By Pete Hagen, Berta Parrish and
Ryan Cartnal
If you heard of an educational reform that promised increased student engagement, learning, retention and persistence as well as increased faculty satisfaction, wouldn’t you try it? It would seem almost too good to be true. Well, we did, and it isn’t.
In the fall of 2002, Cuesta College piloted its first Learning Community, an innovative way of packaging courses, in this case “Mixed Media Messages” composed of Basic Reading and Writing (ENGL 100), Reading Essentials (LRSK104) and Health Education (HEED 2) that has proven successful in other colleges and universities during the last decade. Learning Communities offer an alternative to traditional stand-alone courses by linking classes around an interdisciplinary theme and enrolling a common cohort of students in each course. This represents an intentional restructuring of students’ time, credit, and learning experiences to build a “community”, and to foster more explicit connections among students, instructors, and disciplines.
Based on the advice gathered at the 2002 Summer Institute for Learning Communities at Evergreen College, Linda Long (Director of Academic Support/DSPS) and Berta Parrish (Academic Support Coordinator) developed an assessment plan using multiple measures and involving multiple researchers for the data gathering, analysis, interpretation, and distribution. Quantitative measures include course success, retention, persistence rates, success rates in next appropriate course, several student and faculty surveys, as well as graduation rates and follow-up surveys. Qualitative measures include mid-term and end-of-semester student focus groups and faculty reflective interviews.
The following key research questions helped determine which specific assessment procedures and strategies to implement:
A. Why do students enroll in a Learning Community (LC)?
B. Do students in the LC have a significantly higher success, retention, and persistence rate than students enrolled in the same courses?
C. Do students in the LC have a significantly higher level of satisfaction
than students enrolled in the same courses?
D. Do the LC learning experiences affect students’ confidence, self-esteem, job related skills, group processes, and commitment to their education?
E. Are students experiencing outcomes not obtained in stand-alone courses?
F. Does teaching in a LC affect instructor teaching satisfaction?
G. Do instructors teach differently when teaching as part of a LC?
After collecting the data for the first semester of the Mixed Media Messages, we can see that even this pilot program met some of the most important goals for a Learning Community.
Eighty-five percent of the students in the Learning Community finished all three courses. This compares favorably with the district-wide rate of 85.3%. Success rates are higher in all three of the Learning Community courses than the overall success rates of each of the component courses. The success rate of 81% for the Learning Community English 100 course is well above the overall English 100 success rate of 67%. Similarly, the success rate of 66% for the Learning Community Learning Skills 104 course is slightly above the overall Learning Skills 104 success rate of 64%. Finally, due to differences in student population, it is not entirely appropriate to compare the Learning Community Health Education 2 course with the overall Health Education 2 population (because students generally have completed or are concurrently enrolled in English 56 before taking Health Ed 2); however as a point of interest, the Learning Community Health Education 2 success rate is 77% compared to the overall Health Education 2 success rate of 64%.
Qualitative Information
A series of goals were established based on the research questions noted above.
Goal #1: Increased student attitudes toward and success in learning. From the student comments on the end-of-semester survey and the mid-term and end-of-semester focus groups, the LC fostered connections between subjects, friendships among students and instructors, emotional support, confidence, assertiveness, and an interest to continue education. Below are a few sample responses to the question: “How was the LC experience different from other college class experiences you have had?”:
Ø “I made more friends.”
Ø “The teachers seem to care more and have more time for students.”
Ø “What I’m learning in English and Reading, I’m practicing in Health.”
Ø “There’s more time to do homework because the teachers talk to each other and know when the class in having a test in another class.”
Ø “I’m not afraid to ask a stupid question.”
Goal #2: Increased faculty satisfaction in teaching. Remarks made during the mid-term and end-of-semester faculty reflective interviews describe students who were engaged and who grew in commitment, collaboration, confidence, responsibility, openness, ability, risk-taking, and supportiveness of each other throughout the semester. Some responses to the question: “What have been your rewards in teaching in this LC?” were:
Ø “Getting to know students on a more intimate basis.”
Ø “Challenging my teaching. Sometimes it was uncomfortable, but good.”
Ø “Teaching in the LC made old material seem fresh.”
Ø “It was a safe place, more intimacy than other classes.”
Goal #3: Building community within the classroom’s enhanced learning environment. The students felt it was easier to form study groups outside of class, to catch up on missed homework, and to call a classmate if they were absent. The instructors expressed real pleasure that the class became “cheerleaders for each other.” They also emphasized that the community building and collaborative learning had to be intentional in order to get these desired results.
A more holistic assessment of this Learning Community is revealed in some of the student responses to the survey question “Please complete the following metaphoric statement: Participating in a Cuesta College Learning Community is like….”
Ø “…eating ice cream on a hot day. It’s fun and refreshing at the same time.”
Ø “…tending a garden – the more hard work you put into it the better the products you produce.”
Ø “….going to party. You get to meet new people and develop close relationships with other students.”
Recommendations for improvement have been made based on the student and instructor feedback, and some modifications have already been implemented. For instance, the instructors felt that Health Education (HE ED 2) is better linked with Basic Reading & Writing (ENGL 100) and College Success (LRN SK 102), so these courses will be clustered in the future.
Encouraged by this initial success, another Learning Community will be piloted next fall. “Scripting Success” clusters Basic Reading & Writing (ENGL 100), Reading Essentials (LRN SK 104) and Orientation to College for Re-entry Students (COUNS 52). Hopefully, these two test cases are just the beginning of many Learning Communities at Cuesta College.
From an evaluation point of view, Cuesta must determine if the “Learning Community” concept is cost effective. This won’t be easy because some of the qualitative intangibles (motivation, commitment, engagement, etc.) are not easily measured. The initial indications from fall 2002 do look quite promising however.