I've agreed to teach an asynchronous online 3-credit course that lasts 18 days, which includes a federal holiday and 2 weekends.
I'm not really asking for advice. I know how to do it. I expect quite a few students won't keep up. I will give them plenty of warning before the first day of class about what they are in for. I will probably open up the LMS before the first day so those who want to can get an early start.
I've taught 3-credit courses over a period of about 24 days previously. 18 days is definitely the shortest one I will have taught.
Can you beat 18 days?
Yeah, 15 days, frequently, on-site though. Hard for the kids to learn anything. Administrations kid themselves putting on such a schedule.
I did it 'cause I needed the cash. When circumstances changed and got a real job, I stopped! :-)
Yeah, my incentives are 1 money 2 having something to occupy me during a likely lockdown period 3 enjoying the interactions with the students. Will the students learn anything? Basically, that's not my problem.
I've done 5-week courses, 4 days/wk. So, 20 days. Way too compressed, but barely doable.
My students want to take 3-week winter courses. Partly to catch up, partly to fill the COVID time. By credit hour, that should be 45 hours/week (15 hours instruction and 30 homework). I have my doubts that they will be getting this amount of instruction, or putting in those hours.
I don't deny that one could construct an intense, immersive experience in 3 weeks. Many study abroad courses are this length, and lots of intensive workshops are even shorter.
Good luck!
16 days. Class sessions on three Friday evenings, three Saturdays, two Sundays. It was a cohort program, where they had class three consecutive weekends, a weekend off, then next course. Students did ten courses a year and worked full-time. They started a new cohort 3-4 times a year. I taught the same class for five cohorts, swearing I'd make a six-month emergency fund a priority so I'd never have to do it again.
I can't beat it, but one of my colleagues has somehow managed to wangle her way into a courseload that includes two 14-day summer courses.
(She's an old hand, and has had them forever. I don't mean to imply that the wangling is new!)
Nicely done, though. I think these are a good deal.
The people who schedule such courses (I'm not blaming faculty who teach them at all!) obviously know (or care) nothing about human attention, learning, and memory.
Hmm, maybe I should teach an 18 day course on cognitive science for administrators?
A two week (so, 10 days) summer course on the liturgical arts at a local seminary.
Three hours per day with a paper/project due at the end.
Much wailing ensued when I clarified that they did indeed need to know the 20 art history examples, 10 music examples, 5 film clips of theatrical performances and 5 dance clips.
I think they thought it was going to be an "easy A" but they ended up working fairly hard--and most of them ended up liking it. A couple in particular in the assessments told me they were mad the second day but appreciated what we'd done by the end of the class.
Taught it two years in a row--same structure each time--just before I went back to do my own grad work.
I lived (figuratively) in the office where my other job was on campus for the rest of the day each day in between, prepping for the next day's class after a two-hour lunch break, because a lot of the things (like setting up slides, cueing music and film clips, etc., couldn't then be done in advance (before YouTube, for example...)
M.
Are you going to meet the time requirements as dr_codex explained them or are you going to rip off your students?
I taught an accelerated course (4 weeks with daily meetings and all the work standard for a semester-long, 4 credit course) once and swore never again. That was nowhere near enough money and that was a course I had all prepped.
In my adjunct life, I taught in a program where the classes met for six days.
Quote from: sinenomine on November 20, 2020, 05:18:36 AM
In my adjunct life, I taught in a program where the classes met for six days.
Wouldn't that mean the students were meant to be working about 15 hours a day on the course? Presumably they did not do that.
I took a couple of classes in 3-week semesters. We met 3 hrs/day for psychology and statistics and 5 hrs/day for calculus (that was a bit of a trip). I know for the calculus class and the stats class we did every assignment and test that the 15-week semester students did.
Seems like not so long ago on the "Bang Head" thread or "Favorite E-Mails" thread there was some talk about students wanting to take abbreviated courses in hopes that it would let them get the same credit for less work, and finding out that it didn't work that way.
I never taught an abbreviated course. It must be a nightmare for the teacher. Especially the grading.
I have never taught a course like that, but I did take a winter break course in grad school that was 5 days long: 9 hours per day, 8am-5pm (1 hour off for lunch), essentially 6 lecture hours and 2 lab hours each day, and worth 2 credits. It was a highly focused course with people motivated to learn the topic, but it was a lot of information in a short period of time--also, however, it was pass/fail.
