Gail Wilkie

         North Seattle Community College's first learning community, a coordinated studies program introduced in spring quarter 1986, quickly led to a proliferation of collaborative approaches at the college. From one program that enrolled 38 students, we have gone to six or more team-taught learning community programs each quarter and approximately 100 students annually. Our five-year strategic plan, completed in 1992, demonstrates the systemic nature of this change. The visibility of interdisciplinary approaches to curriculum led to our pledge "to review and revitalize curricula to develop strong interdisciplinary connections" and our view that coordinated studies are "an emerging model" at the college. Other significant indicators of institutional change are recent fiscal decisions. We appointed a coordinator of learning communities. We also remodeled a large classroom specifically to accommodate large coordinated studies programs consisting of 60 to 70 students.

         Questioning Change. The high interest of faculty and student participants in coordinated studies and other linked or team-taught models has prompted a set of questions important to any institution engaged in assessing the curricular change that coordinated studies can bring. Administrators responsible for planning the curriculum, faculty involved in implementing learning communities, and critics reticent about change ask such questions as the following:

·      Do learning communities effectively address our need in community colleges to improve student retention and program completion?

·      What is the level of student performance in learning communities? Are students' grades higher or lower than in traditional courses? Are standards and expectations for students who carry ten to fifteen credits in an interdisciplinary block as rigorous as those in the traditional disciplinary classroom?

·      Do students gain the level of discipline-specific knowledge and skill that they do in traditional classes?

·      Does this curricular approach lend itself to more effective teaching of critical thinking skills?

·      Are faculty teaching in learning communities carrying their fair share of student load (FTE)? Or do learning communities generate lower faculty-student ratios that in this time of austerity we can ill afford?

·      Is the enthusiasm for the approach expressed by faculty and students really a result of the collaboration and community that occurs? Or are these self-selecting programs that attract the most academically talented and motivated of students? Are they students who are eager to learn regardless of setting?

         At North Seattle Community College, the answers we had to these questions were limited and primarily anecdotal. Over the years, faculty collected students' written evaluations and occasionally taped student responses during end-of-quarter debriefing sessions. However, neither a consistent format for the discussions nor a consistent set of questions was used for these student evaluations. As a result, we had student testimonials which were very positive-typically laudatory-about transformations that occurred as they discovered learning in collaborative settings. But we simply did not have quantitative answers to the questions being asked. However compelling, student testimonials are difficult to advance as a measure of effectiveness upon which fiscal decisions can be made.

         Assessing the Results. To provide key administrators with more systematically gathered information about learning communities, we made an effort to assess the impact of learning communities from an institutional perspective. We gathered and analyzed data readily available on coordinated studies offered at our college between 1986 and 1990. Although the study is incomplete and does not answer all of the questions listed, it demonstrates approaches that can be taken and identifies sources of information available to report on the institutional impact of curricular change. More importantly, however, it suggests the kind of pragmatic questions that we should pursue if, in higher education, we are to be not only more accountable but also more conversant about the effectiveness of innovative curricula.

         The assessment of student learning through quantitative reporting is not what I might have advocated as a faculty member. However, from the years that I have spent in college resource development, I have learned the value of building our case with quantitative evidence. The approach that I offer, therefore, is intended to provide an institutional assessment of learning community programs and, as far as possible, to compare results with those in more traditional course offerings. The execution of such a study is fairly basic-one that is more dependent upon asking good questions than on employing sophisticated research methodology. It does require knowledge of your college's student database, a minimum of 80 hours of staff or faculty time for a project of limited scope, and collaboration with faculty members who teach in learning communities.

         We found the uses of the study to be more varied than expected. It provided quantitative data about our learning community programs to key administrators. It also made learning communities more visible on our campus and resulted in gaining a more prominent place for interdisciplinary approaches to the curriculum in our strategic plan. It justified the expenditure of funds to design a more appropriate classroom space for coordinated studies. In addition, it led to the appointment of a part-time coordinator of learning communities. Because the results reinforced the value of curricular change, several members of the faculty distributed the study when they made presentations about learning communities at colleges and universities around the country.

         Our study explored student retention, student performance, student development, and faculty/student ratios. As indicated in the discussion that follows, several different sources of information were used.

         Student Retention. Do learning communities retain students to the end of the quarter more effectively than traditional courses? Do learning communities increase student's persistence in their studies from one quarter to the next and their commitment to completing degrees or certificates at the college? What percentage of students completed the program? What percentage withdrew or received incompletes? How does this data compare to retention in traditional courses? To general patterns of retention at the college? On average, how many quarters are students who take coordinated studies for one or more terms enrolled at the college? What percentage completed degrees at the college?

         The primary source that we used for course retention data was comparison of 10th day class lists with final grade rosters. With this information, we could compare retention in coordinated studies to that in traditional classes. We also were able to access the student database to track persistence. Through our student management information system, we also used student identification numbers to identify a cohort of nearly 500 students who were enrolled in coordinated studies. Then we were able to track their enrollment at the college for the quarter immediately following participation in coordinated studies, repeated registrations in coordinated studies, their average number of quarters spent at the college, and their graduation. (see Appendix I for examples of retention statistics we gathered.)

