I voted for hybrid, but I want to qualify my answer in the context of your earlier discussion with Karen about interaction. If my choice was, say, to teach a class of 80 students either face-to-face, hybrid, or online, with no difference in compensation, I would prefer hybrid because I could meet with smaller groups of students instead of the 80 at once. If I could teach classes of no more than 20 and we could meet several times a week, I would prefer face to face, simply because I like being with people and working on learning with them. I like that they can interact with content and interact with me frequently. However, the more I explore hybrid designs, the more I lean toward hybrid because it can allow for more student-student interaction between class meetings, which I feel enhances the learning. For me, the question is quality of interaction more than compensation. (Although I have to admit that a faculty colleague of mine who teaches a course of 200 with no TAs because of funding cuts argues convincingly that he needs a change in compensation!)
I think your comments are really valuable. I added the line about ‘no difference in compensation’ because I think that compensation should be part of the conversation about increased teaching competencies, but it never is.
In many professions, as you add capabilities, you are either promoted or given raises to reflect increased responsibilities or increased competencies. In high ed teaching, once you are tenured professor, you get cost of living stuff (sometimes) but no additional compensation for adding to your teaching portfolio. A professor is not recognized for learning to teach online or for learning to teach hybrid, even though colleges and universities are often looking for cost savings by promoting these modalities.
Offering additional pay, a slice of the savings pie if you will, would be good incentive for faculty.
I voted for hybrid, but I want to qualify my answer in the context of your earlier discussion with Karen about interaction. If my choice was, say, to teach a class of 80 students either face-to-face, hybrid, or online, with no difference in compensation, I would prefer hybrid because I could meet with smaller groups of students instead of the 80 at once. If I could teach classes of no more than 20 and we could meet several times a week, I would prefer face to face, simply because I like being with people and working on learning with them. I like that they can interact with content and interact with me frequently. However, the more I explore hybrid designs, the more I lean toward hybrid because it can allow for more student-student interaction between class meetings, which I feel enhances the learning. For me, the question is quality of interaction more than compensation. (Although I have to admit that a faculty colleague of mine who teaches a course of 200 with no TAs because of funding cuts argues convincingly that he needs a change in compensation!)
Rosemary,
I think your comments are really valuable. I added the line about ‘no difference in compensation’ because I think that compensation should be part of the conversation about increased teaching competencies, but it never is.
In many professions, as you add capabilities, you are either promoted or given raises to reflect increased responsibilities or increased competencies. In high ed teaching, once you are tenured professor, you get cost of living stuff (sometimes) but no additional compensation for adding to your teaching portfolio. A professor is not recognized for learning to teach online or for learning to teach hybrid, even though colleges and universities are often looking for cost savings by promoting these modalities.
Offering additional pay, a slice of the savings pie if you will, would be good incentive for faculty.