CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter presents a review of the literature and
research related to curricular learning communities in higher education. There
is a wealth of recent literature describing various models of learning
communities being employed in colleges and universities today. Anecdotal
information about the benefits of these learning communities to student,
faculty, and institutions abounds. There is also a good deal of research, both
qualitative and quantitative, related to the specific outcomes of learning
communities, particularly in the area of student achievement. Various theories
have been offered to explain the success of learning communities, and key
features or characteristics of learning communities have been suggested.
The present study seeks to identify the essential components of a successful
learning community experience. This chapter will provide an overview of the
previously mentioned topics and will also consider the historical roots of
learning communities and the environment for change that provided much of the
impetus for the widespread development of learning communities in the 1980's and
1990's. The chapter will be organized as follows:
Historical roots of learning communities in higher education.
Conditions leading to widespread development and implementation of
learning communities.
Learning community models.
Benefits and outcomes of learning communities.
Theories: what makes learning communities work?
Key features of learning communities.
Historical Roots of Learning Communities in Higher Education
Although the current popularity and widespread implementation of learning
communities is relatively new, beginning as recently as the 1980's, the belief
that learning communities or programs like them can improve the higher education
experience is not new. The emphases on cooperative and collaborative learning,
an interdisciplinary and unified curriculum, and facilitative, teamed faculty
that are so important to learning communities today have historical roots in the
writings of John Dewey and Alexander Meiklejohn, dating back to the 1920's and
earlier.
Dewey's contributions to the learning community movement, according to
Gabelnick, MacGregor, Matthews, and Smith (1990), "had less to do with
structure and more to do with the teaching and learning process, especially
student-centered learning and active learning" (p. 15). Although Dewey did
not write specifically about curricular learning communities, many of his ideas
about the teaching and learning process are subscribed to by modern-day
practitioners involved in the implementation of learning communities. Dewey
believed that learning was a collaborative and cooperative process, with the
teacher acting as an active partner in the learning process. He promoted a
unified curriculum and challenged the traditional models of education and
delivery that were in practice at the time (Dewey, 1916). Dewey's emphasis on
connected knowledge and on the learner and the learning process had a
significant impact on the learning community movement more than fifty years
later (Shapiro & Levine, 1999).
Another early proponent of these ideas was Alexander Meiklejohn. Gablenick et
al. call Meiklejohn the "father to the learning community movement"
(1990, p. 11). Like Dewey, Meiklejohn was a proponent of connected, integrated
learning. As president of Amherst College in 1914, he proposed a unified,
coordinated curriculum for students in their first two years of study. This
proposal emphasized continuity in the curriculum, and criticized the current
practice of students receiving their education by enrolling in an assortment of
separate courses, divided by both discipline and topic. This new approach would
require cooperation and collaboration between faculty. One of the goals
Meiklejohn had was to "unite all the college in a common intellectual
enterprise" (A Liberal Education, 1920, p.147).
Several years later, in 1927, Meiklejohn actually established the first
recognized learning community program in higher education. The Experimental
College at the University of Wisconsin was developed for undergraduate students
in their first two years of college. The entire curriculum was theme-based, with
democracy in fifth century Athens as the focus for the first year and nineteenth
and twentieth century America the focus for the second year (Meiklejohn, 1932).
The program only lasted a few years, closing in 1932. Meiklejohn continued to
promote the ideas behind his learning community efforts; describing his theory
of education in 1947 he wrote:
Learning is not merely the acquiring of mastery over intellectual
subject matter. It is, first of all, initiation into many social groups
and, ultimately, into one social group. The teacher leads his pupils into
active membership in a fraternity to which he himself belongs. The motive
force of the fraternity is found in a common devotion to a common, co-operative
enterprise. (p. 277)
Joseph Tussman (1969) was one of the people profoundly influenced by
Meiklejohn's work. His Experimental Program at Berkeley, which began more than
thirty years after Meiklejohn's experiment ended, was an attempt to
"reincarnate the spirit and principles of The Experimental College,"
which, according to Tussman, was an "educational Paradise Lost … the
solution to the central problems of undergraduate education" (p. vii).
The Experimental Program at Berkeley, which ran from 1965 to 1969, was the
second nationally recognized learning community effort in higher education.
Tussman, as founder of the program, wrote candidly about the successes and
failures of the program in 1969. Tussman's program, like Meikeljohn's, covered
the first two years of undergraduate study, and was theme-based. The themes used
by Tussman, also similar to Meiklejohn's, were a first year study of general
ideas, based on original readings coming out of two periods of major crisis --
Greece during the Peloponnesian wars and England in the seventeenth century --
and a second year study of American society. A list of readings -- all original
sources -- was used as the basis of the curriculum. There was no attempt to
divide the curriculum by course or discipline. In fact, Tussman (1969) believed
that lower division education should be conceived as a whole experience, unified
to such an extent that he used the word "non-disciplinary" rather than
"interdisciplinary" to describe his program (p. 75).
In a program plan targeted to enrolling students written by Tussman in 1967,
he introduced the term "learning community." Tussman wrote, "To
enroll in the program is to assume certain commitments. It is to become one of a
group seeking to create a learning community, to engage in a common intellectual
life" (p. 135).
The greatest difficulty reported by Tussman was maintaining the commitment of
faculty to the program. He believed that the separateness of university faculty,
traditionally divided by discipline and academic department, was at odds with
the non-disciplinary structure of his experiment. Although the program at
Berkeley ended in 1969, it wasn't long before others took up his learning
community efforts.
