Submitted by Learning Community Advisory Committee Co-Chairs
Doug Gruenewald, Assistant Director of Residence for Academic Services and
Corly Brooke, Director, Center for Teaching Excellence
Learning communities at Iowa State University began as a grass roots effort in 1994, with the first learning communities implemented in the fall of 1995. Since that time tremendous growth and innovation has taken place accompanied by growing enthusiasm for the learning community concept. At the Iowa State University President’s Council in July of 1998, President Martin Jischke announced the allocation of $1,500,000 to the development of learning communities at Iowa State over a three year period, 1998-2001.
In the fall of 1998 Howard Shapiro, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs and Thomas Hill, Vice President for Student Affairs appointed Corly Brooke, Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence, and Doug Gruenewald, Assistant Director of Residence for Academic Services, to develop and co-chair the ISU Learning Community Advisory Committee. This report includes a summary of the learning community accomplishments for the 1998/99 academic year and recommendations for the continued advancement of learning communities at Iowa State University.
Learning Community Advisory Committee (LCAC)
An advisory committee was formed during fall semester 1998 with the intention of formulating a diverse group of learning community advocates who could foster a creative vision for learning community initiatives; build a campus-wide network for learning community communication, coordination and innovation; coordinate learning community resources and support; and oversee assessment of learning communities. We believe the advisory committee consisted of an excellent group of knowledgeable, motivated, and highly skilled members of the university community. There was representation from each college, Academic Administrators (three Associate Deans), Faculty (11 members with faculty rank), Student Affairs staff (four), and four members who are also LC coordinators. It was valuable to have a mix of new members and experienced members who had been part of the LC Workgroup from the previous year.
The first meeting of the Learning Community Advisory Committee (LCAC) took place in November, 1998 and continued bi-weekly throughout spring semester. Given the short amount of time available we believe the committee accomplished a great deal, ending the year with the very successful Learning Communities Institute that will be described later in the report. Another major accomplishment was the development of an ISU Learning Communities brochure. The LCAC co-chairs worked with the enrollment services staff, learning community coordinators and committee members to develop the brochure. The LCAC held a well-attended, half-day retreat in May, 1999 to review progress and make recommendations included in this report.
Appendix A: List of LCAC membership and statement of purposes and Learning Community Brochure.
Administrative committee and budget oversight
The "Administrative committee" consisted of Howard Shapiro, Thomas Hill, Ellen Rasmussen, Corly Brooke, and Doug Gruenewald. The committee planned to meet twice a month to administer the budget and make "global" decisions regarding learning communities. Given the busy schedules of the participants, the reality was that the entire group was present for only two or three meetings all year. This made for a cumbersome decision making process at times, particularly for the co-chairs. This group is critical to the smooth operation of the LC program. It is the only place where decisions can really be made as the Learning Community Advisory Committee does not have the authority to make decisions. A discussion of the purpose of this administrative group needs to take place as soon as possible. The membership needs to be decided along with goals for the year. If the group will continue to operate as collective decision-makers then a regular meeting schedule that remains a priority needs to be developed.
Appendix B: Budget summary
Student Affairs Learning Community Committee
Doug Gruenewald initiated a Student Affairs LC Committee to bring together representatives from each unit within the Student Affairs division. The purpose of the committee was to be a vehicle to keep S.A. units informed of the campus wide LC efforts and to discuss ways in which the division could be more supportive of such efforts.
The committee developed an informational flyer to explain services and contact persons for the Division of Student Affairs. The flyer was distributed to all LC coordinators in the spring. A website subcommittee was also chaired by Laura Doering. The subcommittee reviewed the current site, changed the address, and began the on-going process of determining the content for the site.
The committee also discussed the development of a new learning community called "Wellness House." The final project should perhaps more accurately be labeled a residence "theme house." Currently there is no curricular component however the possibility exists to expand this program in the future. Students interested in a "wellness lifestyle" are being invited to live together in the same house in the Richardson Court Association beginning in the fall of 1999. Joint programming between the Department of Residence, Student Health Center, and other campus services are being planned. If there is interest an expansion to link this program with Health and Human Performance or other programs may be possible in the future.
The committee was comprised of David Bousquet, Dennis Peterson, Jane Edwards, Laura Doering, Houston Dougharty, Randy Mayer, Pat Robinson, Lynn Meyer, Pat Andersen, Rafael Rodriguez and Lisa Kratz.
