Learning Community Coordinators: Why they start, why they keep going

Learning Communities

Learning Community Coordinators: Why they start, why they keep going

Survey conducted by the Communications sub-committee of the Learning Community Advisory Committee
Iowa State University, Ames, IA (April 2000)

Members:
James D. Beatty, Phil Caffrey, Laura Doering, Charlene Hulsebus, Doug Gruenewald, Tom Lloyd, Diana Shonrock
©Iowa State University, 2000

Learning communities (LC) have existed at Iowa State University for several years. The university has actively supported learning communities for incoming undergraduates since 1996 with grants to those who lead (coordinate) the learning communities. Learning communities at Iowa State have primarily focused on reducing the drop-out rate and improving the academic performance of first-year students by meeting some of the social and academic needs of the participating students.

The learning community initiative at Iowa State University is overseen through the efforts of the Learning Community Advisory Committee. The advisory committee has sub-committees on assessment, faculty development, communications, and student leadership. The communications sub-committee undertook the task of surveying the current Learning Community Coordinators (LCC) to determine how the university can better recruit and support faculty and staff members as coordinators.

Several assessments have looked at the effects of the communities on the attitudes and academic outcomes of the students involved in the learning communities. This report does not deal with the issues of student success measures and results. For this paper, the effectiveness of learning communities is assumed. Instead it is the purpose of this paper to describe the attitudes of the current LCCs, identify those issues that promote and inhibit their continued involvement, and identify barriers to the involvement of other faculty and staff as LCCs. Without coordinators (facilitators or other title), learning communities would not exist. Recruitment and sustainment of coordinators is critical to learning community success at Iowa State University.

The specific questions asked in the survey and summaries of the responses are provided below. Thirty six of the 49 coordinators surveyed completed the online questionnaire. The survey included six closed and seven open-ended items. In the summary that follows, numbers in parentheses [i.e.(36)] indicate the number of respondent comments being summarized. The numbers may not add to 36 since participants could have provided more than one response to open-ended questions.

How did you learn about the possibility of becoming an LC Coordinator?
Most coordinators indicated that they became aware of learning community involvement through their department or college administrators or through colleagues (25). They cited departmental meetings, flyers, and announcements as communication mechanisms they remembered. Although some indicated that their awareness of LCs prior to the university's efforts to promote the communities through grant offerings, most indicated that they first became aware of learning communities as a result of the promotional efforts of the university. The personal encouragement of peers and the influence of supervisors and college administrators were also cited by respondents.
What motivated you to become an LC Coordinator?
By far, the most common motivation cited was that of student benefit (21). The expected benefits mentioned by the coordinators were student success, learning, and retention; improved educational experiences; increased opportunities for students to build relationship, and increased faculty/staff contact with students. Several respondents indicated that LCs would help them do their job better. Only two coordinators indicated that the money provided by the university was instrumental in getting them involved in their LC.
Do you plan to continue your involvement as an LC coordinator? Why, or why not?
Eleven coordinators indicated they would not continue their efforts next year, while 25 plan to continue with their LC next year (2000-2001). Of the 25 coordinators planning to continue, thirteen indicated that the benefit of LCs to the students was at least one of their reasons for continuing. Other reasons cited included personal rewards (8) and administrative support (3). Of the 11 planning to discontinue their LCC role, time pressure (7) was the most frequently mentioned reason, followed by a lack of personal reward (5) and lack of administrative support (5).
What existing barriers are preventing increased faculty / staff participation in LCs?
Time pressures were mentioned most frequently by respondents (21) as barriers to increased faculty / staff involvement in learning communities. Seventeen respondents indicated a lack of promotion and tenure credit as a barrier. Five respondents cited administrative issues such as difficulty recruiting and registering students as barriers, while a few indicated a lack of financial incentive (3) and questionable benefits of learning communities (3) as additional barriers.
Please complete the following: The greatest support I have received in developing and implementing my learning community has been…
The administrative support provided by the colleges and the university was the most frequently cited form of support (22). Support from administrative sources was followed by financial support (12) and support from other LC volunteers (11). Respondents also indicated students (5) and other colleagues (4) had provided significant support.
To what degree is your work RECOGNIZED by your college leaders?

This question was answered on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from '1'- Not recognized to '5'- Highly recognized, with N / A as an option. The data are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Perceived RECOGNITION by college leaders.

	Responses						Average scores
	Not recognized			Highly recognized
score	1	2	3	4	5	NA	n	m
Dean	13	5	3	7	6	0	34	2.65
Assoc. Dean	5	5	5	10	10	0	35	3.43
DEO	4	3	6	12	11	0	36	3.64

Also, those continuing as LCCs tended to rate all three administrators higher than those not continuing as coordinators. And, faculty members tended to rate their deans higher than other staff rated the deans, while staff tended to rate their DEOs higher than faculty members rated their DEOs.

To what degree is your work REWARDED by your college leaders?

This question was answered on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from '1'- Not rewarded to '5'- Highly rewarded, with N / A as an option.

Table 2. Perceived REWARD from college leaders.