         Because we are ill-prepared in Washington state to track the rate of transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges and universities, we did not track progress toward the baccalaureate degree. However, by using end-of-term enrollment records and grade reports that are sent to the community colleges by the public four-year institutions in our state, we have the capability of tracking the transfer performance of selected students. Although our study did not do so, we could develop a control and an experimental group to compare those who were enrolled in learning communities at our college with those who were not.

         Student Performance. Although many educators will argue that grades are not a true indicator of student learning, we nonetheless rely on grades as the measure of performance in most of our colleges. Analysis of grade rosters and transcripts can provide information about student patterns of performance.

         How does student performance as measured by grades earned in learning communities compare to student performance in traditional course offerings? What percentage "succeed" by earning grades of 1.5 (C-) or higher? What is the average GPA earned in the program? What is the average cumulative GPA of students in the program? How do these grade averages compare to those of students in traditional courses? Do students' records show any patterns of course work taken before or after coordinated studies? What percentage of students take courses in pre-college level English and mathematics to make up skill deficiencies prior to enrolling in learning communities? How does their performance compare to those not required to make up deficiencies? (see Appendix II for examples of grading and persistence statistics we gathered.)

         In looking at overall student performance patterns, we quickly noted a difference in the final grades received in learning communities based upon whether or not the student had completed English 101, basic composition, prior to enrollment in the learning communities program. We found that those who completed English 101 prior to taking coordinated studies earned significantly higher grades in the learning communities program. In reviewing the dropout and non-completers, we found that 77 percent of those who did not earn credit in coordinated studies had not taken English 101 prior to enrollment in the program. Even those who took English 101 as part of the learning community did not fare as well as those who took the course in advance. This has been a concern to many faculty and has led to a new 10-credit coordinated studies program titled "Beginnings." It is designed for the first-term student who needs to focus on writing skills.

         Other questions pertaining to whether or not students gain skills and knowledge that faculty consider basic to a discipline and the extent to which this curricular approach promotes critical thinking were not attempted in our study. However, the outcome assessment projects being carried on in community colleges throughout Washington make it feasible to do so. Possibilities could include exit exams, the analysis of student portfolios of writing, and pre/post assessments.

         Student Development. How do students respond to their experiences in learning communities? Does the emphasis on participation affect their self-images as learners? Is the learning community a difficult setting for some students? Measuring students' cognitive gains is, as William Perry and numerous followers have shown, a complex task. In our study, we found that pre- and post-assessment measures can be used in drawing some conclusions about the student development that occurs in coordinated studies. We examined a pre- and post-self-evaluation questionnaire administered in one program and with it demonstrated qualitatively some apparent changes in students' perceptions of their own and faculty roles.

         Since so many faculty are employing self-assessment measures in their courses, the development of a pre- and post-assessment measure to be consistently used in courses throughout the college would be worthwhile and not difficult. A common instrument would give us a database with which to look for patterns in students' attitudes about learning and to generalize about changes that occur. In fact, a few of our faculty used James C. McCroskey's Personal Report of Communication Apprehension as well as the Perry Scheme's Measure of Intellectual Development as pre- and post-instruments to measure students' affective and intellectual gains. In these pre- and post-assessments, students revealed remarkable positive changes in attitude about themselves as learners. This area of questioning holds great promise for discoveries about the learning process as we research coordinated studies programs.

         Faculty/Student Ratios. Key questions for instructional administrators typically are: How does a curricular change such as the introduction of learning communities affect teaching loads? To what extent do learning communities reduce available sections in high demand introductory courses? In short, what is the true cost to the institution? Can we afford it?

         Because of a perception that faculty in coordinated studies may not be carrying their fair share of student FTE, we relied upon a state annualized teaching report (IS 4106A) that, using a state-generated formula, shows the student-faculty ratio for each faculty member. Another method is, of course, a simple tabulation of faculty's annual enrollment. What we discovered was that the faculty who elect to teach in learning communities are those who consistently generate high enrollments in their courses. Despite lower FTE's during the quarter that they teach coordinated studies, they still produce higher than average annualized student-faculty ratios.

         This methodology is only an initial step toward assessment of the cost to the institution. It should prompt questions like: How are faculty costs offset by improved student retention in collaborative programs?

         Gathering and Analyzing the Data. Since only a few of our colleges have research offices to assume responsibility for such an ambitious project as I am suggesting, most will need to consider some other major questions. Who will do the study? How much time will it take? Will it be an ongoing responsibility? How will the results be disseminated? Will the report effect change? It is a project that can be undertaken by a staff or faculty member who has a minimum of 80 hours to devote to gathering and analyzing data, familiarity with the student database and state reports, and a working relationship with faculty who teach in learning communities. Their involvement is crucial, particularly in measurement of student development. As a research study, this approach may seem basic and rather obvious. However, reports on institutional research are all too often so complex and detailed that we lose sight of what is being measured. I would argue for clear, straightforward studies that answer faculty and administrators' questions and that demonstrate precise reporting.

Appendix I:
Tracking Comparative Student Outcomes
in Coordinated Studies

North Seattle Community College

Course Retention: Fall 1986 - Winter 1989

Student Retention: Fall 1988, Fall 1989, Winter 1990

Students Enrolled 4 Quarters or More

Appendix II:
Examples of Outcomes in Coordinated Studies
North Seattle Community College

back to the Table of Contents