In 1970, a group of faculty in Washington State began developing a plan for a
new, state-supported, alternative college that was to become The Evergreen State
College (Gabelnick et al., 1990). They were greatly influenced by Tussman's
program and believed, as he did, that the key to effective undergraduate
education was the coordination and integration of the curriculum. These faculty
founded the college with a curriculum made up of year-long coordinated studies
programs based on a theme and built around the reading of original sources
(Shapiro & Levine, 1999). This approach is still in place today, and the
program at Evergreen has been a model for many of today's curricular learning
communities. The Evergreen State College continues to be a leader in the
learning community movement, and maintains an on-line learning community
directory (http://www.evergreen.edu/user/washcntr/directory/index.asp) that
lists and categorizes existing learning communities at higher education
institutions throughout the nation.
Conditions Leading to Widespread Development and
Implementation
of Learning Communities.
Curricular learning communities began springing up in colleges and
universities by the dozens in the 1980's and 1990's. This rapid development was
fueled by the outcomes of several studies and reports undertaken during this
time period that examined the effectiveness of undergraduate education in the
United States. The findings and recommendations coming out of these studies,
such as the importance of student involvement, connections, and active learning,
encouraged learning community practitioners.
One of the first works to deal with these issues, albeit indirectly, was Studying
Student Attrition, published in 1982 (Pascarella, ed.). Though the focus of
this book was on undergraduate student withdrawal or attrition, another issue
receiving a great deal of attention in the 1980's, some of the findings
presented supported the philosophies of the learning community leaders.
Attrition models outlined by the authors developed the notions that
student-student and student-faculty interaction, student social and academic
integration into the institution, and student institutional commitment are major
factors in predicting student persistence to graduation. This book also
describes an experimental living-learning residence that was implemented by a
large, private residential university for the purpose of increasing student
retention. This experimental program, similar in concept to learning communities
though without the curricular restructuring featured in most current models, was
found to have several positive impacts, including improved student achievement
and retention (p. 85). Pascarella recommended the development of
"programmatic interventions at the institutional level," along with
continuing evaluation of these programs and their impact. He ends his chapter on
concluding thoughts by suggesting that institutions "look critically at the
very processes by which they educate students -- and it is after all, the
education of students that is a fundamental reason for institutions'
existence" (pp. 90-91).
In 1984, the National Institute of Education (NIE) sponsored a study to
determine the conditions of excellence in higher education, focusing on
effective undergraduate education. The results of this study, Involvement in
Learning: Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education, pointed out
the potential benefits of developing learning communities in higher education.
According to this study, student involvement was an important, perhaps the most
important, condition that would lead to excellence in undergraduate education.
The establishment of learning communities was suggested as a way of increasing
student involvement. According to the NIE study group, "Every institution
of higher education should strive to create learning communities, organized
around specific intellectual themes or tasks" (p. 33). This would then
create greater opportunities for student interaction and active learning, which
would lead to increased student performance and development. The establishment
of learning communities could, according to this study, be particularly
effective in large institutions where high levels of student involvement and
interaction might be difficult to achieve in more traditional undergraduate
programs.
In 1987, Tinto first published Leaving College, a widely read book
that presented Tinto's theory of student departure. Tinto also focused on
student involvement, and, like the NIE study group, believed that increased
student involvement would lead to increased performance and persistence, thus
resulting in higher retention rates. He described several recent programmatic
efforts, which he labeled as "early contact" and "community
building" programs, which were seeking to "[incorporate] …individuals
into the academic and social communities of the institution" (p. 165). The
learning communities that Tinto described included those at Evergreen State
College, LaGuardia Community College, Seattle Central Community College, the
University of Washington, and the University of Oregon, schools that were and
still are leaders in the learning community movement. Tinto identified
collaborative and cooperative learning as strategies for increasing student
involvement and success as well. He notes:
…the process of collaborative learning is as important as content. Though the latter is not insignificant, the primary intent of the course
is to actively involve students in the learning process in a collaborative,
rather than competitive, manner. Such programs seek through that involvement
to promote both student learning and the development of academic and social
communities in college. (p. 169)
The next major work that promoted learning communities in higher education
was How College Affects Students, a comprehensive book that drew on over
2,600 research studies from the 1970's and 1980's (Pascarella & Terenzini,
1991). The authors examined the influence of college on the growth and
development of individuals by looking at various students outcomes and relating
them to institutional characteristics, such as institutional type, selectivity,
and size; and different "sub environments" or experiences within those
institutions, such as residence arrangement, peer group involvement, and faculty
interaction.
One of the four general conclusions reached by Pascarella and Terenzini was
that the most important factor in college impact on individual students was the
level of that student's effort and involvement. They went on to say that the
most effective strategy that institutions could adopt would be to develop
programs that would increase student involvement. Many of their specific
recommendations dealt with the establishment of learning community- type
programs. For example, they suggested that while living on campus is generally a
positive factor in student development and achievement, the strongest impact on
both cognitive development and retention came about when colleges made
"programmatic efforts to integrate the student's intellectual and social
life" (p. 613).
They found that active learning, curricular integration, and high levels of
interaction with faculty, especially intellectual interactions dealing with
ideas, all had positive impacts on student development in college. According to
the authors, institutional size is not as great a factor as "psychological
size," which is determined by the kind of interactions and involvement
opportunities that are available to students. They recommended the
"creation of learning communities around specific themes and increased use
of instructional technologies and other mechanisms for bringing students and
faculty into more frequent contact" (p. 651).
Two years later, Alexander Astin published a similar work, What Matters in
College (1993), a follow-up to his Four Critical Years (1977), in
which he also examined the impact of college on student's development
academically, socially, and personally. Like Pascarella and Terenzini, Astin
found that student involvement was a key factor in development. Some of the
specific experiences that had positive correlations were taking
interdisciplinary courses, living in residence halls, giving class
presentations, experiencing high levels of student faculty interaction, engaging
in group projects, and experiencing high involvement with peers (pp. 380 - 388).