LC Student Participation
During the 1998-99 academic year a total of 1357 students participated in 24 learning communities. Due to the President’s funding initiative and the Request For Proposals process a total of 36 learning communities are scheduled for the 1999 fall semester.
Appendix C: History of learning community participation and development.
Request for Proposals (RFP)
During the fall semester of 1998 an administrative group consisting of Howard Shapiro, Thomas Hill, Ellen Rasmussen, Corly Brooke, and Doug Gruenewald began meeting to administer the President’s $500,000 learning community allocation. It was determined that a significant amount of the money should be earmarked for new LC initiatives and the RFP proposal process and form were developed. In early December the forms were made available to faculty and staff. Over 30 proposals were received requesting over $600,000. Almost all requests received at least partial funding. A total of $117,000 was allocated for learning community development the remainder of the 98-99 fiscal year and nearly $170,000 was earmarked for learning community development for 1999/2000.
There were several challenges with the RFP process, that primarily had to do with meeting timelines and clarifying process issues. However after many hours of reviewing proposals, it signified another successful collaborative effort. The high interest in developing learning communities expressed by faculty and staff was encouraging.
Appendix D: RFP form
Assessment
Clearly one of the highest priorities for the learning community initiatives on campus must be assessment. The Learning Community Advisory Committee developed an Assessment Subcommittee comprised of Don Whalen, Laura Doering, Mary Huba, Kevan Flaming, and Brad Shrader. This past year pre and post surveys were conducted by all learning communities. Retention and grade point data were also collected. Individual learning communities conducted individualized assessment procedures. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. This data is in the process of being analyzed and an assessment report will be forthcoming this fall, 1999. It is imperative that more faculty become directly involved in planning and implementing the assessment procedures.
Appendix E: Assessment Instruments
Peer Mentors
The role of peer mentors in learning communities has continued to expand. The administrative group developed a formula of providing $1000 per semester, per 16 participants in a LC for a peer mentor. During the 1998-99 academic year nearly $35,000 was spent on peer mentors. For next year the funding formula was increased to $1250 per semester, per 16 participants. Over $150,000 has been allocated for peer mentors for the 1999-2000 academic year.
LC coordinators report a high level of satisfaction with their mentor programs. Students in learning communities also are extremely positive about the role mentors play in their programs, which is consistent with research about the value of peer mentors.
In addition to the peer mentor training programs for LC coordinators last year there will also be the first ever peer mentor training before school begins in August. Kurt Earnest, Department of Residence, is coordinating a two -day peer mentor training program, in conjunction with several LC coordinators. Through a Miller Grant, Barb Licklider, Project LEA/RN coordinator, is currently working on a peer mentor training model that needs to be reviewed early in the fall to determine how it might be utilized with all learning communities.
Appendix F Peer mentor job descriptions
Supplemental instruction
This is a valuable program that supports learning community efforts. Each learning community was responsible for contacting the Academic Success Center (a unit of the Dean of Students Office) to make arrangements for specific S.I. needs for their program. A relatively small amount of money was actually needed to specifically support learning communities. The current system of supporting learning communities seems to be effective.
Website
The Registrar Office developed the Learning Community website last year. With the expansion of learning communities on campus it was determined that a LC website should be more visible and "stand alone" rather than continuing as part of the Registrar site. We also developed a new address that would be easier for people to remember:
"www.public. iastate.edu/~learncommunity".
Prior to the convening of the LC Advisory Committee a Student Affairs Learning Community Committee was developed and chaired by Doug Gruenewald. They developed a web site subcommittee chaired by Laura Doering. The web subcommittee worked with Karla Embleton of the Center for Teaching Excellence to re-design the site and determine the expanded content areas. Karla has done an excellent job of making the site more comprehensive and "user friendly." To keep the site updated regularly it will continue to require a staff member to devote a significant amount of time.
Workshops
The LCAC committee sponsored programs throughout the year to support learning community coordinators and to educate others interested in knowing more about learning communities.
Charie Thralls, CTE Fellow, and Lynn Meyer, Residence Hall Director, worked with Corly and Doug to develop an all-day learning community coordinator workshop in November. The program was well attended by current coordinators and focused on such issues as resources, peer mentors, Supplemental Instruction, curriculum initiatives, and assessment. The program evaluations were extremely positive with coordinators asking for continued assistance for their learning communities
In December Doug Gruenewald and Corly Brooke hosted an informational campus-wide meeting attended by over 60 participants. The purposes of the meeting were to inform the campus community about the new learning community advisory committee, to give an overview of current learning communities on campus, and to inform people about the RFP process. Howard Shapiro also discussed his support of the learning community efforts on campus.
