The Hybrid University: An Idea and a Challenge for Change in Higher Ed

One factor hindering innovation in higher education, even at institutions genuinely interested in change, is that there are so many possible directions to go in. What domains to focus on? What plays to attempt? It’s a paradox of choice – one that could freeze a small and coordinated group of decision-makers, much less the sprawling, disconnected fonts of influence that characterize many colleges and universities.

Here's an antidote to that and a challenge to go along with it. 

The antidote: A very specific proposal

What if brick-and-mortar institutions converted 10 percent of their in-person courses to hybrid? Let’s assume for simplicity that means one meeting a week instead of twice. For a school that offers 2,000 courses per semester, that’s 200 courses and 200 fewer weekly meetings. In lieu of that meeting, there could be asynchronous video, experiential learning opportunities, virtual/augmented/extended reality offerings, and individual or collaborative activities or projects. This isn’t meant as a comprehensive institutional strategy – nor does meaningful change have to be.

Benefits

Jolting change

Disinterest in change is going to cause some institutions to fail. For other institutions, the paradox of choice and overcautious mindsets are stifling. Do something and you exercise your change muscles, ward off stagnancy, shift your perspective, and learn lessons. This proposal is a prefabricated vehicle of change that’s ready to go.

A more impactful, efficient physical campus

If we assume 28 course meetings per week in a classroom – a 70 percent combined day/night utilization rate – that’s about seven fewer classrooms needed. At a growing university, the cost of building seven new 1,000 square foot classrooms at a rate of $600 per square foot is $4.2M. That’s a hypothetical number, and it depends on a number of variables, but let’s use it for now.

If the school isn’t growing and there wouldn’t be any construction to save on, the benefits could include: repurposing rooms, focusing classroom audiovisual support resources on a smaller set of rooms, easing the burden of custodial staff, making it easier to manage deferred maintenance, and possibly taking a building offline. With many classrooms used less than 70 percent, the gains stated above are conservative.

An expanded palate of teaching techniques

Evidence-based research makes it clear that colleges should work varying approaches into their overall mix of teaching and learning more than they are. Various factors, ranging from faculty incentive structures to a gross underinvestment in developing contingent instructors, inhibit this. This hybrid strategy could provide the focus and resolve to loosen our grip on received practices.

Asynchronous video – especially if student viewing patters are used to glean insights and comprehension questions are embedded for engagement and learning – is something that should become more common. As AI gains steam, the prospect of using viewing behavior and comprehension checks to drive individualized content and exercises will become more of a reality. Experiential and collaborative learning also offer exciting benefits yet are not sufficiently ensconced in the student academic experience. Group projects are invaluable as we aim to elevate collaboration and leadership skills, while the promise of VR/AR/XR will only grow as producers and consumers of such offerings become more savvy.

Less course overlap will ease student registration

Students sometimes can’t take a desired course because it overlaps in time with another course they want to or have to take. Having fewer synchronous course meetings will reduce this overlap somewhat, removing barriers to progress towards degree and allowing students take the electives that excite them.

Access to more desirable course meeting times and learning spaces

Fewer meetings, all else equal, means less competition among courses for the most desirable course times and learning spaces. And, while some stakeholders prefer early morning classes, evidence suggests that letting students sleep later has health benefits, at least for the plurality that are in their late teens or early 20s.

Fewer trips to campus and for students and faculty

Likewise, fewer in-person meetings could reduce trips to campus in cases where people are coming in for just one course meeting on a given day. That has benefits for parking and climate footprint, among others.

Needed Supports

The below assumes this effort goes full steam ahead in year one. A phased approach would change these projections.

Personnel

To support this effort, let’s assume institutions start a year in advance and hire one instructional designer, one instructional technologist, and one coordinator who has some teaching background. Give them each 1,000 hours to spend directly on course transformation, which assumes 37.5 hours per week, 45 weeks, and about a third of their time spent on professional development, meetings, and so forth. That means each course gets 15 total person hours in addition to what the instructor puts in. Let’s call that $300,000 per year in salary and fringe.

There are other staff or services that would support this initiative. They include videography, experiential learning support, and the creation or selection of XR/VR/AR content. Let’s say we cover those with an early career employee and two mid-career employees and budget another $300,000. That’s a total staff cost of 600,000. Schools could keep costs lower by re-allocating existing teaching support and faculty development funds if appropriate.

As more courses are created, the workload of these staff members could decrease. That creates the option of hiring some of these workers for a pre-defined time period, as institutions often do for special initiatives, and lowering costs in subsequent years. On the other hand, these employees might prove so valuable that the continued investment proves well worth enhancements to the student experience and student success. If existing staff were reallocated rather than hiring anew, then the hybrid transformation effort would have a lower net cost.

Faculty recruitment

About 150 faculty would have to be pulled into this, assuming some would transform more than one of their courses. That would require some outreach and communication but it’s doable for institutions that manage the process right. This, as much as anything else, might be what makes schools take a phased approach. Prototyping, pilot testing, and building capacity are good things.

Room scheduling adjustments

To capitalize on the benefits that fewer course meetings make possible, a school’s classroom scheduling operation will have to be responsive. But, if that’s beyond capacity, that’s likely an indictment of its scheduling processes and policies. Institutions might benefit more globally from a revamp. Let’s say that can be covered by some part-time effort that runs $50,000 in salary and fringe, if applicable.

Technology expenditures

New or expanded efforts to use tech in the context of hybrid courses may entail the purchase of polling, LMS functionality, and the like. Many institutions are already set up well in this regard and, in our SaaS world, reasonable solutions exist. VR headsets and other equipment will also likely be needed.  Let’s provide another $500,000 per year for this at our hypothetical institution.

Miscellaneous

Communications and events could help promote this effort and celebrate its impact. And let’s build in some cushion, maybe for a centralized space to get some new furniture, among other possibilities. Call it $500,000. Total cost per year is $1.65 million. If our hypothetical institution has 10,000 students, that’s $165 per year per student. That’s before cost savings come into play.

The challenge

As admitted above, this may seem like an arbitrary change proposal. So, here’s the challenge. I’d genuinely be thrilled to hear of other ideas that are as:

·      Clearly defined with measurable performance indicators.

·      Shovel-ready.

·      Applicable to as many disciplines.

·      Flexible enough to let different stakeholders take their own approach.

·      Able to be phased.

·      Continuous with current practices, thus allowing existing capacity to be leveraged and avoiding the reluctance and paranoia that larger declarations of change often create.

·      Not all-or-nothing – partial success is still probably meaningful.

·      Affordable – with modest, modular, non-fixed investments.

·      Accompanied by the same upside potential fiscally.

Game on. I hope I lose!