Although Astin does not specifically recommend the establishment of
curricular learning communities, many of his recommendations do support the
learning community model. For example, he notes the favorable effects of an
interdisciplinary, core curriculum, which promotes student discussion and
creates a common intellectual experience, and suggests that institutions
consider this model for general education programs. He notes that while there
are many ways for institutions to facilitate stronger peer involvement, the two
important principles are " a common ground on which identification can
occur" and "opportunities to interact on a sustained basis," (p.
423) both principles of curricular learning communities.
Redesigning Higher Education: Producing Dramatic Gains in Student Learning
(Gardiner, 1994) provided even more evidence that there was a place for learning
communities in higher education. Gardiner's report advocated for a more
learner-centered undergraduate experience. He agreed with Tinto, Pascarella, and
Terenzini about the importance of student integration into campus life as well
as interaction and involvement with peers, the faculty, and academic work.
Gardiner listed the fragmented curriculum, teacher-centered instruction, chilly
campus climate, and information-based academic advising as four areas of concern
in undergraduate education. He called for a change in higher education, based on
a re-building of academic community.
All of these reports and studies contributed to the climate of change that
was instrumental in the widespread development of learning community programs.
Below is a matrix outlining these major studies and reports and indicating how
their findings contributed to this movement:
TABLE ONE
Summary of Contributing Studies and Reports, 1982-94
|
Researcher |
Year and Title of Work |
Significant Findings |
Impact on Learning Community Movement |
|
Pascarella |
1982, Studying Student Attrition |
- summarized attrition models that emphasize interaction, integration,
and institutional commitment as major factors in student persistence. |
- recommended programmatic interventions.
-described a living/learning residence program. |
|
National Institute of Education |
1984, Involvement in Learning |
- student involvement key to excellence in undergraduate education. |
- recommended creation of learning communities as way of increasing
involvement. |
|
Tinto |
1987, Leaving College |
- presented student involvement theory of retention.
- identified collaborative and cooperative learning as strategies for
success. |
- promoted use of learning communities.
- described fledgling learning communities as models to emulate. |
|
Pascarella and Terenzini |
1991, How College Affects Students |
- most important factor in college impact is level of student effort
and involvement.
- active learning, curricular integration, and interaction all
positively impact student development. |
- recommended creation of learning communities, especially in larger
institutions, to create smaller "psychological size." |
|
Astin |
1993, What Matters in College |
- student involvement and interaction, interdisciplinary courses, and
group work all positively impact student development. |
- recommended creation of interdisciplinary core curriculum for common
intellectual experience. |
|
Gardiner |
1994, Redesigning Higher Education |
- undergraduate education too fragmented, not learner-based. |
- called for re-building of academic community to improve undergraduate
experience. |
Learning Community Models
As learning community programs have proliferated at colleges and universities
in the last two decades, they have taken many different forms. Following are
descriptions and examples of the most prevalent curricular learning community
models that appear in the literature.
Linked Courses:
The simplest learning community model is the linked courses model,
which generally involves linking a skills course to a content course. In these
types of programs, writing courses may be linked with content courses, such as
history or sociology, to help promote the perception that writing is not a
separate, extraneous task (Smith, p. 44). Another common pairing might combine a
mathematics course and a science course. Students generally co-register for the
courses, and although team teaching is not the norm in this model, usually
faculty do work together to coordinate their course content and the schedule of
assignments (National Resource Center for the First Year Experience and Students
in Transition, 1999).
A typical example of a linked courses learning community is the program at
Solano Community College in California, where English composition courses are
linked to a variety of courses with a common theme. Other examples of this
linked course model vary widely. They range from Nassau Community College's
program in New York, where a reading course and a sociology course are linked
for first year students who need remediation, to the learning community at
Diablo Valley College in California, where a special intensive program for
scientists and engineers pairs calculus and physics courses for a full year
(Washington Center Learning Communities Directory web page, 2000).
Clustered Courses:
The cluster model expands on the linked-course model to
include three or four courses with a common theme. As in the linked
course model, students enroll as a cohort in the clustered courses, and teachers
work together in planning their syllabi. The "Advantage Program" at
the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley enrolls groups of entering
students in one of nine thematic clusters consisting of College English and two
other paired general education courses (Washington Center web page, 2000).
Another common approach to a cluster model is to include a weekly seminar course
in the cluster. The seminar can be pivotal in helping students and teachers
realize the full advantage of the curricular connections of the courses. At
LaGuardia Community College in New York, entering students enroll in a themed
cluster that includes a one-hour seminar called "Lib 110," which is
team taught by the faculty involved (Shapiro & Levine, 1999). Each cluster
is limited to thirty students, who enroll in all cluster courses cluster
together. Below is a diagram depicting two cluster options at LaGuardia:
Figure 1: LaGuardia Cluster Options
English
101 (3 credits) AND
Writing
the Research Paper (2 credits) AND
Integrated
Hour (1 credit)
WITH
one of below
"Freedom and Seeing" OR
"Work, Labor, and Business"
Intro to Philosophy (3 credits)
AND
Intro to Social Studies (3 credits) AND
Intro to Art (3
credits)
Work, Labor, and Business in Amer. Lit (3 credits)
(National Resource Center, 1999)
Freshman Interest Groups:
Freshman interest groups, commonly called FIGs, link three or more
courses around a theme or major interest and add an advising component
(Gabelnick et al., 1990). This model differs from the cluster model in that some
of the courses taken by FIG students are not limited to that cohort of students.
The FIG students are instead a sub-group of twenty to thirty students within a
larger lecture course. They are linked by the common scheduling of one or two
larger courses, a smaller writing or skills course, and a smaller weekly
seminar, led by a "master learner" or facilitator, and limited to the
members of that learning community (Shapiro & Levine, 1999), who share a
major or common area of interest. A typical FIG learning community is
illustrated in the figure below:
Figure 2: Texas A & M Corpus
Christi FIGs
General Education Lecture Class: Intro to American Government
(200 students) AND
General Education Lecture Class: U.S. History (200 students) PLUS
|
English Comp (25 each section)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman Seminar (25 each section)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 200 are divided into eight
sections (25 each) of Freshman Composition and Freshman Seminar.
