Bridging the Faculty-Staff Divide through an Epistemic Community

International relations theory defines an epistemic community as a transnational network of knowledge-based experts who help decision-makers to define and address the problems they face. These “scientists without borders” may be able to produce outcomes not easily realizable for national leaders operating in a state-specific political environment. Moreover, by redefining the boundaries of the social group, the network of thought partners gain a different psycho-social perspective that may open new opportunities for problem solving. For example, during the Cold War, American and Soviet scientists forged epistemic communities in the area of arms control in an effort to mitigate the adversarial relations between the governments of the two nations.

To extend a metaphor to higher education, the faculty community and the staff community at an institution can sometimes feel like two distinct nations. Traditionally, each community tends to have their own rules and their own leadership. Each community tends to draw a boundary circumscribed by the classroom, whether inside or out. The mission of the faculty tribe is student learning. The mission of the staff tribe is student persistence/completion. In the worst of times, the international relations between the faculty community and the staff community is perceived as a zero-sum game.

At my institution, I co-chair our Persistence and Completion Committee. From the outset, the committee included “transnational” actors from across the faculty and staff communities. Forming an epistemic community is not as easy as seating faculty and staff members at the same table, however. An epistemic community requires a common point of knowledge expertise. It requires framing an issue in such a way that diverse perspectives are focused on a shared goal. Through open and honest conversations over the period of our first 15 months as a committee, we came to construct a narrative of student success in which student learning, persistence and completion are interdependent. A student must persist to continue learning. A mastery of learning is completion. Student learning, persistence and completion happens inside and outside of the classroom. Though our tribal activities may specific, our global destiny is shared.  We became a trans-institutional network of knowledge-based experts who help decision-makers to define and address student success.

Like most human enterprises, interpersonal relationships were at the heart of our success in bridging the faculty-staff divide. We started with a small group of people from many different parts of the college and got to know each other. We each brought our perspective to challenging discussions. We built mutual trust and appreciation. We struggled together to create a wider and more inclusive frame of reference. And now the members of our epistemic community are well-positioned to return to their respective tribe and share our narrative of student success.

Cultural change at the institutional level is incremental. Not everyone will be swayed by our idealism of a common pool. But by bringing together a diversity of individuals to provide a trans-institutional reframing of our various roles in a shared endeavor, we move toward greater collaboration and more porous boundaries.

Disequilibrium and the Teacher-Guide

In May, TRIO Student Support Services took a group of fifteen students on a Transfer and Cultural Tour. The student learning outcomes included: 1) Explore academic transfer opportunities beyond the Auraria Campus; 2) Experience cultural, geographical, and historical learning opportunities not otherwise accessible to TRIO students; and 3) Build communities of support among TRIO students and staff.

We know that the great majority of students that transfer out of CCD remain on the Auraria campus, with most ending up at Metro State. This in itself is not a problem; the tri-institutional arrangement of the Auraria Campus provides seamless transfer for our students, while maintaining local connections. Staying on the Auraria campus is the best value and fit for many of our students. The problem is that some of our students may be better off transferring elsewhere, but they simply do not know that.

The TRIO Transfer and Cultural Tour pushes students outside their comfort zone. We visit transfer institutions and communities that most of our students have never visited (or even heard of). Disequilibrium is pedagogy.

For example, at Western State Colorado University, a TRIO student was concerned that there were no campus police. "The Student Mountain Rescue Team once operated a safety phone line," the Admissions Rep told us, "But after two years they shut it down because not one emergency call was ever placed." (That is a bit different from the Auraria campus, where we hardly bat an eyelid at yet another person exposing themselves on the first floor of South.)

"Is there public transportation?" another student asked. "Well, there is no city bus, but it is not too hard to get around, since you can bike from one end of town to the other in ten minutes."

Certainly the small town campus was not for all of our students ("It is so quiet here...it is freaking me out"), but Western State ended up being the most popular campus we visited this year (in addition to UCCS and Colorado Mesa University).

