Getting Started On the Shoulders of Giants

1. Getting Started On the Shoulders of Giants Don Franceschetti Dan Poje Cathy Serex

2. SACS made us do it! • A QEP was required by SACS. We responded in three stages. • Committee I to select the topic of the QEP. Did lots of interviewing and research. • Committee II to develop the QEP. Some of the best minds on campus • Committee III to select a practicable plan. • And we chose in the end to implement thematic, curricular freshman learning communities.

3. Quality Enhancement Plan “The QEP describes a carefully designed and focused course of action that addresses a well-defined topic or issue(s) related to enhancing student learning.” (Handbook for Reaffirmation of Accreditation p. 21)

4. Committee I concerns • UofM students often lacked appropriate writing, communication and mathematical skills (faculty). • UofM students often do not demonstrate strong problem solving, communications or teamwork skills (employers). • UofM students not satisfied with their ability to apply mathematical concepts or appreciate the arts (students). • UofM students did not receive assistance in personal skills development (alumni)

5. Committee II plans • A two pronged approach (actually two subcommittees) • Academic core enhancement (to include learning communities and much else). • Experiential learning for seniors. • Cross communication between the efforts • Too many good ideas, too much passion, too much intelligence (is that possible?)

6. Committee III—the reality police • Financial constraints • Whatever we did for SACS we would have to evaluate for SACS • Georgia State success with FLC’s known to Dean. We have a lot in common as institutions.

7. Vision for 2012 “The University of Memphis is recognized as one of America’s great metropolitan research universities.” “The University of Memphis is recognized as one of America’s great metropolitan research universities.” QEP Learning Communities “enhancing student learning” Advances in the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning Competing at the Highest Levels!

8. And we joined in AAC&U’s Greater Expectations • Progressing from a student-centered to a learner-centerededucational thrust • Embracing interdisciplinary perspectives • Including a variety of ways of constructing and demonstrating meaning and understanding • Fostering a collaborative learning environment • Incorporating rationally-based and values-based knowledge • Encouraging civic, service, and other applied components in the educational agenda 4

9. Greater Expectations • Education has the strongest impact when studies reach beyond the classroom to the larger community, asking students to apply their developing analytical skills and ethical judgment to concrete problems in the world around them, and to connect theory with the insights gained from practice. http://www.greaterexpectations.org/

10. Learning Communities State-of-the-Art Higher Education • Widespread among “learner centered research universities.” • Associated with “high quality programs.” • Vary substantially in content and form. The U of M program is modeled after the successful Georgia State University model.

11. Learning Community Structure: Freshman Comp. + Freshman Seminar + General Educ ation Class + General Educ ation Class BLUE shading= learning community students GREY shading = other students taking each, individual class 13

12. SCIENCE & the ARTS Introduction to Physics English Composition Art History or Music Appreciation Freshman Seminar: Science & the Arts THE SPECTRUM OF General Psychology BEHAVIOR Human Origins & Variations English Composition: “Social Issues” Freshman Seminar: Spectrum of Behavior FILM & Into. to Film COMMUNICATION Oral Communication English Composition Freshman Seminar: Film & Communication Examples of Learning Communities

13. Effective Learning Communities • have a sense of purpose. • help overcome the isolation of faculty members from one another and from their students. • encourage faculty & staff to relate to one another both as specialists and as educators -- new roles & proficiencies. • encourage continuity and integration in the curriculum. • help build a sense of group identity, cohesion, and “focus.” 8

14. Learning Community Goals • Increase oral and written communication skills. • Increase student engagement in the academic process. • Increase the intellectual interaction of students and faculty. • Promote active learning and teamwork skills in meaningful contexts.

15. Who contributes to Learning Communities? • Faculty • Student Affairs staff • Academic advisors • Library professionals • Information technology specialists • Students! Both undergraduate and graduate students frequently serve as peer advisors and co-facilitators. We are starting to think of advanced students as “learning assistants”

16. 2005-2006 • Develop the research protocol and begin data collection. • Work with recruiters to find students. Identify control groups for evaluation. • Develop request for proposals for faculty-organized learning communities. • Create research and development advisory boards & determine selection processes. • Provide faculty & staff development.

17. Faculty Incentives • Intellectual engagement • Professional development • More motivated students • Some money It's fun!

18. October 11, 2005 May 19, 2006 Dr. Nannette Commander Assistant Vice President for Recruitment and Retention Georgia State University Dr. Vincent Tinto Distinguished University Professor Chair, Higher Education ProgramSyracuse University Find out more!

19. Overview • What the SACS Visitors Said • What We Did Then • Our Plan

20. What the SACS Visitors Said • Recommendation One • Develop learning objectives for each of the four major goals of the Learning Communities • Recommendation Two • Develop a detailed assessment schedule. • Recommendation Three • Develop a comprehensive evaluation plan clearly related to the QEP goals, with sufficient latitude and flexibility to make adjustments to achieve the desired student learning outcomes.