A graduate teaching assistant leads the seminar.
(National Resource Center, 1999)
This model is quite cost-effective and works particularly well in
universities where students are likely to be enrolled in large general education
lecture courses in their first year. Much of the connection and community
building is done through the efforts of the seminar leader, who may be a teacher
or even a graduate or undergraduate student. A student who would otherwise be
one in a class of 100 or more has a chance to be part of a smaller community of
learners.
University of Oregon, one of the first institutions to develop this learning
community model, promotes FIGs to incoming freshmen with the following message:
The transition to university life can be confusing and even
stressful. The academic and social advantages provided by joining a FIG help
reduce that stress. Academically, courses in each group complement one another so that what you learn in one course has relevance for
the others. Socially, you will quickly meet others, and friendships will
be fostered by sharing class and study time. Membership in a FIG will help you get off to a good start at the university. (University of
Oregon web page, 1998)
Coordinated Studies Program:
The most comprehensive type of curricular learning community is the coordinated
studies program, sometimes referred to as team taught programs, in which
faculty from different disciplines cooperate to present a fully integrated,
common curriculum to small cohort groups of students. Students in a coordinated
studies program will generally have their entire first semester or even their
first year dedicated to the learning community curriculum. Though perhaps the
most expensive type of learning community because of the small class sizes and
relatively inefficient use of faculty resources, this model can be effectively
used to give students a true community experience in a non-residential college.
Seattle Central Community College gives students the opportunity to enroll in a
coordinated studies program in which they register for an eleven to eighteen
hour block of courses that are organized around a central theme. Class sizes are
kept small, and the courses are team-taught by two to four different faculty
members (Tinto & Russo, p. 17).
The coordinated studies program is probably most similar to the early
learning communities implemented by Meiklejohn and Tussman. Like Meiklejohn's
Experimental College and Tussman's Experiment at Berkeley, themes are usually
generated by the faculty and are interdisciplinary. Common texts and readings
are essential to the coordinated studies program (Shapiro & Levine, 1999).
Faculty and students involved in the program are devoted full-time to the
learning community (Gabelnick, et al., 1990). Institutions implementing
coordinated studies programs have to be willing to give up the traditional model
of courses divided by discipline and the common distributed general education
model. At George Mason University's New Century College, eight faculty members
and two hundred students are involved in a year-long coordinated studies program
that consists of only four courses, each lasting six to seven weeks, all
interdisciplinary and team-taught. The students are divided into small groups
for discussion and writing workshops, and the whole group is brought together
for lectures based on course themes. A description of the four courses that make
up the students' schedule for the year is provided in the figure below:
Figure 3: New
Century College Coordinated Studies Curriculum
COURSE ONE:
"Community of Learners"
Explores interdisciplinary
issues in education, philosophy, and intellectual development. Emphasis is on
writing and computer skills.
Followed by
COURSE TWO:
"The Natural World"
Explores themes in math,
science, and communications.
Followed by
COURSE THREE:
"The Socially Constructed World"
Explores issues in the
humanities, social sciences, and fine arts.
Followed by
COURSE FOUR:
"Self as Citizen"
Studies the relationship
between individual and society.
Shapiro & Levine, 1999
Active, collaborative learning is a common feature of coordinated studies
programs. Faculty must work as a team in order to implement this learning
community model (Gabelnick et al., 1990).
Living-Learning Community:
One more type of learning community that should be mentioned is what is often
referred to as the residence based or living-learning community. This
curricular learning community adds yet another facet to the community experience
by having student cohort groups live in common residence halls. Bradley Learning
Community at the University of Wisconsin-Madison offers this experience to 244
of its first year students. Students in the Bradley Learning Community take
courses together and participate in extracurricular activities together. Faculty
fellows are assigned to the Bradley Community and share meals and lead study
groups and discussions in the residence hall. According to a promotional
brochure distributed by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Bradley emphasizes
"active, collaborative learning and sharing of ideas" (Bradley
Steering Committee, 1998). Students in this community have the opportunity to
earn an interdisciplinary certificate in areas such as global cultures and
environmental studies (Johnson & Cavins, 1996).
A living-learning community shares some features with the more traditional
residential college model. For example, both models require a high level of
faculty commitment and student-faculty interaction, and both seek to connect the
academic and social experiences of students. The distinguishing feature of
classic residential colleges, according to Barbara Leigh Smith, is that faculty
live in the halls among the students (Shapiro & Levine, 1999).
Living-learning communities, by definition, include a curricular component --
students living in the residence are also experiencing the restructured
curriculum of a learning community model.
The University of Missouri at Columbia has added a residential component to
its Freshman Interest Groups program to create a living-learning community. The
program is described in the quotation below:
Students participating in the FIGs program at Missouri are co enrolled
in three common courses organized around an academic theme during the
fall semester. Some themes are related to academic majors (Life Sciences, Business, and so on), whereas others are more general (for example,
Ancient Peoples and Cultures, and America's Diversity). Each FIG contains no
more than twenty students. Freshman interest group students are also enrolled in a proseminar
taught by a peer advisor and faculty cofacilitator. Peer advisers (PAs)
are primarily junior and senior students of outstanding academic ability who
serve as role models, peer instructors, and mentors for FIG students
(Minor, 1997).
The added feature of this program is that the students in each FIG are also
assigned to the same residence hall floor. Minor describes the Missouri program
as combining "the best elements of co-enrollment and academic theme housing
to create a new program that surpasses the sum of its parts" (p. 21).
