CHAPTER 5

 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

 

The purpose of this study was to identify essential elements of curricular learning communities in higher education. This chapter will present a summary of the procedures used to conduct the study, an explanation of the findings of the studies, a discussion of conclusions and implications drawn from the findings, and a list of recommendations arising from the study.

Summary of Procedures

    A review of the literature on learning communities in higher education revealed that there exists no general agreement on what characteristics are essential to a curricular learning community program. A four-round Delphi study was implemented to gather data to determine what these characteristics are. The seventeen experts who participated in the study all had extensive experience as either a faculty member, an administrator, or both, in different types of curricular learning communities. Many of the panelists had also conducted research and had contributed to the literature on learning communities.

    An initial survey was used to elicit items for consideration in the three subsequent questionnaires. A list of 79 items was compiled. The items were presented in four categories: Curricular Features, Pedagogical Features, Structural Features, and Environmental Features. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each item. As is the practice in a Delphi study, panelists remained anonymous throughout the study. As the study progressed, feedback was given to participants based on group means and other quantitative data. After each questionnaire and at the end of the study, the writer analyzed the mean score, mode, standard deviation, range, and level of agreement for each item. Written responses to an open-ended question in the final round were analyzed qualitatively.

 

Summary of Findings

    Analysis of the data revealed overall shifts in mean score, level of agreement, standard deviation, and range between the first and second questionnaire, indicating that some convergence of opinion had taken place. By isolating and analyzing items that showed a strong or increasing level of agreement and mean score, and low or decreasing range or standard deviation, the writer was able to identify themes that united certain features from within and among categories. These themes are explored below.

Collaborative and Active Learning:

    The presence of collaborative and active learning, characterized by students working together, actively engaged in the learning process, is strongly supported by this panel as an essential ingredient in curricular learning communities. The following items are related to this theme.

Item	Category
15. Several active learning approaches (cooperative learning, collaborative learning, group work) are used.	Pedagogical
17. Students and faculty are all collaborative learners – both students and faculty learn from each other	Pedagogical
19. Pedagogy is designed for student engagement in learning.	Pedagogical
25. Students develop confidence as independent learners.	Pedagogical
33. Pedagogical "good practice" such as active learning, time on task, and frequent feedback is practiced.	Pedagogical
34. Students have a voice in how learning is accomplished.	Pedagogical

Each of these items had an agreement level of over 90% and a standard deviation of only 0.5 or less, indicating clear support and agreement among the participants that these items are essential.

    All of these items describe a teaching/learning situation in which students take responsibility for their own and each other’s learning. This is one important characteristic that sets learning communities apart from traditional educational models, which emphasize individual learning, competition, and a passive, lecture-based teaching/learning situation. The theme of collaborative and active learning is prevalent in the learning community literature. Lenning and Ebbers (1999) recommend that all learning communities should be "designed and carried out in a manner that will maximize both active and collaborative learning, two areas that are not mutually exclusive and supplement and support one another" (p. 61). This idea is also supported by research that has shown that student engagement in learning positively affects achievement and retention (NIE, 1984; Tinto, 1987; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991; Astin, 1993).

    Some classroom activities associated with active and collaborative learning are student presentations, group projects, students’ evaluations of each other’s work, student-selected course topics, class discussion, and minimal use of the lecture method (Astin, 1993). Active learning requires students to engage in activities, both physical and mental, to make learning meaningful. Attention and focus are necessary rather than "detachment, indifference or aloofness" (Newton & Smith, 1996, p. 22).

    Active and collaborative learning have also been included in various lists of learning community characteristics that have been offered. This concept is at the heart of the description offered by Lin, Bransford, Hmelo, Kantor, Hickey, Petrosino, Goldman, and The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1996). Also, Goodsell Love and Tokuno added "interactive pedagogy" to Tokuno’s original list of the four dimensions of learning communities. They describe a learning community with a high level of this element as follows:

Collaborative learning strategies such as problem-centered learning, experiential learning, and metacognitive activities are used. Students are expected to take an active role in contributing to and shaping the knowledge base to the extent that they research topics for classes, lead discussions, etc. (1999, p. 13).