The role of the teacher-guide is to bring our students into cognitive, cultural, social, even physical environments where they otherwise would not go, and to walk with them along the journey. With a bit of Socratic questioning and some structured time for reflection, the learning process moves along autonomously, as students synthesize new meaning and understanding from a direct and dynamic learning experience.

In TRIO, we firmly believe in the power of robust student support networks, and create opportunities for our participants to build and expand on their community of supporters. It is difficult to underestimate the significance that positive relationships with other students, faculty, and staff have on student success.

The TRIO Transfer and Cultural Tour puts students into new and different interpersonal environments. By intention, the Tour brings together a cross-section of our diverse student population, and puts everyone together in close quarters over four active and long days. As anticipated, the small scuffles and annoyances come about now and then, but when your choice is either to get back in the van, or walk 200 miles home, you make the necessary interpersonal adaptations quickly.

"It was interesting to meet and get to know people that I see at school for less than a minute.  When your traveling with 17 people for four days you get to learn how the person is like and who they are.  People can't hide who they are when traveling for so long with a group of people," noted one student.

Another student added, "I learned that when we build community we may have to work with diverse people who come from different backgrounds and beliefs. When we are working with the community, we need to be patient and we cannot expect that other people will perform like us because we come from different cultures, backgrounds, have different strengths and weaknesses, different personalities. It is important that we respect other people as well as ourselves."

"The trip gave me the ability to meet students whom I may not have otherwise interacted with. In doing so any of the other travelers can help to support the college experience and in return I can do the same for them. I told everyone on the trip that I work in our Office of Student Life and if they ever need books or any type of human services related help to come by. We can all support one another through our different background and experiences as college students. The camaraderie  is something that is priceless and can never be replaced," reflected a third student.

The role of the teacher-guide is not to control or direct or even inform. The teacher-guide creates intentional and thoughtful learning environments that challenge students to synthesize new experiences and understandings. Whether the student learning outcomes are purely academic, or more broadly developmental, disequilibrium is a powerful and engaging method to increase student learning and success.

Learning Outside the Classroom

Each semester, TRIO Student Support Services completes a community service project. It is a great opportunity for students to develop leadership skills, explore career options, add to professional networks, and build community. In my view, it is also a great opportunity to strengthen the student-staff relationship, which is integral to supporting student success.

Story-Telling as Pedagogy

Humans are story-telling creatures. From the dawn of our species, it seems as if we have attempted to craft a narrative to make sense of our existence and our place within it. As our culture evolved, we move beyond cave paintings and spoken traditions to the written word, eventually incorporating images, then video, then sound. Narratives have enlivened theology, political organization, sense of self, entertainment, and so on. To be human, it seems, is to situate ourselves in a larger picture.

Accordingly, story-telling holds significant potential as pedagogy. A good story allows the audience to make meaning, to bring together disparate pieces into a more coherent whole. A good story captures and holds the imagination. A good story lives on beyond its telling. Is this not what we strive for in education?

Of course, the operative word is good. Certainly all of us have also been subject to bad story-telling: the movie that puts you to sleep, the book closed before the second chapter, the television show that panders to the lowest denominator. What are common elements of a good story? How do these translate to our educational practices?

Depending on your source, there are either six, eight, five, or thirteen elements of a good story, which you want to follow, but only to a certain extent, depending on the circumstance. I did a quick Google search, not a thorough accounting, so there may actually be three, nine, or eleven elements - who knows?

I offer four. There are no big surprises here. The trick is to  intentionally shape and shift your teaching pedagogy in order to draw your audience in to the process of making meaning. I do not offer any formula, rather some considerations that may springboard your creative energies when designing lectures, online components, group work, assessments, experiential learning, and so on.