I've taught 3-week courses using pretty-much the formula Dr. Codex gives. I had to give "the speech" on day one to put everyone on the same page about the complete inflexibility of the course:
- You MUST attend every day. Late work will NOT be accepted. You MUST ask questions when you have them.
- You can NOT get sick, have someone die, take a day or two off, go on vacation, have work issues, etc.
- You MUST come ready to work and ready to discuss the material every day, and you MUST work all three hours in-class (we will not get out early) and you MUST work probably 2-3-4-5 hours at home every night outside of class.
- It's okay to be sick of everyone by the end of the week, but you still have to be nice to people.
The classes have always gone fairly well, with the normal craptacular flame-outs of some slackers and/or students who had life happen to them at the wrong time.
As others have noted: Not easy money, but quick money.
Downer, that is some challenge--good luck!
When I taught at Bucolic Elite, I taught a summer class that crammed two semesters of elementary French into six weeks @ 5 days/week, 4 hours/day. It was brutal, and the crash in terms of time and attention and ability to absorb *one more thing* always came at the three-week mark. Most students would then pick up steam again and push to the finish line.
The guidelines for the course were very similar to the ones Fishbrains has just laid out.
Did they learn French? Yes, but not as thoroughly as in the standard two semesters. Those who continued (and most did) almost always placed into our "bridge" course between elementary and intermediate. On the other hand, we had very few failures. I think that students who choose such a course have an idea what they're getting themselves into and are mentally prepared for the challenge. Most of ours were highly motivated and worked pretty diligently.
That reminds me of the Language Camps (not really called that) in, say, Biblical Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German (much 19th c. theology was written in German, so it's a required research language, still), at various seminaries.
I never taught or took one, but I know someone who organizes one, I should look up their summer and Winterim programs.
M.
My parents and I took a week-long (biblical) Greek intensive one summer when one parent was in graduate school (other parent and I joined for fun and moral support). 8 hours a day, then we would drill vocabulary and endings until bedtime. I've lost most of it now, but I had a year when I could just about follow along in the New Testament if someone was reading it aloud in English. I also learned some fabulous teaching and learning strategies. We did a lot of timed drills and mixed speaking and writing exercises (e.g. write the vocabulary words in Greek while speaking the English translations). It was super fun. I would do this again in a heartbeat.
AR.
Quote from: fishbrains on November 20, 2020, 09:30:24 AM
I've taught 3-week courses using pretty-much the formula Dr. Codex gives. I had to give "the speech" on day one to put everyone on the same page about the complete inflexibility of the course:
- You MUST attend every day. Late work will NOT be accepted. You MUST ask questions when you have them.
- You can NOT get sick, have someone die, take a day or two off, go on vacation, have work issues, etc.
- You MUST come ready to work and ready to discuss the material every day, and you MUST work all three hours in-class (we will not get out early) and you MUST work probably 2-3-4-5 hours at home every night outside of class.
- It's okay to be sick of everyone by the end of the week, but you still have to be nice to people.
The classes have always gone fairly well, with the normal craptacular flame-outs of some slackers and/or students who had life happen to them at the wrong time.
As others have noted: Not easy money, but quick money.
I've taught intensive courses during the summer and winter breaks. The department/program usually does "the speech" about not missing classes, completing assignments, and other requirements so that the instructors can concentrate on the teaching and not the complaints.
I've found most of the students to be very motivated and also appreciative of the opportunity to complete a pre-requisite course during the intersession. I once taught a 10-day course during the winter intersession. The class met for four or five hours a day. It certainly was intensive. One of the students was using her vacation days to take this course.
I thankfully managed to never have to teach a Winter Break short course. I would have done it if I could have taught a molecular biology workshop, but not for a standard 15 week course smashed into three weeks. The school offered a 10-credit organic chemistry class in summer (take a year of classes in 10 weeks!). The sad thing is that most of the students who enrolled weren't the "I love chemistry let's rock it!" sort, but were "I'm so behind I can't graduate on time unless I do this" folks. The failure rate was appalling. I had to advise students and when they asked if they should register I'd ask if they loved their lab classes. If yes, I said to take it. If they said they really struggled in lab or hated chemistry I'd tell them to take something else. It was just a cash cow for the school.