    Interestingly, the panelist did not consider service learning, which could be classified as a type of active learning, as an essential item in this study. Although some see service learning as the "ultimate learning community," (Cross, 1998, p. 10), and predict that service learning will find a significant place in learning communities of the future (Lenning and Ebbers, 1999), items that had to do with service or other out-of-classroom learning experiences were not highly rated in this study. This may be a future development of learning communities, but this study does not indicate it is an essential feature. There is, however, evidence that active and collaborative learning are essential components in a curricular learning community.

Integrated Curriculum:

    Several of the items that were rated highly in the study dealt with the theme of an integrated curriculum. These items are listed below:

Item	Category
1. Curriculum is organized around a theme, question, or issue.	Curricular
3. Faculty work together to develop the theme.	Curricular
4. A coordinated learning environment exists.	Curricular
5. Curriculum is connected and integrated.	Curricular
6. Linked or clustered courses provide opportunities for synergism, with courses supporting each other or connected by an interdisciplinary theme.	Curricular
8. LC courses are designed to promote the integration of multiple perspectives for solving problems and examining issues.	Curricular
10. Curriculum does not consist of stand-alone courses pasted together but rather is a radical rethinking of what is important for students to know.	Curricular
26. Courses, disciplines, and teaching styles are flexible and allow for integrated or interdisciplinary learning.	Pedagogical
27. Course assignments involve the theme and cut across the courses	Pedagogical

 

    These items all experienced high levels of agreement and most received a high number of value points. One item, Item 10, saw significant movement in both agreement level (from 69% to 88%) and standard deviation (from 1.01 to .66) between rounds.

    Integration of the curriculum is another theme that is often emphasized in the learning community literature. Usually this involves cutting across traditional departmental lines to create a new, interdisciplinary curriculum. Most of the learning community definitions that have been offered include this concept. An integrated and interdisciplinary curriculum is often noted as a characteristic of learning communities (Shapiro & Levine, 1999, Smith, 1993, Goodsell Love & Tokuno, 1999). Curricular coordination is one of the four dimensions of learning communities offered by Tokuno as one of the "common dimensions of successful learning communities" (Goodsell Love & Tokuno, 1999, p. 11).

    As described by Goodsell Love and Tokuno, a high degree of curricular coordination does not necessarily require team-teaching, but it does require that faculty collaborate across disciplines to teach specific topics and issues from a variety of approaches (1999). The results of the current study fit this observation. The one item offered that specifically mentioned team-teaching, "There is interdisciplinary faculty team-teaching (three or four faculty all present all of the time)," was rated very low by panelists with a mode of only two and a mean of 3.13. The item was not maintained into the second round.

    As Gabelnick, MacGregor, Matthews, and Smith (1990) note, through integration of the curriculum, "Learning communities allow faculty to reassemble a world that may have become fragmented" (p. 81). Since the earliest beginnings of learning communities, an integrated curriculum has been emphasized and characterized as the heart of the program (Meiklejohn, 1932; Tussman, 1969). The results of this study support the notion that an integrated curriculum is an essential element of learning communities.

Faculty Collaboration and Participation:

    The results of this study indicate that a high level of faculty participation and collaboration characterizes learning communities. The following items received high ratings from the panel:

Item	Category
3. Faculty work together to develop the theme.	Curricular
17. Students and faculty are all collaborative learners – both faculty and students learn from each other.	Pedagogical
18. Faculty collaborate in course design and selection of course material.	Pedagogical
32. Faculty plan/consult with each other about curriculum, shared students, grading, and assignments.	Pedagogical
43. Faculty participate through all stages of development.	Structural
53. Time is afforded for faculty planning, coordination, and assessment.	Structural
56. Faculty and students provide feedback.	Structural
59. There are opportunities for faculty development.	Environmental
74. In addition to collaborative practice, there is a spirit of collaboration and attention to the building of collaborative skills.	Environmental

 

    In these items, faculty collaboration extends beyond the creation or development of the curriculum. In fact, 100% of panelists agreed that it is "essential" or "very important" that faculty participate through all stages of the development of the learning community program. Another item that received 100% agreement was Item 17, which cuts across the themes of collaborative learning and faculty collaboration.