Based on feedback from LC coordinators a half-day workshop was presented in March entitled "Harnessing the Power of the Peer to Maximize Student Success." It was developed by Kurt Earnest and Lynn Meyer in the Department of Residence and was attended by over 20 LC Coordinators.
Appendix G: Workshop agendas
National Video Teleconference series
In order to further promote ISU faculty and staff development, the Learning Community Advisory Committee sponsored a three part series of national teleconferences:
"Meeting the Challenge of Student Retention", March 18,1999
"The Senior Year Experience", April 9,1999
"Learning About Learning Communities: Taking Student Learning Seriously.", April 19, 1999
All three programs were very informative and well attended, with the largest participation at the learning community program.
Learning Community Institute
The LC Advisory committee decided early in the spring of 1999 that they wanted to host a LC Institute that would "promote innovations in learning community programs designed to enhance student learning, with an emphasis on developing course curriculum and specific learning activities." The planning and execution of the institute was another example of the high level of Student Affairs/Academic Affairs collaboration that the committee fostered throughout the year.
The Institute was originally intended to be only for people who were part of a learning community team. However it was decided to be as inclusive as possible and allow anyone interested to attend. It was held at the Scheman Continuing Education Center on May 12-14, 1999. A total of 149 faculty and staff registered and over 100 actively participated in all of the two and one half day programs. We were particularly pleased to have participation from the Library; Computation Center; Facilities, Planning, and Management; Museums; Marketing, and every college and Student Affairs unit.
The Institute theme was "Connected Learning" and the goal was to promote innovations in learning community programs designed to enhance student learning, with an emphasis on developing course curriculum and specific learning activities. Ted Marchese, Vice-President of the American Association of Higher Education, Howard Shapiro, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs, and Martin Jischke, President of Iowa State, were the plenary speakers. Faculty and staff teamed together for presentations. The Institute was highly successful. It was requested that this become a yearly event.
Appendix H: Curriculum Institute Brochure
National presentations
Iowa State is rapidly gaining national prominence in relation to Learning Communities. Members of the LC Advisory Committee made the following presentations about Iowa State University learning communities at national conferences.
The Sixth National Conference on Residential Colleges and Living/Learning Programs. Burlington, VT; October, 1998.
A Residence Life Program Re-Organized for Academic Collaboration
Presented by Doug Gruenewald.
The Design Exchange Learning Community
Presented by Doug Gruenewald.
Council on Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication National Conference. Lewes, Delaware; October 15-17, 1999.
Boundary Breakers: Cross-Department / Cross-College.
Presented by Rebecca Burnett, Tom Polito, David Roberts, John Schafer, and Julie Zeleznik.
The 23rd Annual Conference of The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. Snowbird, Utah; November, 1998.
Promoting Institutional Collaboration Through Building Learning Communities.
presented by Corly Brooke, Mark Chidister.
The Leavening Force of Collaboration: Creating a Residential Learning Community.
Presented by Mark Chidister and Kurt Earnest.
Academic Affairs-Student Affairs: Creating Synergy for Learning. University of Miami, Florida; January, 1999.
It’s Working: An Academic Affairs/Student Affairs Partnership at Iowa State University
Presented by: JD Beatty, Corly Brooke, Mark Chidister, Laura Doering, Larry Ebbers, Doug Gruenewald, Charie Thralls.
American Association of Higher Education National Conference on Higher Education. Washington DC; March, 1999.
Learning Communities: the Political Realities of Transforming Institutional Cultures for Student Learning.
Presented by Corly Brooke and Charie Thralls.
The 81st Annual Conference of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. New Orleans, Louisiana; March, 1999.
Learning Communities and All that Jazz.
Presented by: Corly Brooke, Laura Doering, Larry Ebbers, Doug Gruenewald, Tom Hill.
Creating and Sustaining Learning Communities: Connections, Collaborations and Crossing Borders. Tampa, Florida; March 1999.
Developing a model for a cross-college, cross-disciplinary, team-taught, upper-level learning community: Creating and Sustaining Learning. Presented by Tom Polito., Dave Roberts, John Schafer, Rebecca Burnett and Julie Zeleznik.
