First Look: Counseling-Enhanced Developmental Learning Communities

Maureen Pettitt, Ph.D.

Skagit Valley College, WA AIR 2008 – Seattle, WA

You are here!

Session Topics

 Learning Communities at SVC  Developmental Learning Communities  Research and Data  Project Overview   Planning, Goals, Integrated Assignment Example  Research Design  Results to Date  Implications for Research & Practice

Learning Communities at SVC

 Curricular Learning Communities have been offered at Skagit since 1986 and required for the transfer degree since 1993  Not initially about retention but fostering student learning: a means of delivering instruction to help students see connections between and among disciplines (vs a “smorgasbord” approach to General Education requirements)  Approximately 50 LCs are offered at SVC each year, about half fully collaborative

Current Gen Ed Integration Learning Outcomes

Students will be able to…  Identify the strengths and limitations of different fields of study.

  Identify and evaluate the relationships among different perspectives within a field of study or among different fields of study.

Integrate concepts and analytical frameworks from multiple perspectives to develop one or more of the following: more comprehensive descriptions, multi-causal explanations, new interpretations, or deeper explorations of issues.

 Analyze and reflect upon insights gained from integrating multiple perspectives in a purposeful project or experience.

Learning Communities at SVC

 Fully Collaborative 

Feast or Famine

(Nutrition and Sociology) 

Sex.comm

(Human Sexuality and Mass Communication) 

Stating the Matter

(Chemistry and English Composition)  Developmental (federated, co-enrollment) 

Reading Between the Numbers

(developmental Math and Reading)

Learning Communities at SVC

 Federated 

Celluloid Science

- science majors enroll in an introductory film course and one of the courses required for their major , with the explicit purpose of exploring how films portray scientists, scientific practices, and concepts 

This, That, and the Other

- students co-enroll in a research paper course and one of several social science courses, with the goal of researching topics specific to their field of study

Background: Research and Data Related to Learning Communities

Research Literature: Tinto (1998)

 Lessons Learned  Making pedagogical choices: Different strategies for different needs  Making appropriate placement: Assessing student education needs  Lessons in Implementation  Using pilot programs  Building institutional support  Building faculty and staff involvement

Research Literature: Malnarich with others (2003)

“Students need to develop the abilities associated with ‘learning how to learn’ in multiple and varied contexts —a key learning goal of curriculum aimed at preparing students for college level work” (p. 27).

Research Literature: Malnarich with others (2003)

 Best Practices     Adopt an abilities-based developmental perspective in LCs and throughout the campus Target high-risk courses Integrate skill development with credit-bearing college-level courses Design a holistic program peer tutors – integrate academic and student support services; use

Data

 Numerous studies conducted at SVC over the past 20 years regarding impact (for an overview, see Dunlap & Pettitt, 2008)  CCSSE results in 2003, 2005 and 2007 validated the value of Learning Communities: students who took learning communities at SVC were significantly more likely to engage in activities that increase their time on task (and thus their chances for meeting their educational goals) as well as to assume responsibility for their learning.

CCSSE LC Question

   Stem: “Which of the following have you done, are you doing, or do you plan to do while attending this college ?” Category: “Organized learning communities (linked courses/study groups led by faculty or counselors)” 1.

Response Categories: I have done 2.

3.

I plan to do I have not done nor plan to do

Method

 Used T-test for independent samples to examine differences in effort and engagement between students who had taken Learning Communities and those who had not done nor planned to do.

 Results are for the latest survey administration (Spring 2007)

Findings

Prompt: “In your experiences at this college during the current school year, about how often have you done each of the following?” Responses range from 1 (“Never”) to 4 (“Very Often”)

Learning Community

Variable Have Taken (n = 173 ) Not Taken (n = 232) Sig.

Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions Made a class presentation 3.00

2.43

3.00

2.27

1.000

.069

Variable

Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources Worked with other students on projects during class Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.)

Learning Community

Have Taken (n = 173 ) Not Taken (n = 232)

2.96

3.14

2.88

2.49

2.87

2.45

2.75

2.69

2.10

2.69

Sig.

.000

.000

.021

.000

.038

Learning Community

Variable

Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor ’ s standards or expectations Used email to communicate with an instructor Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with instructors outside of class Worked with instructors on activities other than coursework

Have Taken (n = 173 )

2.78

Not Taken (n = 232)

2.52

3.10

2.76

2.11

1.74

2.67

2.58

1.88

1.45

Sig.

.003

.000

.039

.012

.000

CCSSE Benchmarks

  Five benchmarks - 38 engagement items that “reflect the most important aspects of the student experience” Rolling three year cohort (2005 – 2007)  Benchmark scores are   computed by averaging the scores on survey items that comprise the benchmark weighted for full-time/part-time attendance   standardized so that weighted mean scores across all students is 50 An institutions’ benchmark scores are computed by taking the weighted average of their students’ standardized scores.

CCSSE Benchmarks

60 58 58.3

56 54 52 50 49.7

53.0

50.1

53.7

50.1

48 46 44 Active & Collaborative Learning Student Effort SVC Academic Challenge Medium Colleges 56.6

49.9

Stu-Fac Interaction All Colleges 52.1

49.6

Support for Learners

Imperatives

 Approximately half of students new to the college test into developmental English  Nearly 90% test into developmental math  The “C or better” pass rate in developmental math (as a percent of students enrolled the 10 th day) averages 65%.

Counseling-Enhanced Developmental Learning Communities

Project Planning

 Summer 2007 meeting at The Washington Center for the Improvement of Undergraduate Education, sponsored by MDRC  Faculty and IR, joined by additional faculty and administrators for part of the time  Collaboratively 1) identified core pedagogical practices, 2) planned common counseling activities, and 3) identified key research components

SVC Learning Communities: Core Pedagogical Practices

1.