Class was nearly full yesterday, but enrollment dropped by a third today. Presumably that's largely due to students who never paid the deposit, and may go up again when they get the notifications. Still, I'm hoping that my "get real about this" email made some students reconsider.
Yup taught a 3 week May term course w a required group project. That was AWFUL.
We're on quarters, so our courses are typically 10-11 days total (once per week, no holidays, and no classes during finals week).
Quote from: downer on November 20, 2020, 05:31:49 AM
Quote from: sinenomine on November 20, 2020, 05:18:36 AM
In my adjunct life, I taught in a program where the classes met for six days.
Wouldn't that mean the students were meant to be working about 15 hours a day on the course? Presumably they did not do that.
This. If accreditors aren't putting a stop to this kind of nonsense, why do they exist?
Accreditors often do chase after such things. If the school keeps up the same practices, there is a warning period, and then possible sanctions. However, our accreditors and I presume all of them have more or less suspended the rules during COVID, though you do need to send them a summary of how you intend to break the rules and why, and get a sign off.
Quote from: writingprof on January 02, 2021, 06:15:21 AM
Quote from: downer on November 20, 2020, 05:31:49 AM
Quote from: sinenomine on November 20, 2020, 05:18:36 AM
In my adjunct life, I taught in a program where the classes met for six days.
Wouldn't that mean the students were meant to be working about 15 hours a day on the course? Presumably they did not do that.
This. If accreditors aren't putting a stop to this kind of nonsense, why do they exist?
Unless part of the meeting time was considered lab, in which the student is not expected to do outside (or extra) preparation or homework.
In my first summer here, I taught a three-week graduate course in the summer that met four times a week. However, I had to miss a day for a conference, so we met 11 times. My department chair said I had to offer the same quality educational experience as a 16-week graduate course. In the end, it was not a great situation for me or the students. I asked to make the class four weeks in the following summer, and no one enrolled. Ever since, it is an eight-week online course.
Quote from: darkstarrynight on January 02, 2021, 09:53:21 PM
In my first summer here, I taught a three-week graduate course in the summer that met four times a week. However, I had to miss a day for a conference, so we met 11 times. My department chair said I had to offer the same quality educational experience as a 16-week graduate course. In the end, it was not a great situation for me or the students. I asked to make the class four weeks in the following summer, and no one enrolled. Ever since, it is an eight-week online course.
I've managed summer programs with several different term lengths. Compressing classes is absolutely something that has to be done in consultation with faculty. Not all disciplines or content knowledge compress well. No one should be expected to compress a 16-week class into three weeks and be held to similar results.
Some experiences, like language immersion (think three weeks of conversational something-or-other prior to going on study abroad), studio art, or field research might work well for short terms. Things that benefit from long, uninterrupted periods of engagement, and don't have a lot of outside expectations (like heavy reading assignments).
Colorado College runs its entire curriculum on short courses. It is fascinating.
While 18 days is especially short, I have taught a good number of 3, 4, 5 or 6 weeks courses over the years.
I'm often surprised that students do pretty well. The fail rate may be a little higher, but sometimes they seem to do better. Maybe it is because there's less time for the rest of their lives to interfere with their studies.
I wouldn't assign a long paper in very short courses. There's still time for students to do a paper badly, cramming the night before it is due, but not to do it well, with the research and revision process that we recommend.
Quote from: downer on January 04, 2021, 06:24:48 PM
While 18 days is especially short, I have taught a good number of 3, 4, 5 or 6 weeks courses over the years.
I'm often surprised that students do pretty well. The fail rate may be a little higher, but sometimes they seem to do better. Maybe it is because there's less time for the rest of their lives to interfere with their studies.
I wouldn't assign a long paper in very short courses. There's still time for students to do a paper badly, cramming the night before it is due, but not to do it well, with the research and revision process that we recommend.
And that, right there, is the problem.
Quote from: dr_codex on January 04, 2021, 08:34:23 PM
Quote from: downer on January 04, 2021, 06:24:48 PM
While 18 days is especially short, I have taught a good number of 3, 4, 5 or 6 weeks courses over the years.
