54. Please discuss the amount of time all those involved spent developing and implementing this course? Include a comparison to the time it would likely take to develop, implement, and support a similar course which is not globally networked.
I would estimate at least 100 hours. I would also estimate that the globally networked aspects added at least 20 or 30 hours to the process.
I spent in excess of one hundred hours on course design and planning. Implementation and assessment was an additional fourteen to twenty hours per week for the eight weeks. Taking the total to around one hundred and seventy hours. The collaborative aspect of course delivery would have added at least thirty hours to that process. Having said that, this would no doubt have been the case even if it had been a collaboration with another university within Australia.
I spent as much time developing this one globally networked course as I spend developing a full theatre production, which is the equivalent of two or three courses, though it isn’t compensated that way. I would normally put about 100 to 140 hours into developing a completely new traditional course, and with the Institute, the emails and SKYPE meetings, and time spent on creation of the syllabus and course calendar, we far exceeded that number. I still believe that the time I expended was not enough time. Given the lack of adequate technology (video and audio), I could not have given much more productive time to that aspect. At the end of the semester, the workload was so intense that I did not have adequate time to give to the final assessment piece of the project. I also had a professional opportunity for the summer that developed unexpectedly, and I had to give time in the summer that I previously might have donated to the COIL project to that job.
It’s hard to estimate, butwe spent a great deal of time preparing for that collaboration and managing it throughout the semester. All things considered, I’d guess we invested the equivalent of at least 3 credit hours the semester before and 3 additional credit hours (above and beyond the regular course) during the collaboration semester. Really a wild guess though. (CCC)
Dr. Aragon finds that putting together a new course normally takes forty hours and this course is no different; however, she and Dr. Gupta-Carlson kept in contact via email and phone. This was Dr. Gupta-Carlson’s first major reconfiguration of online course content, and she found that the development was about the same amount that she experienced in creating her new course, Hip-Hop America, later in 2012. Because the online course content had to be much more rigorously structured than a face-to-face course, Dr. Gupta-Carlson appreciated how Dr. Aragon’s adoption of course texts and other learning materials from Digital Storytelling into the Youth Politics course helped give the course shape.
This course requires approximately 5 hours extra per week.
Three-five hours per week during the early design phase, which began in earnest almost 8 months before the course was implemented. Once the course was set-up, we worked about 2 hours per week meeting to discuss class and prepping, 3 hours to prep new materials in disciplines or subjects we were unfamiliar with, 3 hours in class, 1-2 hours to respond to Forum comments, 1-2 hours online office hours. It was not just the globally networked course that added time it was the team course implementation and team-teaching. A traditional course with some innovative elements would take a fraction of the time, about 80% less time.
Unfortunately, I did not tally up the hours of planning, replanning, re-replanning, discussions between me, Matt, and Junko, meetings with Global Studies, time spent with students outside of the official course time, and everything else that went into the course. I’m certain that the same is true for Junko. I think we spent an excessive amount of time obsessing about the course and feeling tortured over the implementation and details--Are students getting anything from this activity? Is the module format moving us toward a tenable goal? etc.--particularly because this was our first time giving the course. I’m not sure if a properly done face-to-face course would be less work. But it would most certainly be work of a different sort, and would only become less work after many implementations.
I think there is no so much difference between classes not globally networked and globally networked except time and semester differences. Time differences including time lag and daylight saving time make this kind of international collaborative course more difficult than a similar course with is not globally networked. Also, international collaboration always faces semester period difference between two countries, so it makes difficult to do the exact same classes between two countries. In my case, SJSU was from the end of August to the beginning of Dec, while Kagoshima university was from the beginning of October to the beginning of Feb.
Much more time involved in the GNLC, even more so because it was a new course. This was problematic, but in the end we began to appreciate the return on our investment.
Time to develop the COIL course was considerably more than developing a singular course because development demanded collaboration with other faculty and staff, which necessitated time for communication and sharing of course materials. The Brockport/Novgorod team engaged in several Skype planning sessions in addition to our attendance and participation in the COIL training. We also devoted considerable time to electronic communications in the months prior to the offering of our course where we fined tuned course syllabi and assignment logistics. Similarly, we continued this electronic and Skype correspondence throughout the semester that we taught as we coordinated campus to campus instructional delivery components and mediated and directed student participation and learning contributions.
Course development included coordination with other campus departments under IT services. Additionally, to meet our synchronous course teaching and learning outcomes and accommodate Brockport course scheduling blocks, Russian students came back to campus outside of their regularly scheduled class time. Brockport was grateful for this Novgorod attendance gesture which enabled our rich and diverse face-to-face class meetings.
Implementation of our COIL course also required additional faculty time when compared to implementing a singularly taught course. The Brockport course met three times a week in addition to delivering instruction online. The course blog and Brockport’s use of lecture capture were time consuming and amplified the teaching workload.
Despite the extraordinary human capital required in developing and implementing our COIL course, time devoted to instruction was extremely fulfilling. Contributions to the course blog for example were substantive and meaningful, which made time dedicated to online instructor responses worthwhile. Similarly, students’ final course PSAs were remarkable, an outcome that reflects back to the guided instruction students received in conceptualizing and producing sophisticated final course projects.
HSE - development of the course did not take longer than it normally does with any other course.
GMU - I would agree. Things were more compressed than one would have liked for extraneous reasons (i.e. I broke my leg and ankle severely at precisely the point in the spring when I would have ideally devoted time to preparing the course.)
I think that as compared to a regular course I spent 50% more time. My students’ estimates are the same.
I agree that preparation and development of this course took approximately 1.5 the time of typical course prep. Much of the preparation time was dedicated to learning about new technologies and choosing the technologies that best matched our learning goals. Thus, time was spent meeting with members of our Instructional Design Team” In addition, because we were, in a sense, co-teaching the course, it was necessary to take time each week to meet in order to assure that our expectations and instructions matched. Third, happily, I spent more time talking with students before and after class as well as during office hours than I experience in a typical course.
UNISA: Due to problems with internet connectivity, many sessions/hours were lost for months in the initial planning stages.
RAMA: The time spent was very substantial. An estimate is that a course is not globally networked could be developed using 10% of the time spent on planning this course.
NCCU: Lenora Helm Hammonds: This course was extremely time consuming. It required work time release from my teaching load, and a personal commitment of time during my Summer, Holiday and Weekend time. If I had to compare, the course communications requirements alone added an additional 50% of time to the regular needed to develop, implement and support a similar non-globally networked course.
This is hard to say. At TTU, Kelli worked with a graduate student to create the collaborative spaces and she and the student met weekly to prepare course materials and grade. So the time was double for this class. In addition, Kelli and Sokjin exchanged lengthy emails weekly and posted in the instructor’s blog. I would estimate that the collaboration doubled typical class preparation time.
The development of the course took almost 1.5. (from its conception). Twice as long as the regular online course
ULPGC: this course represented a great deal of time. We spent a lot of time preparing the application, more than in the reading part of the COIL course and in the COIL course itself. When it came to our common course, we spent about 3 hours each week and more at the final stage of the course. Plus the 2 real time sessions (1 hour each) and the 2 training sessions (2 hours each).
We did not keep track of time but we have a clear sense that it is more time consuming. From scheduling video conferencing rooms, to learning to use the equipment, to scheduling speakers, to reading students’ posts so in general I would say about a third more time but it is a very rough estimate.