This session will describe a hybrid (part online, part face-to-face) faculty development program recently conducted at Fairleigh Dickinson University. Faculty participating as online students gain invaluable insight into the student distance-learning experience. Data demonstrate that a semester-long hybrid course (is well worth) may be worth the effort required in development.”

Overview Talk will describe a seven week, fourteen session hybrid faculty training program offered in Summer 2002 Data demonstrate that faculty in such a program develop more comprehensive classes than those in “traditional” classes But ROI data are inconclusive – Get a lot of “bang” with this approach, but it costs a lot of bucks

The Course Designed to increase participation in our DL initiative Each participant paid $1500 – expected to develop class within two years after workshop 23 Participants, 12 at each campus with one dropout Practically every discipline represented

Rationale In ordinary training, faculty can’t “see the forest for the trees” By participating as a student, will understand what students need Brief Course Demo: Faculty reaction very positive: e.g. “All FDU faculty should be required to take this course.”

Comparison Groups Our “ordinary” Blackboard Training  Two hour sessions, offered a number of times each term  Some faculty only interested in learning how to teach with Blackboard in already-developed shells  Usually 2 to 5 participants per session  Conducted face-to-face by our Instructional Design Coordinators

Comparison Groups Wroxton Summer Group  Elite group, had to submit course proposals  Traveled to our campus in Wroxton, England for intensive five-day retreat  Expected to develop course for our DL initiative within one year

Estimated cost per participant Does NOT include cost of development of workshop materials – only time “on the ground” Wroxton Workshop: o$7000 per participant (travel, food, staff costs) Summer Workshop: o$2000 per participant (stipend plus staff costs) Blackboard Training: oNo more than $200 per participant, maybe less (primarily staff costs)

Analysis of ROI Based on a very rough rubric for evaluating the “quality” of classes produced by participants: 1.Was a Blackboard shell created? 2.Is it empty, or is something in it? 3.Does it include a syllabus, readings, assignments, external references? 4.Are unit course objectives included? 5.Is there an active discussion board?

What did they do? Percent who developed courses for Fall 02 or Spring 03 as a function of type of training

What did they do? Percent of faculty with a course who included each type of element

What did they do? Percent of faculty overall with each type of course element

Cost per “element” Very rough and ready figures: Wroxton: about $3,000 per element Summer workshop: About $1,500 per element Blackboard training: About $250 per element

Conclusions The higher-priced training definitely leads to more fully-developed classes However cost per element is high Are there ways to bring about the kind of change we want to see, but at a lower cost? E.g. if faculty for summer workshop had not been paid, cost per element would have been about $350 (compared to $250 for BB training)

Cautions Rubric for evaluating quality is very rough and ready – more detailed analysis is required All “elements” are not created equal This is based on ONE year’s experience – with more experience the ROI figures for the two higher-priced training types might improve One of the Wroxton participants was already an experienced course developer, skewing results