Purpose/Hypothesis : There is little information about how faculty in physical therapist education programs allocate their time among teaching, scholarship, service, and administration. We studied faculty in two types of entry-level DPT Programs offered at the same private university. One program is a Traditional Program, delivered primarily through on-campus face-to-face interaction. The other is a Hybrid Program, where students come to campus once a month for four days of full-time face-to-face interaction; otherwise, content is delivered through online tools and technology. The goal of this study was to use iPads to collect real-time data in order to estimate how faculty time was spent in these two programs. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between faculty time use in the two types of programs.Number of Subjects : Subjects were full-time faculty members in an entry-level DPT Program; four in a traditional, Òface-to-faceÓ curriculum, and four in a ÒhybridÓ curriculum.Materials/Methods : An observational work sampling method was used to collect data. A taxonomy of work as a faculty member was created and used to design a framework for data collection. Major task categories were teaching, research, service, administration, and other. Under each major task category, codes for relevant activities were created; e.g., course development, scholarly writing, committee work, etc. There were also codes for location (e.g., classroom, lab, home, etc.) and for tools used (e.g., laptop, telephone, etc.). Based on the taxonomy, a developer designed an application for the iPad that was used to collect observations. Faculty Òlogged inÓ to the application while working, and would then receive alert signals at random. At each signal, faculty would use the application to note the categories they were engaging in at the time of the signal. Data were collected over a full academic year (two semesters). Proportions of observations were calculated for all categories of observations. Cross-tabulations were done to further characterize exposures of interest. Chi-square statistics were used to compare work in the two types of programs.Results : Faculty in both programs allocated their time among teaching, research, service, and administration. There were overall significant differences between the two programs in the distributions of tasks, activities, locations, and tools. The proportion of time spent teaching, however, was approximately the same, as was the time spent in the office.Conclusions : Faculty members in both programs performed tasks related to traditional faculty expectations. There were significant differences between the two programs in terms of the tasks and activities performed, as well as locations and tools. It was feasible to use iPad technology to collect work sampling data, although there were a number of limitations, particularly the lack of WiFi access in a number of locations.Clinical Relevance : This study compares how faculty spend their time in two types of delivery models for a curriculum. It also discusses the use of iPad technology for conducting work sampling studies.