Assessment of students’ attitudes, processes and performances. Presented by Rebecca Burnett, Julie Zeleznik, Tom Polito, Dave Roberts, John Schafer.
Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education: Transforming Campuses Through Learning Communities Conference. Seattle, Washington May 1999.
Learning Communities: The Political Realities of Transforming Institutional Cultures for Student Learning. Presented by: Corly Brooke, Doug Gruenewald, Charie Thralls.
Writing Across the Curriculum Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York; June 3-5.1999
Design, Implementation, and Assessment of Cross-disciplinary, Cross-college, Linked Courses. Presented by Rebecca Burnett, Tom Polito, Dave Roberts, John Schafer and Julie Zeleznik.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. University Infrastructure for Learning Communities
There is a need to establish a clear "infrastructure" that will sustain and expand learning communities on the ISU campus. This is seen as the most pressing concern for further LC development. The current co-chairs spent an enormous amount of time coordinating with the LCAC committee, helping to plan workshops, overseeing the development and implementation of the institute, working with the RFP process, supervising the web site expansion, and countless hours of conversations with current and future learning community coordinators. Charie Thralls served as a CTE fellow for 1998/99 and devoted extensive time to advancing the LC effort. Her service was invaluable and will be missed next year.
The institution needs to set a priority of hiring part-time or full-time administrators to oversee the many details of the LC program. Coordinators continue to question the "process" for doing things, wonder "who’s in charge" and "where to go" for a decision. The current "collective decision-making" is workable in the short run but may not be realistic for the long term.
There is a need to clarify the role and responsibilities of the Administrative Committee for Learning Communities.
Staff need to identify and clarify staff support for the learning community effort – especially for clerical and implementation needs. This was unclear this past year and needs to be addressed. This would involve taking minutes, writing reports, helping make room and conference arrangements, correspondence, etc.
It is clear that the continued support and expansion of this program will require a great deal of "hands on" attention. LC coordinators have many needs and are often looking centrally for support or assistance. An example is the peer mentor program. Very few coordinators have experience with peer mentors so they individually spend a good deal of time writing job descriptions, developing hiring processes, etc without benefit of expertise from others. The result will be 37 different peer mentor programs and assessment processes unless some central "coordination" is implemented. Common questions are: "Who’s responsibility is it to support peer mentor programs?" Which program staff can devote the time to this project? Is it feasible to think that a committee, or a few people as add-ons to their jobs, can continue to support all of these initiatives at a high level?
2. Learning Community Advisory Committee and subcommittees
At the end of the year retreat held in May, 1999 the Learning Communities Advisory Committee suggested that the LCAC committee consider meeting as a large group on a monthly basis and form additional subcommittees that would meet regularly (perhaps bi-weekly). Each committee member would chair or co-chair a subcommittee and recruit additional members for subcommittees-perhaps from individuals who attended the LC Institute. This would serve to expand the inclusion of more university members into the LC structure.
There also were suggestions to add additional representatives to the Learning Communities Advisory Committee. Although consensus wasn’t reached some suggestions for possible additions to the Advisory Committee were: representation from the Library; Computation Center, Faculty Senate, Student Activities, Math; Chemistry; Project LEA/RN, Facilities and Space Management, Michael Mendelson from the English Department; Vernon Wall from the Dean of Students; and Center for Teaching Excellence Fellows.
The following subcommittee structure was suggested:
Assessment: expand membership to include more faculty leadership. In particular Doug Epperson was mentioned. Perhaps a faculty member could receive release time for this important effort.
Administrative: work with calendar, RFP process, budget decision-making.
Communication and Website: develop a listserv, written documents, reports, vision and outcomes statement revision, expand website development, develop recruitment materials and update LC brochure.
Faculty and Staff development: address staffing issues – possible internship, buyout of a faculty member, LC Fellow; target specific colleges and departments for learning community development; address the reward structure; hold an experiential/service learning conference; build involvement with Project LEA/RN; develop road show programs to help people learn how to start a learning community; workshops; possibly use CTE Fellows more ; continue training throughout the year; plan the LC Institute; etc.
Resource/research "clearinghouse": look into outside funding sources, review programs at other campuses; use the assessment graduate assistant.
Student Leadership: work w/ peer mentor programs/issues- funding, job descriptions, workshops, training, research, support; look at possibility of student work study money to cover some expenses, supplemental instruction, service learning opportunities.