First, a good story has good characters. These characters are often like us but with an intriguing splash of hyperbole - a little more crazy, a little more troubled, a little more dramatic. There is often a protagonist attempting to achieve something and an antagonist creating roadblocks.And as imperfect or flawed or burdened or crazy as they are, they are attempting to achieve some end; they have motives.

Regarding teaching, some disciplines have natural characters within the curriculum, such as history, literature, psychology and politics. Other subjects may require some anthropomorphism to create a physical law with an antagonist or a math constant with a personality. Ultimately, the heart of the matter is the relationship between characters, whether human or otherwise. Within this relationship, how does one "character" compare and contrast and interact with another?

Second, a good story has a good setting. A good setting comes in many different forms, from magical naturescapes (Lord of the Rings) to odd arrangements (White Christmas) to intense predicaments (All Quiet on the Western Front). The key is that the setting captures our fascination and creates an interesting context for the characters to pursue their motives. Here again, the power of hyperbole and novelty are significant.

Regarding teaching, we often use the word contextualize, which is another way of talking about setting. What is happening in the physical environment or political ideascape or hospital room that impacts our characters? What does this surrounding "place" look like? What are some of the smaller details that play an interesting role within the ecology of the setting?

Third, and significantly, a good story has a good plot. Shaped by the setting, our characters are attempting to do something (get the girl, figure out their place in the world, save the day). A good plot produces problems for the characters, conflicts and tension and twists and turns. We are on the edge of our seat. We want to know: how will this all work out in the end? 

Regarding teaching, what are the twists and the turns that require critical thinking and analysis? What complexities come into play that problematize a simple understanding of the topic? Our characters are attempting to do something, but are they able to? How does this affect or transform our characters? Note to self: don't spoil the ending! You may even want to  consider the classic choose-your-own-adventure motif, and let your students speculate on endings based on the story (information) that they have.

Fourth, a good story has good narrative style. Your narrative style, essentially the words and imagery that you choose to craft the tale from beginning to end, plays a major role in holding people's attention. Which color is more intriguing to you, red or crimson? What holds your attention better, an arcane monologue or a witty dialogue? Which catches your eye, a late model hatchback or a DeLorean?  

Regarding teaching, include humor and metaphor into the language you use. Use pictures and film to bring imagery into your teaching. Take liberty to be grandiose or hyperbolic with your words if it makes a point. Be playful with esoteric jargon. Significantly, good story telling is about showing, not telling. Use words and images to paint a picture, and allow your audience to pull the pieces together. 

We are educators, not entertainers. Nevertheless, story-telling serves as an engaging and impactful pedagogy in service to our end: student learning. Why  not? 

Below is an example of a story I created - in this case digitally - in order to start a conversation about financial literacy with my students. Note the characters, setting, plot, and narrative style. You may create a story in a literal sense, or simply incorporate the elements into other mediums.  

Chronicle Article: Community Colleges for the Students They Actually Have

Excerpts from the Chronicle article, Community Colleges for the Students They Actually Have,

by Josh Wyner

"[W]hat if community colleges were organized to achieve success for the students they have, not for students like those who attend four-year residential colleges? First, such a re-envisioned community college would offer far greater numbers of block-scheduled programs. Rather than selecting courses, most students would be directed to enter comprehensive programs built around specific degree goals and schedules.

Up to two-thirds of community-college students need remedial education.

So students would choose (1) a program such as an associate of science or arts aimed at eventually transferring to a four-year institution or a vocational program like welding; and (2) a block of time to attend full or part time (mornings, full days, or evenings/weekends). Blocks would include homework time, when students would practice what they learn with the help of tutors and technology rather than squeezing it between class and work.

This system would also be geared to serve students who begin in remedial education, to allow them to see the length of time and the cost associated with various degree and certificate options. Instead of the uncertainty of many years of semester-by-semester course selection and scheduling, students would know that if they showed up and did their work well, they would earn a degree in a specific period of time.