    In their definition of a learning community, Shapiro and Levine note that learning communities "bring faculty together in meaningful ways by encouraging greater faculty interaction as teachers and learners" (1999, p. 5). They go on to say that learning communities encourage faculty development and support faculty teaching efforts. According to the 1984 Involvement in Learning study, two distinctive features of learning communities were that they 1) assist in overcoming isolation of faculty, and 2) encourage faculty interaction as specialists and educators (NIE). Faculty collaboration is described by Tokuno as one of the four dimensions of learning communities (Goodsell Love & Tokuno, 1999), inherent in their structure and necessary for their success. Participation in learning communities gives faculty the opportunity to interact, reorganize, and alter their teaching (Gabelnick, et. al, 1990). Faculty members who participate in learning communities rewrite and reshape the curriculum, making their disciplines come alive again for their students and themselves.

    In response to the open-ended question about the future of learning communities, many of the respondents in this study wrote about the benefits of learning community participation for faculty members as a reason to believe in their continued growth and expansion. This evidence, along with the ratings of the items listed above, indicate that faculty participation and collaboration is an essential element of curricular learning communities.

Focus on Outcomes and Assessment:

    Items in the study that dealt with including measures for assessment and a focus on outcomes were rated highly by the participants. These items are listed below:

Item	Category
11. There are targeted learning outcomes.	Pedagogical
13. There are clearly defined, intended learning outcomes for students, faculty, and staff.	Pedagogical
38. Design includes a well-developed assessment model.	Structural
44. There are clearly articulated program goals.	Structural
50. Reflection, evaluation, and feedback loops are part of the LC program.	Structural
53. Time is afforded for faculty planning, coordination, and assessment.	Structural
56. Faculty and students provide feedback.	Structural

    Considered as a group, these items did not rate quite as highly as the previously mentioned groups, but all items were maintained until the end, all had an agreement level of 80% or higher (with all but one reaching 88 or 94% agreement after the second questionnaire) and all received value points. Results indicate that regular assessment and a focus on outcomes are essential components of curricular learning communities.

    Assessment is, of course, not unique to learning community programs. However, since learning communities are fairly new to education, it does appear to be an essential feature that must be included in these programs. A document produced by the Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education, home of the National Learning Communities Project, lists assessment and evaluation as one of the six elements of effective learning communities (2000). According to this report, "the learning community effort embeds assessment and evaluation for purposes of program improvement." Another recent report emphasizes the need for increasing assessment efforts in learning communities, pointing out that assessment information can be useful for program improvement, external communication, and improved teaching and learning (MacGregor & Tinto, 2000).

    Assessment of student learning is also an important component of learning communities. Shapiro and Levine list "focusing faculty and students on learning outcomes" as one of the eight basic characteristics of learning communities (1999, p. 5). They postulate that the focus on learning outcomes leads to continued faculty development and more effective student learning. By assessing this learning, information can be fed back into the program for continued improvement.

    The importance of outcomes and assessment is echoed in the comments written by the study participants. Several participants mentioned current assessment efforts in learning communities as being important to their continued growth and expansion. The results indicate that this can be considered an essential component of curricular learning communities.

Institutionalization:

    Several of the items that received a high level of support were related to the idea that learning community programs need to be institutionalized so that they become part of the regular functioning of the college or university. The following items address this idea:

Item	Category
39. There is active, visible support from senior leadership.	Structural
45. LC program is congruent with institution’s program.	Structural
47. An effective registration system is implemented.	Structural
52. LC courses count as part of the official curriculum.	Structural
60. LC program experiences administrative support and recognition of faculty.	Environmental
61. Support for LC is received from all areas of the institution’s infrastructure.	Environmental

    Considered as a group, these items were some of the most highly rated items in the study. Two of these items had agreement levels of 100%, and three had a standard deviation of less than 0.5. This was also a frequently mentioned item in the responses to the open-ended question in the final round. Clearly the panel supports the notion that learning communities should be integrated into the structure of the college or university.