In the future an attempt should be made to have at least some of the subcommittees (i.e. assessment and web site) meet during the summer.
3. Focus on faculty.
It is clear that faculty involvement continues to be the weakest link in the ISU LC program, as is the case at most institutions. There is a need to continue to look at changes to the reward structure to increase faculty involvement. There is also a need to focus training and development efforts on faculty who are currently involved with LCs.
It may be necessary to develop an informational "roadshow" of current faculty involved in LCs to go to targeted departments and talk with their faculty about the benefits of participation in learning communities.
A continuing dialogue is needed about larger issues, such as curricular reform at the university. Learning community development offers this opportunity along with providing other occasions for faculty and staff development.
4. RFP changes.
The RFP process needs to be articulated and publicized much earlier in the academic year so teams have time to develop plans and submit well thought out proposals. We recommend that the RFP details and process be publicized by September 15, with submission deadline of October 30, and final decisions made by December 15. An RFP form should be developed so that specific, detailed information about budgets, assessment, learning outcomes, and other issues are written in a consistent way for ease of evaluation and thus insuring that response deadlines can be met. There needs to be an attempt to have all learning communities follow the "desired outcomes" and "common characteristics" listed in last year’s final report, pp. 3-5.
Appendix I: LC Workgroup Final Report, 1998.
The RFP process needs to clearly state what will and will not be funded (i.e. computers, faculty buy-out time) to give people better information prior to development of their plans. An informational session and extensive publicity should be done to explain the process. Several critical comments were received last year because of general misunderstandings about the process. Finally the RFP form should be available to download directly from the web.
5. Assessment
It is imperative that there be clear faculty leadership with the LC assessment efforts and the subcommittee needs to be expanded. Clarification is needed for LC assessment responsibilities on campus. Is it the responsibility of the assessment subcommittee, staff in the Provost Office, individual LC programs, or a combination? Currently Don Whalen is managing the residence hall data collection, the pre- and post-survey data, and conducting focus groups. Learning community funds were allocated to hire Mary Huba half time in the Provost Office to promote assessment for 98/99. Whoever is ultimately responsible should probably also produce a mid-year report on results given that many programs are only for the first semester. The assessment committee should meet with Howard and Tom early in the fall and discuss specific assessment expectations, roles, outcomes, and responsibilities.
It is important to ensure that all LCs specifically state their desired outcomes in explicit, measurable terms. We believe it is important that qualitative as well as quantitative data be gathered regarding learning communities. While retention and grades are significant we believe we must also continue to assess the "desired outcomes" which were originally outlined in the Workgroup final report in the spring of 1998. That included such outcomes as: "demonstrate a better understanding of differences and similarities among people and cultures" and "increase collaborative interactions with other students and with faculty and staff."
6. Curriculum Institute.
Evaluations from Institute participants and committee organizers were extremely positive. There is clearly an interest in making this an annual event. It takes a significant amount of time to develop and implement an Institute. We believe a subcommittee will need to have this event as one of its priorities for next year and will need to begin work on it early in the year. The organizational support provided by Scheman was a necessity.
7. Peer mentors.
Due to the significant amount of money and time invested, as well as the high expectations of peer mentors, it is essential that several services are developed or expanded. Peer mentors need extensive training and on-going supervision and support. LC coordinators also need training and support about how to train mentors, how to write job descriptions, and how to assess the effective of mentors.
Clearly each program is operating independently with a minimal amount of collective expertise going into mentor programs. On-going training workshops will need to be developed and provided to both LC coordinators and the mentors themselves. Given the magnitude of the program a separate mentor subcommittee of the LC Advisory committee is recommended. That group will also need to work with staff in the Department of Residence and other Student Affairs units who work with mentors (i.e. Counseling, Dean of Students).
It was also recommended that someone investigate whether funds from the work study program could be used to compensate peer mentors.
8. LC website development.
We believe the LC website is an extremely important campus resource and will need to continue to evolve to service the ISU community. We recommend that the website be a significant part of a subcommittee assignment of the LC Advisory Committee. Staff responsibility for this will need to be determined.
9. Experiential / Service Learning.
Learning communities offer an excellent opportunity to promote and develop experiential learning experiences for students. The committee suggested that we look at the issue of citizenship and be more intentional about stating that as a "desired outcome. This could be considered by a subcommittee, although it would expedite implementation if a staff person was assigned to develop this program.