The community colleges, too, would benefit. Once students began programs, colleges could plan to staff the specific number of courses in each block through the end of that program. At the beginning of each semester, only entering students would make choices, so community colleges would have greater clarity—well before the year began—about what courses and professors would be needed for returning students."

Applying Learning Theory to Student Work Experiences

Applying Learning Theory to Student Work Experiences

Ari Senghor Rosner-Salazar

EDHE 673 Student Development Theory

November 5, 2008

Colorado State University – Fort Collins

Introduction

Student workers play a critical role in helping to run institutions of higher education, including community colleges. The labor that students provide can shore up staffing levels in departments facing periodic surges in customer volume and personnel cuts that threaten service levels. Unfortunately, institutions facing such pressures may tend to focus too much on departments’ needs. Student affairs professionals unaccustomed to the pedagogical and assessment concerns related to traditional classroom teaching may overlook the learning opportunities in student employment. Others, including some faculty, may assert that learning is the sole responsibility of faculty in an academic course setting.

How can learning theory inform this topic? In order to analyze what constitutes learning, I will discuss the definitions of formal, nonformal, and informal learning. I will then explore the theory of the learning organization and the concept of the learning paradigm. Finally, I will outline some recommendations for organizations to support student affairs professionals in the design of workplace learning environments based on learning objectives and the assessment of learning.

Literature Review & Analysis

Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) provided an excellent discussion of the various ways adults learn, using Coomb’s (1985) model: formal, non-formal, and informal settings. In regard to formal education, the authors wrote: “For most people, learning in adulthood brings to mind classroom settings… Formal education is highly institutionalized, bureaucratic, curriculum driven, and formally recognized with grades, diplomas or certificates.” (p. 29). As the authors described, many individuals think of the classroom, curriculum, and diplomas when they think about learning in college. This conceptualization does a disservice to the holistic concept of learning because learning can occur in other contexts. The authors defined nonformal education as “organized learning opportunities outside the formal educational system.” (p. 30). Unlike formal learning, nonformal learning tended to be community-based. Like formal learning, nonformal educational options had a curriculum and usually a facilitator: “Instructors… emphasized the informality, compressed time, and hands-on interactive nature of the learning in which the needs and interests of the participants are paramount in the encounter.” (p. 30). An example of nonformal learning would be a person learning how to use concrete during a class at a hardware store. The authors described informal learning as the most ubiquitous form of learning but also the least recognition: “Embedded as it is in our everyday activities, whether we are at work, at home, or in the community, and lacking institutional sponsorship, adults rarely label these activities as learning.” (p. 35). The authors cited studies that estimated more than 90% of adults participating in informal learning (especially self-directed learning) and 70% of learning in the workplace being classified as informal. (p. 35).

So how do such theories apply in a community college setting? The concept of the learning organization is critical in this regard.

Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) invoked the work of several theorists in order to better define the learning organization:

Senge defined it as ‘a place where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to act together’ (p. 3). (p. 43).

In using Senge’s quote, the authors revealed the important facets of the learning organization: empowered employees, new thinking, support for learning, and free-sharing of information. According to the authors’ discussion of Marsick and Watkins (2005), learning organizations supported employees’ efforts to continually improve themselves: “The first imperative is to create continuous learning opportunities at all levels of the organization…. With the goal that learning becomes an integral part of the everyday work life.” (p. 44). By empowering employees to become learners for the organization, the organization’s goals are further advanced.

Barr and Tagg (1995) introduced the concept of the “Learning” paradigm in opposition to the “Instruction” paradigm. In doing so, they revealed an early conception of the learning organization: “In other words, the Learning Paradigm envisions the institution itself as a learner--over time, it continuously learns how to produce more learning with each graduating class, each entering student.” (first section, seventh paragraph). How do these concepts specifically relate to the student worker at a community college? Barr and Tagg asserted that lecturing, a staple of the Instruction paradigm, did not necessarily produce student learning. They argued that institutions should shift to the Learning paradigm, as when institutions focused on student learning, the classroom lecture would no longer be the only method for producing learning. In this regard, Barr and Tagg intersected with Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner’s (2007) concept of informal learning.

