INCREASING ENGAGEMENT, GRADUATION, AND TRANSFER

RATES WITH COURSE REDESIGN

Beyond the Deficit

Outline

What designs we’ve had success with at FRCC

What we plan to do as a college and in the state for underprepared writers

Changing the ways we perceive underprepared students.

Current DETF recommendations and FRCC pilots:

Learning communities

Acceleration

Authentic student and faculty support1. Embedded study skills across

curriculum2. Student success courses3. Faculty training (everyone participates)

Learning Communities

Under a Lumina grant, we began learning communities at FRCC in 2006, targeting students in developmental composition.

Since that time, we’ve added learning communities at all levels of composition, and we also have interdisciplinary learning communities.

At the Larimer campus, we offer 9-12 learning communities per semester. Boulder County and Westminster also offer LC programs.

We use paired and linked LC models

ENG 090 with PSY, SOC, ANT, HIS, LIT, PHIENG 121 with PHI, LIT, BIO, HIS, MUSENG 122 with BIO, HIS, PSYCOM and SOC (interpersonal and family

systems)

REA with PSYAAA with MAT

Initial data were disappointing

Persistence in the semester with LC students was no better. In fact, it was sometimes worse (primarily in paired courses; linked fair better).

Semester-to-semester retention was the same or only slightly higher than students in stand-alone sections.

We struggled to fill learning communities—students didn’t know what they were—and so they often were populated by people who registered late and couldn’t get into full stand-alone sections.

But then…!

Longitudinal data showed that students who took LC sections persisted longer.

LC students also took more credit hours in subsequent semesters (averaging 15 instead of 12 FT).

LC students had higher GPA’s in subsequent semesters (though not necessarily in the initial intervention semester).

Student focus groups revealed significant qualitative evidence that learning communities increase student-faculty bonding and social integration.

What else?

Faculty who teach in learning communities report greater engagement and job satisfaction.

Students ask for more learning community offerings.

Learning communities now fill before stand-alone sections.

Faculty teaching in LC’s report they are, by nature, more rigorous (we are actually studying that with a student learning grant).

What can LC students do?

Are we accomplishing what we think we are in our LC sections?

Are students accomplishing the composition goals that are contextualized in the discipline content?

Are students transferring knowledge from LC sections to their stand-alone classes?

So the new evolution? Mainstreaming. Acceleration.

In consult with Peter Adams at Community College of Baltimore County (http://alp-deved.org/) and Tom DeWit at Chabot College (http://acclerationincontext.net), we are piloting accelerated learning communities and stand-alone sections.

We are also piloting integrated reading/writing classes.

We are providing faculty training.We are creating a student success course college-

wide that addresses affective issues.We are changing our paradigm.

Faculty training: If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with or rethinking our

developmental students

What are the real issues?

What do we need to be asking our students to do?

How do professors and students misunderstand one another?

What is the worst thing that will happen if we redesign our courses? Is it worse than what’s happening now?

Love the one you’re with.

‘There is often a disconnect between college professors’ expectations of students, and students’ actual performance” (Cox 5). College instructors often have an idealized image of

the “perfect” student—someone who attends for the love of learning (Cox 6).

This is not a new phenomenon. The president of Harvard complained about demotivated and lazy students. This was at the turn of the century (Cox 6).

Students arrive without knowing the expectations. This is different than being unable to meet the expectations, however (Cox 11).

Keep loving the one you’re with.

Students and teachers misunderstand and make assumptions about one another:

“I assume your love for sports is minimal kind of like my interest in the other books we have read this semester. It is just like high school, I was a jock and loved anything sports. My professor at this College Prep high school hated jocks because he felt time could be better filled studying for school because sports is just a game and should be treated so” (Student from S2012 LIT).

Should we all just go home?

Excellent teachers assume students can learn at a high level. But without understanding students’ perspectives, expectations, and behavior, we cannot facilitate learning (Bain, Cox).

Students have a lot of anxiety around being successful in college, and they will do almost anything to avoid having failure confirmed (Cox 26).

Students focus on grades; teachers focus on learning (sometimes on grades also). How do we connect the two?

We need to help our students understand the “language” of the academy. We need to decide if we’re more interested in gatekeeping or access.

Works Cited

Bain, Ken. What the Best College Teachers Do. Boston: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Print.

Colorado Developmental Education Taskforce. Home page, 2012. Web. 31 May 2012.

Cox, Rebecca. The College Fear Factor: How Students and Professors Misunderstand One Another. Boston: Harvard University Press, 2009. Print.