21. What the SACS Visitors Said • Recommendation Four • Establish a data-supported baseline profile of the institution against which progress toward QEP goals can be judged. • Recommendation Five • Employ multiple measures, including direct and indirect approaches, to assess the QEP

22. Recommendation One • Develop learning objectives for each of the four major goals of the Learning Communities

23. Four Major Goals of the Learning Communities • 1) Increase oral & written communication skills • 2) Increase student engagement in the academic process • 3) Increase the intellectual interaction of students & faculty • 4) Promote active learning & teamwork skills in meaningful contexts

24. The Learning Objectives • Goal One – Increase oral and written communication skills. • Objective 1.1: Students will write a well-organized memo or short report (theme) with correct grammar and spelling. • Objective 1.2: Students will give a well-organized short presentation. • Objective 1.3: Students will incorporate appropriate visual aids into documents and oral presentations. • Objective 1.4: Students will incorporate appropriate quantitative data into documents and presentations.

25. The Learning Objectives • Goal Two – Increase student engagement in the academic process. • Objective 2.1: Students will investigate at least two co-curricular activities. • Objective 2.2: Students will participate in co-curricular activities that reflect academic values. • Objective 2.3: Students will prepare for classes by engaging in varied out-of-class learning experiences.

26. The Learning Objectives • Goal Three – Increase the intellectual interaction of students and faculty. • Objective 3.1: Students will participate with faculty outside of class to discuss readings or lectures. • Objective 3.2: Students will use technology to interact with faculty and other students.

27. The Learning Objectives • Goal Four – Promote active learning and teamwork skills in meaningful contexts. • Objective 4.1: Students will work with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments. • Objective 4.2: Students will contribute to a team project.

28. Recommendations Two & Three • Develop a detailed assessment schedule • Develop a comprehensive evaluation plan clearly related to the QEP goals, with sufficient latitude & flexibility to make adjustments to achieve the desired student learning outcomes

29. Assessment & Evaluation • Pascarella & Terenzini (2005) note that research on learning communities is in its “nascent stages” and has been measured almost exclusively with student self-reported gains; the use of controls appears to be limited.

30. Sources of Assessment Information • Doing Learning Community Assessment: Five Campus Stories (MacGregor, 2003) • Learning Communities: Reforming Undergraduate Education (Smith et al., 2004) • http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/project.asp?pid=73 • GSU

31. Sources of Assessment Information • Greater Expectations Institute • Research Project • Campus Experts

32. Standardized exams Local developed exams Oral exams Performance appraisals Simulations Written surveys & questionnaires Exit & other surveys Focus groups External examiner Behavioral observations Archival records Portfolios Source: Gloria Rogers, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Assessment Methods

33. Standardized exams Local developed exams Oral exams Performance appraisals Simulations Written surveys & questionnaires Exit & other surveys Focus groups External examiner Behavioral observations Archival records Portfolios Source: Gloria Rogers, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Assessment Methods

34. Schedule for Assessments & Student Data Collection • 2005 - 2006 Baseline Year for LC • 2006 - 2007 First Year for LC • 2007 - 2008 Second Year for LC • 2008 - 2009 Third Year for LC • 2009 - 2010 Fourth Year for LC

35. Baseline Year Assessment • ENGL 1010 student portfolios • CSEQ Survey • NSSE Survey • DATA: • Five year history of freshmen retention • Drops/withdrawals of freshmen • ENGL 1010 GAP • Percent failures ENGL 1010

36. Year One Assessment • ENGL 1010 Portfolios • Précis of oral class presentations • CSEQ • Focus groups Learning Community students & Faculty • Data • ACT Profile data

37. Year Two Assessment • Peer review • Follow-up on first Learning Community students

38. Years Three & Four Assessment • Add NSSE in Year Five

39. Learning CommunitiesAssessment Plan • Goal One – Increase oral and written communication skills. • Objective 1.1: Students will write a well-organized memo or short report (theme) with correct grammar and spelling. • Student portfolios for ENGL 1010 • CSEQ 154 • NSSE 11c

40. Learning Communities Assessment Plan • Goal Three – Increase the intellectual interaction of students and faculty. • Objective 3.1: Students will participate with faculty outside of class to discuss readings or classes. • Faculty and student focus interviews • CSEQ 52, 56, 59, 60, 63 • NSSE 1p

41. Your Critique

42. Practice Realities • First Year Fall 2006 • 4-6 themed Learning Communities • 4-5 general education classes (10-13hrs) per LC • Freshman seminar (1 hr) is included • 25 Students in each Learning Community • Learning Community faculty develop syllabus and agenda for the Freshman seminar

43. Competitive Submission of Learning Community Courses • Faculty who develop LC themes or teach LC courses receive travel fund stipend • Call for proposals begins this Fall

44. Our Questions • LC for students with AP English credit? • LC for students with English deficiency? • Wholesale marketing of LC for the first year (Fall 2006)?

45. Our Questions • How to address angry parents and students not selected for LC? • When to present LC opportunity? • Give student 1st or 2nd choice?

46. Our Questions • How to distribute information (mail, orientation, website, H.S. counselor)? • Theme names for each LC? • Catchy, descriptive title for the program (e.g., Fresh Connections)?

47. Our Questions • Send Letter to students not selected? • How to sustain LC growth over students’ educational career?