By decoupling learning from an exclusive connection with the classroom (and faculty), institutions can provide student affairs professionals with the opportunity to develop learning experiences for student workers. Barr and Tagg (1995) supported this concept:

In the Instruction Paradigm, teaching is judged on its own terms; in the Learning Paradigm, the power of an environment or approach is judged in terms of its impact on learning. If learning occurs, then the environment has power. If students learn more in environment A than in environment B, then A is more powerful than B. To know this in the Learning Paradigm we would assess student learning routinely and constantly…. While teachers will have designed the learning experiences and environments students use—often through teamwork with each other and other staff—they need not be present for or participate in every structured learning activity. (Criteria for success section, fifth paragraph)

The previous quote even accepts that faculty do not have to be present for learning to take place so long as they have collaborated on its design. Many student affairs professionals could benefit from professional development and faculty mentorship on learning outcomes and assessment in the educational workplace. Barr and Tagg advocated for an outwardly growing scope of such assessment and alluded to non-academic departments:

The place to start the assessment of learning outcomes is in the conventional classroom; from there, let the practice grow to the program and institutional levels. (Meeting the challenge section, eleventh paragraph)

As discussed at the end of the above quote, Barr and Tagg recommended a clear focus on student learning as measured by proper assessment, even outside of the classroom. By focusing on results, the authors argued that institutions would be more willing to innovate to improve learning: “You are free to organize the environment in any way you like. The only thing you are required to do is to produce the desired result--student learning.” Barr and Tagg (Meeting the challenge section, thirteenth paragraph). By focusing on results, student affairs professionals have the opportunity to complement the work of faculty with increased student learning in the academic workplace.

           

Other theorists discussed student learning outside of the classroom. Lewis (2008) studied five areas of learning among student workers: leadership, career development, civic engagement, ethics and values development, and responsible independence. In interviewing both students and their supervisors, he found, “The results showed that both student employees and their supervisors believed that work tasks and behavioral components encountered during the students’ jobs produced learning in those five key areas.” (p. A56). Lewis recommended that supervisors provide planned and structured learning opportunities for students in the work environment. He advocated for the pairing of faculty and staff members in “learning-focused research teams,” to encourage learning experiences in the workplace (p. A56).

           

Bonfiglio, Hanson, Fried, et al. (2006) discussed the readiness of specific institutions to include non-academic learning environments and student affairs professionals in a culture of assessment: “Some of the work of the division was already oriented toward student learning…. It also identified a number of areas where the staff felt it was deficient…” (p. 45). The results indicated more work needed to be done to promote the following: (a) collaboration between faculty and student affairs members, (b) engagement of student affairs professionals in research on learning outcomes, (c) inclusion of student affairs-specific research priorities in institutional research, (d) regular communication of research implications to student affairs professionals, (e) staff development programs, (f) staff involvement in professional associations, and (g) involvement of other divisions in student affairs meetings to discuss campus issues. The language used in the case institute’s new mission and vision statements indicated a shift to Barr and Tagg’s (1995) learning paradigm in the student work environment:

Students will take full advantage of the opportunities both inside and outside of the classroom to learn from every member of the campus community.” (Bonfiglio, Hanson, Fried, et al., 2006, p. 47).

The authors discussed the centrality of learning as a measurement of institutional productivity, even when assessing non-academic units:

The authors of the Student Learning Imperative stated, ‘…if learning is the primary measure of institutional productivity by which the quality of undergraduate education is determined, what and how much students learn also must be the criterion by which the value of student affairs is judged.’ (American College Personnel Association, 1994, p. 2). (Bonfiglio, Hanson, Fried, et al., 2006, p. 48

As a result of this divisional assessment, the student affairs professionals committed to identifying learning outcomes, collaborating outside the division, and investigating assessment instruments to measure learning.