Benefits and Outcomes of Learning Communities
The literature on learning communities presents a multitude of examples of
all of the above-mentioned models. These learning communities exist in large
universities, in four-year residential colleges and in two-year community
colleges. Many positive outcomes are reported for students who participate in
learning communities. Some of the most frequently mentioned benefits and
outcomes of learning communities include the following: increased interaction
with faculty and peers, increased participation in classes, better attendance,
more active learning, better academic and social support networks, increased
personal development and self-esteem, and increased student achievement and
persistence (Goodsell Love & Tinto, 1995; Gardiner, 1994; Pascarella, 1982;
Tinto & Russo, 1994, Shapiro & Levine, 1999).
Involvement and Interaction:
Jack Bennett, Director of Freshman Interest Groups at the University of
Oregon, characterizes the learning community as "an academically-based
social group" (University of Oregon web page). Nancy Dumke, director of the
GOALS program at Winona State University, a cluster-type learning community
implemented in the 1980's but since disbanded, reported that students involved
in the program had "an immediate sense of community, both with their fellow
students and their professors" (Nancy Dumke interview, September 1998). In
Tinto and Russo's study of the Coordinated Studies Program at Seattle Central
Community College, students reported that they developed a "supportive
community of peers" and that these associations were an "important and
valued part" of their experience as a first year student (1994, p. 18).
Surveys conducted by Tinto and Russo revealed that these students reported more
involvement in both academic and social activities, and held generally more
positive views of the college, the faculty, and other students, as well as their
classes (1994).
In fact, research consistently shows that students involved with learning
communities perceive that the increased interaction with peers and faculty is a
very important benefit (Goodsell Love & Tinto, 1995). The bonding and
community building that occurs within learning communities may be even more
important at non-residential colleges and larger institutions, where it is more
difficult for students to get to know one another. As one student enrolled in
one of the Freshman Interest Groups at University of Oregon put it, "The
Freshman Interest Group helped me meet people in what would have been
over-powering classes of 200-plus people. It's neat to walk into a big class and
see a big group of people you know!" (Gabelnick et al., p. 67). Another
student in the Coordinated Studies Program at Spokane Falls Community College
talked about her experience as follows:
I always envisioned that college was where I was going to make
those "friends for life," supposedly that my parents had
… prior to this quarter I hadn't had that at community college. You meet
a couple of people in a class and say good-bye at the end of the quarter. In this program, I've made some friends that I'm sure will
be my friends for life. (Gabelnick, et al., p. 68)
Persistence and Performance:
These increased interactions and involvement are almost certainly tied to
another frequently reported outcome of learning communities -- increased student
retention. The University of Oregon FIG students have consistently persisted at
rates higher than those of the freshmen in general (Gabelnick et al., 1990). One
hundred percent of the students enrolled in the Bradley Learning Community at
the University of Wisconsin in Madison were retained through the first year
(Bradley report, 1997-98). Students in the Coordinated Studies Program at
Seattle Community College persisted through the year at a rate of 83.8% compared
to 80.9% in a comparison group, and 66.7% came back the following year compared
to 52.0% of the control group (Tinto & Russo, 1994). The University of
Missouri's FIG students were retained from fall 1995 to fall 1996 at the rate of
87%, while non-FIG students returned at a rate of 81% (Minor, 1997). Even when
students involved in learning communities have lower high school GPA's or
entrance test scores than the average first year student at that institution,
they tend to persist at higher rates. This was evidenced in the GOALS program
offered at Winona State University, when the retention rate for the GOALS
students exceeded the retention rate for the general population (D. Sweetland,
personal communication, July 5, 1990). Nationwide, students in learning
communities are retained to the end of the term at rates that average ten to
twenty percentage points higher than average (Gabelnick et al., 1990).
Students in learning communities not only persist longer, but also outperform
their peers academically. Several studies have shown that students earn higher
grades after becoming involved in a learning community. For example, LaGuardia
Community College compared the achievement of students in their learning
clusters with the general student population and found that twelve to fourteen
percent more students in the clusters were earning passing grades (Gabelnick et
al., 1990). Students enrolled in the living-learning community at the University
of Missouri had a mean GPA of 2.89 compared to 2.66 for nonparticipants (Minor,
1997). A report from the University of Wisconsin Madison reveals that students
enrolled in the Bradley Learning Community earned an average GPA of 3.08
compared to 2.97 for the general population (Bradley report, 1998). Freshman
Interest Group students at the University of Washington averaged 3.14 compared
to 2.98 in a comparison group (Goodsell Love & Tinto, 1995). Another study
showed a difference in the GPA's of learning community participants that became
more pronounced over time (Shapiro & Levine, 1999). Students in the
University of Maryland's College Park Scholars Program did not show higher GPA's
than a matched sample after only one semester, but did significantly outperform
their counterparts after the third and fourth semester of participation.
These differences in GPA, while consistent, are slight, and might also be a
result of the improved student-teacher interaction in learning community
classes. GPA is not a considered a truly objective measure by some researchers.
Faculty may judge students enrolled in learning communities differently as they
come to know them better and have the opportunity to evaluate them in different
settings. In order to have another measure of academic achievement, researchers
have also measured student achievement in terms of levels of intellectual
development. Some studies have used William Perry's scheme of intellectual
development in college to measure growth. According to Perry, most students
enter college as "dualists," seeing the world in absolute terms of
right or wrong, black or white. From there students move to the position of
"multiplicity," where they begin to understand multiple perspectives,
and then to "contextual relativism," at which point the complexities
and ambiguities that accompany knowledge and learning are accepted.