    This topic is dealt with in the literature as well. Elliot and Decker talk about the importance of developing learning communities that fit within the mission of the institution. They say, "Without an explicit connection to the college mission, learning communities may appear to be an expensive experiment" (1999, p. 26). Jundt, Etzkorn, and Johnson use a metaphor – likening a learning community to a theater production and the university to a theater – when they say, "the performance, or delivery of the learning community, (must fit) the theater" (1999, p. 29). This includes paying attention to the culture and values of the institution, as well as designing and implementing effective scheduling and registration systems that work for students and the institution.

    If learning communities are not institutionalized, it is unlikely that faculty participation will be sustained. Part of the issue of institutionalization is the need to build learning community participation into the faculty reward system. According to Lenning and Ebbers, "If … learning communities are to be successful, the institution must intentionally include participation in those activities in the reward structure" (1999, p. 77). Although none of the features listed in this study directly addressed this issue, many panelists addressed this in their narrative responses.

    Institutionalizing learning communities is necessary for their long-term sustainability. Colleges must "establish a home for the learning community, a fairly consistent set of themes or programs, an active group of faculty, and some acceptable administrative procedures" (Gabelnick, et. al, 1990, p. 48). Can this, however, be considered an essential characteristic of a learning community, or is it rather a process that must happen for the continued success of that community? It is not often listed as a common characteristic, does not appear in the definitions that have been offered. However, according to the Washing Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education, this institutionalization is a critical element. They list, as the first of the six "Elements of Effective Learning Community Program," the following:

The structure of and rationale for the learning community effort meets stated needs and opportunities at the college, and meshes with its institutional values and organizational conditions. (2000).

The results of this study support this characteristic as essential to curricular learning communities.

Other Items:

    Other items that received high marks from panelists but do not fall into one of the above themes are listed below:

Item	Category
36. There are small student cohort groups.	Structural
66. LC members recognize and honor differences (in beliefs, backgrounds, identity, age, ethnicity, etc.).	Environmental
71. Students and teachers experience a sense of community, of belonging, and of shared enterprise.	Environmental
72. LC members trust and respect one another.	Environmental

 

    What these items have in common is that they deal with the "feel" of the learning community. The selection of these items may indicate that the sense of community, frequently mentioned in the literature on learning communities, is an important part of these programs. The fact that this theme did not emerge as strongly as one of the essential features may indicate that this sense of community is a benefit that comes out of successful learning community programs rather than an "ingredient" that can be included when creating and implementing these programs.

 

Conclusions

    The Delphi method was successfully utilized in this study to identify experts’ opinions about the essential characteristics of curricular learning communities. The following conclusions can be drawn from this study.

Essential Elements of Curricular Learning Communities:

    There are five elements that are essential to curricular learning communities. They are listed below.

· The curriculum is integrated and interdisciplinary, cutting across departmental lines and divisions.

· There is a high level of faculty collaboration and participation in all facets of the learning community program.

· Learning is collaborative and active – students are actively engaged in the learning process.

· There is on-going assessment and communication about student learning outcomes and program results.

· The learning community program fits within its institution’s mission, structures, processes, culture and climate.

    The first three of these five elements describe the very nature of the learning community. To be a true learning community, collaborative and active learning, active participation and collaboration among faculty, and an integrated curriculum must exist at the core of the program. The last two items describe the characteristics that must be included in order for learning communities to be sustained, to grow and flourish and continue to have a place in higher education.

    Unlike earlier lists of common characteristics or features, this list is based on the data gathered from a group of people highly qualified to address this issue. It is the first list that has come from the collective opinions of these experts.

 

Figure 4: Essential Elements of Curricular Learning Communities

 

Core Elements (Required for Learning Community Creation)

• Integrated Curriculum

• Faculty collaboration and participation

• Collaborative, active learning

Sustaining Elements (Required for Sustenance and Growth)

• Assessment

• Institutionalization

 

    These five elements are reflected in and supported by the literature, and reflect the areas of agreement among the seventeen experts who participated in this study. They cut across the four categories that were established in Chapter Two. The relationship between the categories and the themes is depicted in Figure 5 below.