           

In regard to such collaborations, Steffes and Keeling (2006) discussed the importance of institution-wide reconceptualization of learning a joint faculty and student affairs venture that includes learning outside of the classroom setting:

Given our current understanding of learning, collaboration between faculty and student affairs educators is not simply an intelligent option; it is a core requirement for the effective development and achievement of desired student learning outcomes (see Kellogg, 1999)…. Both the unconscious processing of new material and the intentional or happenstance application and testing of knowledge will, more likely than not, occur outside the classroom and laboratory, in the active context of students’ lives. Thinking separately of curriculum and co-curriculum has only administrative value; it is, in fact, counterproductive to continue working with those terms and the assumptions that underlie them.

Specific to student employment, Dungy and Keeling (2006) revealed a University of North Dakota program that trained staff on how to better assess student learning on the job.  Through its actions, UND appeared to have championed learning organization culture:

The course also benefits staff members by helping them to better understand what a learning outcomes-based environment is and how students can benefit from this type of experience and provides staff with supervisory techniques that they can use to help students learn and develop beyond the practical aspects of their jobs. (p. 77).

UND modeled the learning organization by training on learning outcomes design.

In this paper, I have applied learning theory to the domain of the student worker. By employing a more sophisticated definition of learning (formal, informal, and nonformal), I expanded the more traditional understanding of learning as a classroom-only activity. I supported this analysis by discussing the learning paradigm and discussed ways that learning organizations can better prepare student affairs professionals to contribute to student learning.

References

Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning--a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27, 12-25. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ516385) Retrieved November 2, 2008, from ERIC database.

Bonfiglio, Hansen & Fried (2006). Assessing internal environments. In Keeling, R. P. & Associates. Eds. Learning reconsidered 2: a practical guide to implementing a campus wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers—International, Association of College Unions—International, National Academic Advisors Association, national Associatino for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, National Intramural-Recreation Sports Association.

Dungy and Keeling (2006). Implementing promising practices. In Keeling, R. P. & Associates. Eds. Learning reconsidered 2: a practical guide to implementing a campus wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers—International, Association of College Unions—International, National Academic Advisors Association, national Associatino for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, National Intramural-Recreation Sports Association.

Lewis, J. S. (2008). Student workers can learn more on the job. Chronicle of higher education. 54(41), A56. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ803908) Retrieved November 2, 2008, from ERIC database.

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, (2007). L. M. Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide. 3^rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Steffes, J. & Keeling, R. P. (2006). Creating strategies for collaboration. In Keeling, R. P. & Associates. Eds. Learning reconsidered 2: a practical guide to implementing a campus wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers—International, Association of College Unions—International, National Academic Advisors Association, national Associatino for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, National Intramural-Recreation Sports Association.

Discussion Paper of Barr & Tagg 1995

“From Teaching to Learning—A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education.”

HE 702 Community College Curriculum

September 4, 2007

Ari Senghor Rosner-Salazar

Objective of the Reading

Barr and Tagg introduce the idea of a paradigm shift in higher education in the United States.  The Instruction Model is introduced as the current paradigm, whereby institutions are aligned to teach or deliver instruction through the traditional lecture.  This model locates the responsibility for learning squarely on the shoulders of the individual student.  It also fails to assess how much learning is occurring:  “…under the Instruction Paradigm, student outcomes are simply irrelevant to the successful functioning and funding of a college.” (page 5)

The new paradigm, which according to the authors has not yet come into existence, is the Learning Model.  In the Learning Model, students, faculty, and the institution are all responsible for learning success.  The institution holds responsibility for independently measuring student learning (outside of course grades or faculty feedback) and then focusing on innovative techniques (such as small group work) which will increase student learning.  Through continuous re-evaluation of efforts and change of such endeavors, institutions using the Learning Model should see continuously rising success rates.  The authors raise a few points about resistance to the Learning Model:  1) The “atomistic” nature of the traditional lecture with one teacher in one room; 2) The defensiveness of departments which focus solely on maintaining fiscal, enrollment, and employee stability; and, 3) The conflict the faculty must face in regard to presenting approved course material as opposed to helping students learn.