By interviewing students or using a test such as the MID (Measure of
Intellectual Development), researchers are able to determine where a student
falls in the continuum of intellectual growth. Typically, students in learning
communities enter at the same position or level of development as their peers,
generally as dualists, but they exit the community more advanced intellectually
than their counterparts. For example, studies at SUNY and at the University of
Maryland found students after spending their first year of college in a learning
community were at a level more typical of a college junior or senior (Gabelnick
et al., 1990). A study at Daytona Beach Community College showed similar
results, with students in their QUANTA learning community showing greater
movement along the Perry scale than the national norm. In fact, more than 10% of
the students progressed a full position or more on the scale in their first two
terms (Shapiro & Levine, 1999). Students experiencing this intellectual
development are more likely to see the teacher as a facilitator of learning
rather than the authority on the subject. The following quote, from a student
involved in the Coordinated Studies Program at Seattle Community College,
illustrates this advanced level of development:
So you are constantly having to think, rethink, and even re-rethink
what's going on in the light of all the feedback you're getting from all
these different points of view; what it does is shape and mold your own
point of view to a much finer degree and gives you a much broader base to look
from, I think, than you would [get] from just the traditional teacher/pupil
situation (Cross, p. 9).
Student Participation in Learning:
Another frequently mentioned positive benefit of learning communities is that
students are more likely to attend and to actively participate in class.
Goodsell Love and Tinto point out that this finding has been proven with both
quantitative and qualitative analyses (1995). They theorize that this may be due
to the smaller classes, which are generally more comfortable for a student and
may also make his or her absence or presence more noticeable. Students in
learning communities also report that they spend more time studying with their
classmates (Tinto & Russo, 1994). One student enrolled in the Stony Brook
Federated Learning Community describes this experience as follows:
I have come to appreciate the importance of academic discussion
with my fellow students. I spend much more time discussing what I learn in school with my friends, instead of just discussing school.
This interaction has given me a new perspective on my education. I have also realized how much I miss out in school by not being
involved and dedicated to my work. I have also been inspired to
contemplate more on the work I do. I don't just take the easy way out in an assignment. (Gablenick et al., p. 68)
Students in the QUANTA learning community at Daytona Beach Community College
reported that they benefited from the active learning methods used in their
classes as well as the experience of learning from their classmates. One student
is quoted in Shapiro & Levine as saying, "This is the ideal setting
that every classroom should strive for. It is so much easier to learn
from a friend than to get taught by a teacher" (1999, p. 180). Focus
group research done at Temple University revealed that students participating in
learning communities are more likely to participate in class by contributing to
class discussions and raising questions. These students also were more likely to
view their classmates as "partners in the learning process" (Shapiro
& Levine, 1999, p. 175).
Benefits to Faculty and Institutions:
Most of the research on the results of learning community has focused on
student outcomes; less research has been done to determine the outcomes for
faculty and institutions. Smith wrote in 1991 about the appeal of learning
communities for faculty members, especially those in mid-career. Because
participating faculty were required to re-create the curriculum, learning
communities could "rekindle the creative side of teaching and provide new
challenges for well-established teachers" (p. 46). She also felt that
learning communities benefited institutions by providing a structure that
brought various constituencies together in a "larger educational
enterprise" (p. 47).
Evenbeck, Jackson, & McGrew (1999) agree that faculty members experience
positive outcomes from participating in a learning community. These outcomes
include enhanced status among colleagues, increased professional development,
and other traditional rewards such as reduced teaching load and added
compensation. Increased knowledge about and use of campus resources, increased
collaboration and collegiality among faculty, and increased peer networks are
also reported by faculty involved with learning communities.
Cross (1998) wrote that learning communities can be instrumental in helping
colleges meet two important goals -- training the workforce and educating for
responsible citizenship. Shapiro and Levine (1999) found anecdotal data that
indicated faculty and administrators were satisfied with learning community
programs. Teachers that they interviewed at Temple University reported that
participation in a learning community had allowed them to build academic
connections and had changed their teaching and learning practices and
philosophies. Many reported that they were more student centered, and that they
had experienced renewed enthusiasm for teaching. At the University of Miami,
faculty reported that their interactions with students and their connections to
faculty from other departments had both increased as a result of their
participation in a learning community.
Theories: What Makes Learning Communities Work?
Although general agreement does exist about the positive outcomes of learning
communities, researchers offer different theories about the cause of these
outcomes. Relatively little has been written about why or how learning
communities work, but it is an important question to consider in an attempt to
determine the essential features or characteristics of successful learning
communities. Researcher who have addressed this question tend to fall into three
categories: those who attribute the success of learning communities to the
increased time, effort, and involvement of student and faculty participants,
those who focus on the structural and environmental aspects of learning
communities, and those who emphasize the unique kind of instruction and learning
that goes on within these communities.
Effort and Involvement Theory:
One position that is stated is that student effort and involvement is a
primary factor in the success of learning communities. The Study Group on the
Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education, sponsored by National
Institute of Education, defines student involvement as the "time, energy,
and effort students devote to the learning process," and states that more
student involvement results in greater growth and achievement (1984, p.17). They
believe that student involvement may be the most important condition necessary
to improve undergraduate education.
The widely adopted, "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate
Education," first published in the1987 Wingspread Journal, lists
"time on task" as one of the seven teaching and learning principles,
pointing out that "time plus energy equals learning … there is no
substitute for time on task" (Chickering & Gamson). This report draws
the conclusion that student-faculty interaction, generally occurring more
frequently in learning community models, results in greater student satisfaction
and a student perception of greater learning (Cross, 1998). Gardiner (1994)
believes that the effort put forth by students may be the most significant
factor in their development. He talks about the importance of the amount of
classroom contact time and student study time, the active involvement of
students in the classroom, and the presence of high quality, concerned faculty
and staff as being critical factors to student success.
Smith (1991) suggests that the success of learning communities results from
the increased efforts of the teachers. She points out that those teachers who
are most likely to be involved in learning communities are those that are
talented, well-trained, and capable (p. 45). The success of the learning
communities at the University of Wisconsin Madison is also attributed to the
"dedicated staff, faculty, and students" (Marian Laines interview,
September, 1998). Faculty teaching in learning communities must devote time,
energy, and creativity to recreating and restructuring the curriculum. All of
this would seem to suggest that the increased time, effort, and involvement on
the part of participating students and faculty might account for the
effectiveness and successful outcomes of learning communities.
