Two minds are better than one! This session provides attendees a dive into CoPILOT, a program with cohorts of instructors who complete the online course development process collaboratively with instructional designers and video producers. We focus on the design, development, and implementation of this innovative cohort course design model.
Need/Purpose CoPILOT
Research has found online teaching and learning can sometimes be an isolating experience for students and instructors alike – designing your online course, however, should not be (Lancaster et al., 2014; Lowenthal et al., 2021). CoPILOT: Cohort Program for Innovation and Leadership in Online Teaching was intentionally designed and developed to leverage collaborative learning communities across instructors at one large, midwestern university. Specifically, CoPILOT creates cohorts of instructors in which instructors, both individually and collaboratively, enhance their understanding of how Best-in-Class online learning at our organization is created.
Research shows instructor learning communities increase collaboration, retention of information, and engagement (Stock-Kupperman, 2015). Leveraging these benefits, CoPILOT groups instructors with instructional designers and video producers to complete a semester-long online curriculum where instructors leave the program with a ready-to-teach, accessible online course in our university’s learning management system (LMS) using research-based online course pedagogy. Through CoPILOT, each participant collaborates with their cohort through discussion and review of the program curriculum, all while learning about the online services available to them, like student services and marketing. Specifically, the curriculum of CoPILOT focuses on developing online-specific course outcomes and learning objectives; designing assessments aligned with the outcomes and objectives, appropriate for online delivery; and intentionally designing courses with research-based practices in mind.
Program Funding
The university provided funding that covered program development, typical course development expenses, and payments for participant incentives. As academic units usually pay for the course developments costs, CoPILOT provided significant cost savings to participant’s academic units in addition to the incentive payments. CoPILOT’s initial funding will support ten instructors per academic semester (including summer) for three years.
Program Development
The cohort experience was designed by two presenters of this session over a semester, incorporating various practical and theoretical instructional design elements. Like the unit's standard course development, CoPILOT required instructors to develop a comprehensive online course by the end of the program. The curriculum included a backward design process, recommendations for media use, and the standard course review process of the unit. Additionally, the program emphasized the delivery and instruction of the newly developed online course, continuous improvement planning, and orientation to the administrative aspects of the university's online unit.
Aspects of Community of Inquiry Framework (CoI) were incorporated into the curriculum both as a matter of content and as a matter of practice. Instructors were introduced to the concepts of cognitive, social, and teaching presence, and asked to reflect on how the presences were being incorporated into the instructor’s course design. Furthermore, the instructors gained firsthand experience of taking an online course intentionally designed using the CoI Framework. Instructors interacted with the course material, joined discussions, and fulfilled tasks ahead of their cohort meetings. Insofar as the program functioned as a course development program, project management considerations were also incorporated into the curriculum. The program included four milestones to ensure continuous progress, and the successful completion of milestones was tied to the disbursement of incentive payments.
Recruitment
The program managers developed and managed the recruitment process. The recruitment process began with the online administrative leaders, liaisons between course production and academic units, who were also key stakeholders for the CoPILOT program. As the online unit’s primary point of contact with academic units, these administrative leaders were well-positioned to promote the program to academic leaders. A major attraction they could highlight was that the course development costs, typically paid by the academic unit, were covered as part of the program.
As part of the application process, instructors were asked to discuss their application with the online administrative leaders and their department head. We asked for feedback on the applicants and provided updates to the leaders with the applicant names and application answers.
As part of the recruitment process, we published an article in the daily newsletter that is emailed to the entire institution. This article contained details about the CoPILOT program and pertinent links, including the website, application, and sample of the contract that outlined the instructor stipend.
CoPILOT strives to reach instructors with a variety of incentives. In addition to providing instructor incentives in the form of funding, the program emphasizes the benefits of working with a cohort. The program also uses the goal of developing a pedagogically sound and accessible online course that uses research-based practices for online teaching to meet their students’ needs as an incentive. Incentives for online course design and delivery should be varied, as faculty have different perspectives on what is most valuable to them (Herman, 2013).
Pilot
We delivered the inaugural run of CoPILOT in Spring 2023. The 14-week pilot semester included a full cohort kickoff with the vice president of our organizational unit and 13 weeks of small-group meetings. We also offered additional full cohort meetings, including an introduction to other functional areas within our organization and a wrap-up meeting with the vice president.
Beginning with the kickoff, we encouraged instructors and CoPILOT facilitators, including instructional designers and video producers, to provide us with feedback with the goal of making continuous improvement moving forward. The facilitators of the small groups kept a “parking lot” document of suggestions that were collected from instructors or observed during their meetings. The wrap-up meeting provided instructors with time to share their CoPILOT experience and anecdotes with the full group and leadership.
In addition to these informal methods, formal methods were used to evaluate the success of the program. Prior to the kickoff meeting, instructors were asked to answer survey questions. After the program, instructors were asked to answer the same questions for comparison. In the same survey, they were also asked to provide any additional written feedback or anecdotes that they may not have shared at the wrap-up meeting.
Plans to Scale
There are several reasons to expect increased demand for the program. First, it shifts the burden of course development costs away from academic units. Second, it provides participant incentives. Third, administrative and academic leaders might recognize that the cohort model better ensures the timeliness of course developments.
Because of this, we are planning how to scale the program. Most obviously, additional funding to cover additional course developments and participant incentives is needed to allow additional instructors into future cohorts. Evidence of the program’s effectiveness can be used to justify increased funding. This evidence would include not only the quality of the online courses that instructors produce, but also their confidence in teaching a high-quality online course.
Scale also presents logistical hurdles. The project management of ten courses already requires significant time and attention from the program managers who manage the program in addition to other responsibilities. Adding more instructors to the program will require either allocating additional personnel for program management or shifting more of their capacity towards managing the program and away from other responsibilities.
Lastly, while we are optimistic that organic demand will continue to drive applications to the program, scaling beyond a certain point will require more intentional marketing efforts. One area we are already focused on is recording participant video testimonials to feature on the program’s website.
Challenges & Solutions
The development of the program and its initial pilot presented several challenges and opportunities for improvement. Initially, all applicants were accepted, but subsequent applications exceeded the available funding. This helped clarify acceptance criteria and led to unique funding arrangements with some academic units. Additionally, miscommunication occurred with some department heads, and scheduling meetings between instructors and instructional designers was challenging. Weekly facilitation meetings helped to identify and eliminate differences in instructional approaches among both instructors and designers in the CoPILOT program.
Participation and Session Outcomes
Upon completion of this session, participants will have the ability to understand and conceptualize the steps involved in designing, developing, and implementing a large-scale cohort course design program. The session is specifically geared towards those interested in learning about large-scale cohort style course design and fostering collaboration among CoPILOT participants. Attendees are encouraged to engage in dialogue with presenters and peers to share experiences, examples, and resources for a productive learning experience.
References
Herman, J. H. (2013). Faculty incentives for online course design, delivery, and professional development. Innovative Higher Education, 38, 397-410. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/10.1007/s10755-012-9248-6
Lancaster, J. W., Stein, S. M., MacLean, L. G., Van Amburgh, J., & Persky, A. M. (2014). Faculty development program models to advance teaching and learning within health science programs. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(5), 99. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe78599
Lowenthal, P. R. (2021). Video feedback: Is it worth the effort? A Response to Borup et al. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 161–184.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09872-4
Stock-Kupperman, G. (2015). Cohort-based technology training: A Collaboration with faculty grounded in diffusion of innovation and faculty learning community theories. Collaborative Librarianship, 7(3), 99-108. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol7/iss3/6