Analysis

Barr and Tagg make a strong logical argument against the Instruction Model and in favor of the Learning Model.  Higher education’s reliance on instruction as an end in itself is derided by viewing instruction’s parallel in an automobile assembly plant (running the assembly line regardless of whether cars are being produced) and a hospital (just filling beds regardless of whether patients are being healed).  The authors’ cavalier and improper usage of sources hurts their argument.  No interviews or sources are cited when quoting those who appear to be experts, so it is unclear whether the authors interviewed the sources themselves or obtained the quotes elsewhere.  There are historical anecdotes about the Swiss watch-making industry, Galileo, and Stravinsky that should be easily cited, but because there are none, the strength of the argument suffers.

Synthesis

As mentioned above, the authors refer to five scholarly works but do not properly cite them.  Also, five sources (Schaefer, Sweeting, Gardner, Johnstone and Fuller) are quoted anecdotally, but only some of their credentials of expertise are identified.  The authors discuss the National Commission on Time and Learning while admitting that this commission does not focus on the higher education environment.  I sense that research focusing on higher education could be obtained to strengthen the points.  Finally Barr refers to his own personal experience with re-learning Calculus.  This and others are descriptive anecdotes, but more research would have made the argument more effective.

Implications for the Community College

           

Community colleges will have a much harder time using learning outcomes to justify their funding because they are open-admissions institutions.  Unlike their selective 4-year counterparts, community colleges must accept all who seek to learn.  Many of these students come with more economic, cultural, and developmental challenges to learning.  As a result, community colleges have lower retention and graduation rates than four-year colleges because their pool of students is not pre-selected.  Reorienting a community college towards trying unconventional ideas to increase student learning will be difficult considering that academic legitimacy is already in question.  There is also the concern that an additional graduation requirement (exit exam) would be yet another obstacle to students struggling toward graduation.

Discussion Questions

1.      The idea of “exit standards,” as advocated by the authors, might help further shift institutional and student focus away from amassing credits toward true learning.  However, would such exit exams serve as an additional “Cooling Out” mechanism as discussed by Clark?

2.      If students are held accountable for learning under both the Teaching and the Learning Paradigms, how can K-12 educational institutions better prepare students for college-level learning?

3.      Would learning modules that, while designed by faculty, only require intermittent student-faculty contact yield increased learning?  If so, how would that be received by academics and proponents of the importance of increased faculty-student contact?

Reference

Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995, November).  From teaching to learning—a new paradigm for undergraduate education. (Cover story). Change, 27(6), 12. Retrieved August 19, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database.

Student Affairs: Deep Versus Strategic Learning

I recently read What the Best College Teachers Do by Ken Bain. The book got me thinking about how to facilitate deep learning, as opposed to strategic learning, when working with students within Student Affairs.

Strategic learning, or what Paulo Freire called the banking model of education, basically assumes that teachers tell students something and when students can tell it back, they have learned. In contrast, deep learning assumes that teachers facilitate the process of students putting facts and figures into context – the process of making meaning. Deeper learning aims to ascend students through Bloom’s taxonomy of thought, toward application, analysis, and synthesis.

As Bain asserts, “The most successful teachers expect the highest levels of development from their students. They reject the view of teaching as nothing more than delivering correct answers to students and learning as simply remembering those deliveries. They expect their students to rise above the category of received knowers, something they reflect in the way they teach and assess their students” (45).

In my mind, I see no distinction between the traditional division of student affairs and academic affairs when it comes to teaching. If our primary focus is student learning – in particular the development of knowledge and skills relevant to self, workforce, and civic development – why do we limit this enterprise to only part of the student experience? And so, as a student advisor and coordinator of student development activities, I firmly claim my ground as a teacher, just as a staff member in financial aid or career development or records should.