Structure Theory: "Bridging the Gap:
The programmatic structure of learning communities -- which put students and
faculty together in multiple courses and settings -- is also believed to be a
factor in their success. For example, Tinto and Goodsell Love point to the
increased communication and interaction that occurs between students, faculty,
and administrators in learning communities (1995). The common curriculum and
paired or clustered courses of learning communities cause students to have more
contact with each other and with a specific instructor or group of instructors.
This increased contact helps learning community participants feel more
comfortable with each other, leading to the forming of social bonds and
relationships. Tinto and Goodsell Love suggest that the social interactions that
go on within the academic environment allow students to address both social and
intellectual concerns at the same time, rather than sacrificing one for the
other. In more traditional educational settings, students are more likely to
experience separate and conflicting social and intellectual worlds. Usually they
are not able to discuss intellectual thoughts and ideas in social settings. In
the learning community setting, however, these worlds are combined.
Hatfield and Hatfield (1995) talk about "bridging the gap" between
the social and academic cultures. They suggest that students "care more
about learning" and find it more enjoyable because they experience a social
context along with the intellectual activity of the classroom (p. 24). They
believe that students who are not experiencing as much conflict between their
social and academic lives do better academically, thus the success of the
learning community.
Gabelnick et al., in talking about the experience of faculty in learning
communities, discuss how the structure in these communities brings people
together, crossing departmental lines and other boundaries, so that more
effective teaching and learning can take place (1990). According to these
authors, "learning communities …tap a reservoir of energy in our
institutions that comes from what John Dewey called the 'power of human
association'" (p.86). According to this theory, this energy, derived from
connection and association, brings about the positive results of learning
communities.
Pedagogical Methods Theory:
There is another approach to explaining the success of learning communities.
That approach attributes this success to the effectiveness of the teaching and
learning methods that are practiced in these communities. Some suggest that the
success of these communities is attributable to the fact that these communities
encourage and utilize cooperative and constructive learning methods.
Many researchers agree that students learn more in a cooperative and
collaborative learning environment. Roger T. and David W. Johnson of the
University of Minnesota have written extensively about cooperative learning.
They characterize cooperative learning as a situation in which the students
learn together, not just by working in a group, but by learning
interdependently. In a cooperative learning group, students have individual
accountability but a common goal. Competitive learning, in contrast, pits
students against each other, with each student learning alone and striving to be
the "best." Although competitive learning is the more common practice
in schools today, the Johnsons argue that research has proven cooperative
learning to be more effective. Students in cooperative learning situations tend
to achieve more, are more positive about school, teachers and other students,
and develop more effective interpersonal skills (1998). Since cooperative
learning is a key ingredient of learning communities, it may be this learning
environment itself that produces the positive results.
Hatfield and Hatfield (1995) also claim that the norm of cooperative rather
than competitive learning that exists in curricular learning communities is key
in the success of those communities. They refer to the numerous examples of
cooperative working and learning communities that exist in the quality
literature as well as a way of reinforcing this point. Cooperative learning
experiences create win-win situations for students and teachers and have
significant impact on students' growth and development while in college and in
the future.
K. Patricia Cross (1998) takes this theory a step farther in her article,
"Why Learning Communities, Why Now?" She sees students in learning
communities as not just working cooperatively toward "discovering"
knowledge but actually constructing knowledge by working interdependently. She
calls this concept "collaborative learning," and credits Kenneth
Bruffee for this description:
We construct and maintain knowledge not by examining the world
but by negotiating with one another in communities of knowledgeable peers…
knowledge is therefore not universal and absolute. It is local and
historically changing. We construct it and reconstruct it, time after time,
and build it up in layers. (p. 5)
According to this view a learning community, with its ingredients of active
learning, community, and cooperation, is not just a better way to learn, but is
actually a necessary environment for true learning, or the construction of
knowledge. The construction of knowledge rather than the discovery of
"truths" may be more useful for survival in today's complex,
information laden society. Many educators today are restructuring the higher
education learning environment based on these constructivist concepts. They are
providing students with opportunities to learn by cooperatively and
collaboratively building their own knowledge and understanding (Wilson, p. 67).
This is just what learning communities seek to do and may, in fact, be the
reason for their success.
Key Features of Learning Communities
Effective learning communities in higher education exhibit certain
characteristics or key elements that may, individually or in combination,
account for their success. Some researchers have attempted to provide a clearer
definition of learning communities by providing sets of common features or
characteristics. Some of these features or characteristics are physical or
structural in nature. Elements such as the structure or the interdisciplinary
nature of the curriculum, unique living arrangements, and the presence of team
teaching or cohort groups identify certain environments as learning communities.
Additionally, the type of learning that goes on within these communities can be
what sets these environments apart from traditional higher education.
One of the first descriptions of an effective learning community came from
the National Institute of Education’s Involvement in Learning study
(1984). This report listed the following distinctive features of learning
communities:
smaller than other units on campus
have a sense of purpose
assist in overcoming isolation of faculty
encourage faculty interaction as specialists and educators
encourage continuity and integration in the curriculum
build group identity and cohesion (NIE, p. 33)
Smith (1992) provides a list of ways in which learning communities differ
from traditional learning situations. Characteristics unique to learning
communities include an interdisciplinary curriculum, the presence of cooperative
and active learning, a delivery system based on blocks of time and credit that
are larger than individual courses, collaborative leadership and change, and a
learner rather than a curricular focus.