	Responses						Average scores
	Not rewarded			Highly rewarded
score	1	2	3	4	5	NA	n	m
Dean	17	4	3	4	1	4	29	1.90
Assoc. Dean	14	5	4	4	2	6	29	2.14
DEO	10	5	6	7	2	6	29	2.53

Faculty members tended to rate all three administrator positions higher than staff members, and those continuing as LCCs rated administrators higher than those not continuing as coordinators had rated the administrators.

Have you visited the LC website?
a. Was the website useful?
b. I refer others to the website for information.

Twenty one of the 36 respondents indicated that they had visited the learning communities website. The majority of these respondents indicated that the site was helpful, but few refer others to the site for information.

Table3. Learning Community website evaluation

In what way(s) can we effectively communicate with you concerning learning community related activities and deadlines?

Email was the most frequently chosen means of communication chosen by respondents. Less than 1/3 of the respondents indicated any other single medium of communication. One respondent indicated they would prefer a paper memo as a reminder, and one indicated they would prefer a personal phone call.

Table 4. Communication Media
Medium	n
Email	30
Listserv	11
Newsletter (paper)	8
Newsletter (WWW)	11

What additional comments do you have concerning learning communities?

When asked for additional comments, the respondents indicated that they wanted more communication with other coordinators (7), that learning communities on the whole needed additional resources from the administration (5), and that they needed current, relevant information (5) about Learning communities. Three respondents indicated that they would appreciate registration information on the web earlier than is currently being done, and that they are concerned about losing potential students due to the late availability of registration information

Conclusions

Overall the faculty and staff involved with learning communities do so because of their concern for the students at Iowa State University. Lack of time and other resources were frequently mentioned as barriers to faculty and staff participation in learning communities. The general perception of the coordinators is that they are paying for learning communities with their own resources (especially time) and that the university is not providing enough resources (personnel time and funds) for learning communities. If this perception continues, it will be difficult to sustain even the current level of learning community activity as ISU, and nearly impossible to expand learning community opportunities for students entering Iowa State.

Scores for the two questions concerning rewards and recognition from administrators indicate that participants feel somewhat recognized by their administrators, but un-rewarded for their efforts. This is consistent with other comments received from the coordinators and leads to the conclusion that learning communities are primarily supported by the units with the least resources (individuals and departments). College and university level administrators need to find ways to more strongly support learning community coordinators. Interestingly, a very small perk, free lunches for coordinator meetings, received several very positive comments.

Communication between coordinators was frequently cited as a positive element, and increased communication between coordinators was encouraged by several while citing their pressing time commitments. The recently initiated coordinator lunches were mentioned several times as positive examples of stimulating communication.

Concerning means of communication, coordinators are busy and don't want to be inundated with frivolous messages, but do want timely and accurate communication of events and requirements. The vast majority use email frequently and indicated that email was a good way to keep them informed. Some form of an electronic newsletter was also advocated.

The current curricular structure and the administrative tools (registration) to support that curricular structure create some difficulties for those trying to recruit and register students for learning communities. Some advanced planning may moderate these difficulties. Large-scale curricular restructuring was advocated by two respondents, but most simply wanted timely communication of administrative information.

Long term continuance of learning communities at Iowa State will require a shift in thinking by administrators and faculty; a shift that places more value on learning community participation. Administrators must be willing to dedicate more resources to supporting those who coordinate learning communities for students, and faculty need to give more P&T credit to their peers who coordinate the communities. The proposed changes in faculty and administrator attitudes are intertwined, and without these changes in thinking, and subsequent actions, learning communities will begin to fade as coordinators (especially faculty members) distance themselves from involvement in the communities.

List of specific recommendations

This list is provided as a possible discussion list. No prioritization has been applied to the list. The comments are recommendations from the LCCs. Duplications and justifications have been removed.

We should experiment with other approaches than linking freshmen by majors. Thematic courses and team taught courses would be easier to design and maintain and should have achieve the same desired results.
I would like to see several LC coordinators come together for the purpose of submitting a proposal(s) to NSF or other major funding agencies. …we need interdisciplinary efforts that lead to scholarly work and funding.
… they will need continued support, in the way of time for faculty, summer grants, salary for peer mentors, etc.
Could the website be updated with more frequency? …Fall learning communities on by early March or sooner.
People have a need for coming together to informally share their needs and concerns before participating in formal venues. Please continue to provide "free lunches", emails, and the LC conference.
I think release time or $$ for field trips and activities (not just for peers mentors) helps.
Opportunities for students from various teams to connect up for university-wide activities, esp. since so many change majors.
A collection of examples of forms that other coordinators have developed would be helpful as resources.
Don't have LC coordinators have any responsibility for assessment.
Have all the necessary information in the advisor's hands in an easy to sell form at the initial advising appointment.
A lit review of learning team objectives, outcomes, and research would be great. Including, " How to successfully compete for students' time."
Continue the opportunities to discuss and develop LC ideas via informal/formal meetings. Even though we're busy, those who have time will attend.
College specific LC coordinator meetings to exchange ideas and coordinate activities.

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

The website was useful

I refer the site to others