So, then, I am accepting responsibility for the question: When I look at my own practice with Student Affairs, how often do I focus on delivering the correct answer (so that the student can complete their FAFSA or register for the right course or turn in their transfer application on time)? Probably more than I would like to admit in light of deep versus strategic learning.

Bain then adds, “Rather than just thinking in terms of teaching history, biology, chemistry, or other topics, they [the best teachers] talked about teaching students to understand, apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate evidence and conclusions” (46).

Certainly,  it takes more time and more scaffolding to change from service delivery (of correct answers) to student learning. But, if you step back, does it really? Because how many times will a student return for the correct answer? Alternatively, what is our future interaction with a student if we expend the time and effort to facilitate deep learning?

I will conclude with Bain: “Highly effective teachers design better learning experiences for their students in part because they conceive of teaching as fostering learning. Everything they do stems from their strong concern for and understanding of the development of their students. They follow few traditions blindly and recognize when change in the conventional course is both necessary and possible” (67).  

Bibliography

Bain, K. (2004). What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Barriers to Adoption of Online Learning Systems

Among the many sea changes reshaping higher education these days, the opportunities and pitfalls present in the use of online learning systems may be amongst the greatest. I read an interesting report - Barriers to the Adoption of Online Learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education - that is worth considering. As the title implies, this report comes from organization that supports the use of online learning systems and pursues the "promise of adaptive learning technologies...to educate more students at lower cost with similar or even better learning outcomes."

Some of the main points that I took from the report include:

• a wide range of systems and models of online learning currently exist and are of varying quality
• a number of software companies are pushing into new developments the report calls Interactive Online Learning, which is adaptive and "machine-driven"
• the use of learning analytics (data mining embedded within the online learning system) has the potential to support individualized student-centered learning based on proficiency
• the report asserts that cost considerations (and - by implication - market share) are the primary drivers for the implementation of online learning at most institutions, at the moment
• the report concedes that there is limited data on student learning outcomes, at the moment
• the report also concedes that there is limited data on student success and persistence, especially research that controls for the self-selecting variables that shape the demographic enrolling in online courses (older, motivated, self-organizing)
• if "machine-based" online learning systems free faculty from the tasks of content delivery, grading, and tracking, then such systems - in a hybrid environment - may allow for more productive and optimized use of faculty talents and knowledge (mentoring, research, feedback, et cetera)

I came across the Barriers report in the article Elitism, Equality, and MOOCS, which raises one point, in particular, that I find interesting, especially in light of the Barriers report. In sum: online education may lead to better access to high quality education for more students, or it may lead to further bifurcation of higher education whereby the elite institutions maintain (expensive) faculty-driven relationship-based education whereas (public open access) institutions under greater financial stress (and political pressures for numbers and efficiency) pursue machine-driven online learning disconnected from significant faculty guidance.

In Student Affairs, I see great potential for utilizing online learning as a pedagogical tool embedded in a relationship-based student development program (such as TRIO). There is merit, in my mind, to many of the strengths proffered in the Barriers report (increased access to services, student-centered proficiency-based learning, technology and the millennial generation, cost and time efficiencies). Yet, I am concerned about overreach and pursuing online learning as our primary pedagogy, as opposed to a pedagogical tool. There is much research (e.g. Tinto) and many anecdotes that affirm the significance of a caring, mentoring human relationship when viewing education through a student (human) development lens.

A few questions now on my mind after reading the above report and article:

•  How does online learning support (or not) creativity, critical thinking and other higher capacities of the human mind (that, to here, we have not extended to artificial intelligence)?
• How do changing social norms regarding human interaction change learning?
• How well can online learning adapt to multiple learning styles and diversified delivery? 
• Is tech savvy the new variable of inequality?