 

Figure 5: Categories of Essential Elements

	Integrated Curriculum	Faculty collaboration/ participation	Active, collaborative learning	Assessment	Institutionalization
Curricular	Items 1,3,4,5,6, 8,10	Item               3
Pedagogical	Items         26, 27	Items 17.18,32	Items 15,17,19,25, 33,34	Items         11,13
Structural		Items 43,53,56		Items    38,44,50,  53,56	Items 39,45,47,52
Environmental		Items 59,74			Items 60,61

    The importance of faculty collaboration and participation is illustrated by the fact that this element cuts across all categories. The importance of pedagogical practices within learning communities programs also is shown by the fact that four of the five elements are contained in this category.

The Delphi Methodology:

    The use of the Delphi technique in this study allowed a group of well-known, experienced and highly qualified learning community experts to pool their knowledge and insight to gain a greater understanding of the curricular learning community.

    There were several advantages to using this method. First, it allowed for the participation of a number of expert individuals with a minimal amount of time and effort required on their part. Second, the structure of the first survey, which called for the participants to actually determine the elements to be considered, insured a great deal of participant input and some ownership of the process. Third, since the topic to be considered was subjective and value-based, the Delphi method was an effective and appropriate choice.

    There were, of course, some drawbacks to the study. Because the study extended over a two-month period, there was some participant dropout as the study progressed. Because there is no opportunity for participant discussion in a Delphi study, there was no chance to clarify some of the items that participants were asked to rate. This may have led to some premature exclusion of certain items. Finally, there was some overlap in the items that may have caused some participant confusion. An additional round devoted to collapsing and clarifying these overlapping items by rating their similarity might have been useful, much like the classic Delphi study described by Dalkey and Rourke in 1972 investigating quality of life, where participants were asked to rate the similarity of all possible pairings of items in order to reduce the number of items from 250 to 48 items (Dalkey & Rourke, 1972).

 

Implications

    The findings and conclusions of this study lead to the following implications:

· All three of the identified core elements of learning communities depend on continued faculty participation and development. The theme of faculty participation and collaboration cut across all identified categories of learning community characteristics. Involved faculty who are committed to the teaching and learning process are needed to form and maintain true learning communities. Faculty must have the opportunity to develop and enhance their teaching skills. Institutions who wish to benefit from this curricular innovation must invest in the development of their faculty.

· Traditional reward systems that emphasize faculty contributions specifically in terms of research and publications may have to change for faculty to continue their involvement in learning communities. Without continued and increasing faculty support, learning communities will fail. However, if faculty are torn between participation in learning communities and other, more traditional "scholarly" work, such as research and writing, the work that is rewarded will receive the most investment of faculty time and effort. Institutions must recognize that the work that faculty do in learning communities, such as reworking and restructuring curriculum and changing their teaching methods, is also scholarly work. It may in fact be the most important scholarly work being done in higher education.

· Learning community proponents and practitioners must pay attention to assessment of both student learning and program results and must allow for and encourage institutionalization of their programs to insure their continued success.

Learning communities are relatively new and, like all innovations, may be in danger of being considered a trend or fad. Careful and methodical assessment and attention to outcomes will insure their long-term survival.

 

Recommendations

    In order for the results of this study to be useful to persons developing and implementing curricular learning communities in higher education, the following additional research should take place:

· Study participants should be given an opportunity to examine and respond to the results and conclusions that have been generated from this study to determine their level of agreement with the five identified elements as compiled by the writer.

· An exploration of the potential benefit of using the five elements to create an evaluative tool for learning communities should be undertaken. Similar to Tokuno’s four dimensions, these five elements could be the basis of a scale used for self-assessment by administrators and participants in learning community programs.

· Once such a evaluative tool is developed, research should be conducted to determine if the presence and level of the five elements in curricular learning communities has any impact on their success in terms of program results, student achievement, and program continuance.

    Curricular learning communities have been proven to benefit faculty, students, and institutions, and if they are developed and sustained appropriately, may be part of the permanent landscape of higher education in the twenty-first century.