I'm often surprised that students do pretty well. The fail rate may be a little higher, but sometimes they seem to do better. Maybe it is because there's less time for the rest of their lives to interfere with their studies.
I wouldn't assign a long paper in very short courses. There's still time for students to do a paper badly, cramming the night before it is due, but not to do it well, with the research and revision process that we recommend.
And that, right there, is the problem.
How much of a problem depends on the definition of "long".
Super Dinky had a winter term for years that was called The Research Paper and was designed for the first-year students to spend a whole month going through the writing, research, and iterative revision process. The experience was designed as an immersive experience during which students lived in the dorms and worked on their research papers. The students were to be doing nothing else as a primary activity, but socializing in the evenings was encouraged. The result was most students entering the spring semester were then capable of writing a good paper with less explicit scaffolding because of that common experience with a common vocabulary regarding the expected process.
When SD moved away from that situation and had a more typical spring semester of freshman comp II, it turned out that the faculty decided to go with a two-page paper due at the end that didn't have to have any references. The faculty screamed quite loudly when the general education committee made changes that required a portfolio approach with multiple 5-to-10 page papers that each needed revision. It turns out that capping the sections at 15-18 so that faculty could provide the necessary feedback for revision hadn't been appreciated, but had instead resulted in the full-time faculty using that extra time to do other things like teach at other institutions for additional money or write books (SD had zero research requirements).
Several years ago, surveys started showing that students are not writing very many long (10 pages or more) papers. https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/long-writing-assignments-not-so-common-at-us-colleges/4580476.html is one such article (and is clearly not written by the STEM folks who grade those 10+ page lab reports and progress memos because we know how much writing is required in professional settings).
Thus, the questions to Downer and others who are doing the very short courses are:
1) How much less work is assigned in the short courses so that students aren't getting the full experience?
2) Is the long course even living up to what the rest of us hope is being done in the intro/gen ed courses so that students learn what they need to know and can succeed in the later courses?
Being "almost as rigorous" as an already not rigorous course is not good.
Quote from: polly_mer on January 06, 2021, 06:24:32 AM
Thus, the questions to Downer and others who are doing the very short courses are:
1) How much less work is assigned in the short courses so that students aren't getting the full experience?
2) Is the long course even living up to what the rest of us hope is being done in the intro/gen ed courses so that students learn what they need to know and can succeed in the later courses?
For 1, I can only report on what I do and what those I know do. I certainly know cases where people assign a lot less work for a short course. But there's large variation in how much work each gen ed course, between departments and between individual faculty. So reducing the workload for the short course may still not mean it is much easier than other courses.
For this course I'm teaching now, I cut it from 14 modules to 13 modules, since there were only 13 working days in the 18 day course and it was much simpler just to drop the last one, which was not particularly important. (This does raise the question: for short courses, can professors assign work for weekends and public holidays? I guess the answer is yes, so I could have squeezed in the extra module for a weekend assignment, or for New Year's Day. But I didn't.)
For 2, my answer is that I don't know, because I don't care. Dept Chairs see my syllabi and they are fine with them, and that's all I'm paid to worry about.
Quote from: polly_mer on January 06, 2021, 06:24:32 AM
Super Dinky had a winter term for years that was called The Research Paper and was designed for the first-year students to spend a whole month going through the writing, research, and iterative revision process. The experience was designed as an immersive experience during which students lived in the dorms and worked on their research papers. The students were to be doing nothing else as a primary activity, but socializing in the evenings was encouraged. The result was most students entering the spring semester were then capable of writing a good paper with less explicit scaffolding because of that common experience with a common vocabulary regarding the expected process.
Sounds like an interesting and useful course.
I had already written a fairly substantial paper or two in high school, so I was ready for what we had to do in college. I kind of assumed at the time that other college-bound students had done the same thing in high school. I've long since learned that that was naive.
The course worked out well. Students did a lot of work for the most part and I got more positive feedback from them about the course than I usually do. Only one student withdrew and none failed, which is probably better than I get in a regular semester. So I'd do it again, and there's a good chance I will.
I think some of the success was due to me scaring away some students with early messages about how difficult the course would be. The ones left were the ones willing and able to do the work.