According to Tinto (1998), the two things learning communities have in common
are "shared knowledge" and "shared knowing" (pp. 18-19),
referring to the common curriculum and the unique teaching and learning methods
of learning communities. Goodsell Love and Tokuno say that learning communities
are characterized by the following:
a common cohort of students taking the same classes
an interdisciplinary team of faculty teaching courses with a common
theme students forming study groups for their courses, spending time
socializing outside class, and/or sharing strategies for success collaborative class activities and assignments that require students to
work together and intentionally practice skills such as communication,
cooperation, and/or conflict resolution. (1999, p. 9)
Barefoot, Fidler, Gardner, Moore, and Roberts(1991) identify an exemplary
learning community as one that includes "faculty collaboration,
cross-disciplinary instruction, and a strong sense of academic and social
camaraderie" (p. 78).
Lin, Bransford, Hmelo, Kantor, Hickey, Petrosino, Goldman, and The Cognition
and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1996) provide the following list of learning
community features:
[students] plan, organize, monitor and revise their own
research and problem-solving; work collaboratively and take advantage
of the distributed expertise from the community to allow diversity,
creativity, and flexibility in learning; learn self-selected topics and identify
their own issues; use various technologies to "build their own knowledge"; and
make students' thinking visible. (p. 213)
Shapiro and Levine suggest that learning communities share the following
basic characteristics:
organizing students and faculty into smaller groups
encouraging integration of the curriculum
helping students establish academic and social support networks
providing a setting for students to be socialized to the expectations
of college
bringing faculty together in more meaningful ways
focusing faculty and students on learning outcomes
providing a setting for community-based delivery of academic support
programs
offering a critical lens for examining the first-year experience (1999,
p. 3)
A recent paper, produced by the Washington Center for Improving the Quality
of Undergraduate Education, presents a list of six elements of effective
learning community programs. This list was developed by a group of learning
community leaders involved in the National Learning Communities Dissemination
Project of 1996-1999. The six elements are as follows:
1. 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.
2. The learning community effort is directed toward inclusivity and
intentionality about community.
3. The learning community effort fosters student engagement, course
completion, and persistence in college. Members of the LC leadership
group see that data are gathered to determine the extent to which
learning communities are successful in fostering (these goals).
4. The learning community effort strengthens teaching.
5. The learning community effort has a sustainable leadership team
and support from multiple sectors of the campus.
6. The learning community effort embeds assessment and evaluation
for purposes of program improvement. (April, 2000)
What may be the most useful "working" definition of the true
nature of a learning community is provided by Tokuno, who identified four common dimensions of
successful learning communities. Goodsell Love and Tokuno describe these four
dimensions of learning communities as follows:
Student collaboration: To what extent are students clustered so that the
learning community facilitates their getting to know one another and
promotes interaction for the purpose of learning?
Faculty collaboration: To what extent do faculty formally interact to
discuss issues of learning and teaching, such as specific students they
might know, ideas for teaching and evaluation, and curriculum development.
Curricular coordination: How much are courses, which differ in basic
content, integrated so that there is cross or interdisciplinary bridging?
Shared settings: To what extent are space and other facilities/resources
shared by students or other members of the community? (1999, p. 12)
According to Tokuno, each of these dimensions is tied to a continuum. A
learning community's success or progress can be measured by placing it on these
continuums.
To this list, Goodsell Love and Tokuno add a fifth dimension, interactive
pedagogy, which deals with the "extent to which students [are] required to
take an active role in contributing to the knowledge base" (p.12). These
dimensions may be an important step toward being able to clearly identify,
describe, and implement successful, effective learning communities.
The table below presents a summary of the various characteristics of
curricular learning communities as represented in the literature. The
characteristics fall within four general categories: curricular, pedagogical,
structural, and environmental.
TABLE TWO
Characteristics of Learning Communities
|
TOPIC AREA |
CHARACTERISTICS |
REFERENCES |
|
Curricular |
· Interdisciplinary
· Curricular coordination
· Core curriculum
· Curriculum "blocks"
· Shared knowledge
· Common themes
· Curricular integrity and continuity
· Student-driven curriculum
· Curricular integration |
· Smith, Barefoot et al., Goodsell
Love & Tokuno
· Goodsell Love & Tokuno
· NIE
· Smith, Shapiro & Levine
· Tinto
· Goodsell Love & Tokuno
· NIE
· Lin et al.
· Shapiro & Levine, Goodsell Love
& Tokuno |
|
Pedagogical
(Teaching/Learning) |
· Active learning
· Collaborative
or cooperative learning
· Learner focus
· Student study groups
· Faculty collaboration
· Team teaching
· Learning outcomes
· Student collaboration
· Diversity and flexibility in
learning
· Use of technologies
· Student engagement
· Strengthens teaching |
· Smith, Goodsell Love & Tokuno
· Smith, Tinto,
Goodsell Love & Tokuno, Lin et al.
· Smith, Lin et al.
· Goodsell Love & Tokuno
· Barefoot et al., Shapiro &
Levine, Goodsell Love & Tokuno
· Goodsell Love & Tokuno,
Barefoot et al.
· Shapiro & Levine
· Goodsell Love & Tokuno
· Lin et al.
· Lin et al.
· Washington Center
· Washington Center
|
|
Structural |
· Small cohorts of students
· Collaborative leadership
· Shared space, setting
· Small classes
· Structured to meet needs and
opportunities of the institution
· Institutionalized
· Assessment and evaluation embedded
in program |
· Shapiro & Levine, NIE, Goodsell
Love & Tokuno
· Smith
· Goodsell Love & Tokuno
· NIE, Shapiro & Levine
· Washington Center
· Washington Center
· Washington Center |
|
Environmental (Climate/Community) |
· Sense of purpose
· Academic and social support
networks
· Faculty interaction
· Student-student interaction outside
of class
· Group identity and cohesion
· Inclusivity
· Intentional about community |
· NIE
· Shapiro & Levine, Barefoot et
al.
· NIE
· Goodsell Love & Tokuno,
Barefoot et al.,
· Shapiro & Levine, NIE
· Washington Center
· Washington Center
|