2.

3.

Value and build on students’ existing abilities and experiences. Create ongoing opportunities to collaboratively construct knowledge together in class.

Ensure active involvement in learning, i.e., solving problems, discussing ideas, writing, working on project teams.

Project Goals

1.

2.

3.

Expand our developmental Learning Community offerings to improve student success in Mathematics and English Integrate student services with instruction to increase collaboration and to enhance faculty advising skills Use a research model to inform project planning and measure success

Strengthening Collaboration

 Counseling and teaching faculty 

Collaboratively

design and teach developmental learning communities 

Collaboratively

assess our efforts frequently to measure student success and guide future ventures  Regular meeting with all LC teams to discuss successes and challenges

Counseling Component

 Four advising-related topics are integrated into the LC:  Time Management  Test preparation/test anxiety  Educational Planning  College Resources  Topics are integrated organically, based on the syllabus and student needs

Example

Reading Between the Numbers

 MATH 96 and READ 97  Integrative assignment topic = Time Management  Math, Reading, and Counseling faculty work collaboratively with students in this Learning Community on this assignment

Time Management Assignment

 Integration  Students combine their past experiences and mathematics principles to assess their current schedule. Instructor-selected reading provides them an opportunity to discover solutions and likely pitfalls. Students write a summary paper integrating these skills and knowledge.

Building on Core Practices

1.

Value and build on students’ existing abilities and experiences. Students use their own experience as a starting point with the questionnaire and will also use their past knowledge when reading the literature to appropriately choose solutions that will work for them.

Building on Core Practices

2. Create ongoing opportunities to collaboratively construct knowledge together in class.

3. Ensure active involvement in learning, i.e. solving problems, discussing ideas, writing, working on project teams.

The assignment involves learning through writing, small group work, solving problems, and discussions. It also has reflection components in the summary paper and the re-visit later in the quarter. Their work is made “public.”

Continuous Improvement

 Fall and Winter teams met mid-quarter to discuss progress and make adjustments  Debriefing sessions held at the end of each quarter with all participating faculty to identify successes and challenges, and to review data  Disseminate successful strategies and results with the college community through Center for Learning and Teaching

Research Design and Preliminary Results

Research Question

Does the addition of a counseling faculty member into the developmental learning community environment make a difference in student outcomes related to the course and in their future educational efforts?

Independent Variable: Course Pedagogy

 Nine developmental learning communities offered in 2007-08, divided into two groups:   Group I = counseling-enhanced developmental learning communities Group II = “regular” (non-counseling-enhanced) developmental learning communities  Group III = selected, comparable stand alone developmental education courses



Dependent Variable: Student Achievement

The dependent variable in this study is student achievement, measured using the following factors: 1. Student success in the core course(s) 2. Student retention from quarter to quarter 3. Student success in subsequent core course sequence 4. Student persistence to degree or certificate

Demographic Variables

 Age  Ethnicity  Gender  First generation  Prior education level  Work status  Family status  Ed Intent  Program (Major)  GPA (entry and progress)  College credits completed at time of entry  Full-time vs. part-time status  Year of high school graduation  Placement test scores

Demographics

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Fe m al e W hi te Tr an sf er In te W nt or kf or ce In te nt

C-E LC LC StandAlone

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Demographics

C-E LC LC StandAlone

Percent of Students Enrolled at 10 th day Who Earned a C or Better MATH 96 READ 97 MATH 96 ENGL 07 MATH 97 SPCH 100 MATH 96 MATH 97 ENGL 97

Counseling Enhanced Developmental LCs Developmental LC Stand Alone Courses

47% 59% 52% 67% 56% 60% 55% 64% 54%

Fall to Winter Retention

Stand Alone Dev LC C-E Dev LC 70% 74% 76% 75% 80% 82% 85%

Washington State Student Achievement Initiative

 Student Achievement Database – help colleges track their students for the incremental gains they make during the year in the following areas:       gains made in basic skills courses (multiple points possible) completing a pre-college math or English course (multiple points possible) earning first 15 college level credits earning 1st 30 college level credits earning 1st 5 credits in college level math, and earning a certificate, degree or apprenticeship award

Washington State Student Achievement Initiative

 Gains are termed “momentum points” because they add momentum to a student’s longer term success  Colleges are measures against their own “baseline” data rather than with other colleges  points gained could be impacted by total enrollments, the ratio of part-time/full-time students, and the mix of student educational goals

Fall 2007 Cohort Achievement Points – Fall & Winter

(A784P less A781 Final) Cohort Count Students Earning Points Percent Earning Points Total Points Average Points per Student Counselor Enhanced Dev LC 38 28 74% 73 1.92

Dev LC 25 Stand Alone 90 21 65 84% 72% 53 156 2.12

1.73

Other Study Elements

 Faculty Logs    Topic/Activity/Assignment/Course Prep Time allocated What went well? What would you do differently?

 Faculty Feedback Surveys  Discussed next  Student Surveys  In process, but not completed

Faculty Feedback – Confidential Web-Based Survey

Strengths

 Having the counselor in the classroom:  really enhanced the connections made in the classroom and improved the interaction and dynamic for discussions and lectures  gave an interesting air to the class  provided a different voice, a richness to skills development

Faculty Feedback – Confidential Web-Based Survey

Challenges

 TIME!  Reduced time to finish instruction in mathematics  Finding time (or the right time) to fit in the counseling modules

Faculty Feedback – Confidential Web-Based Survey

Recommendations

 I would:     allow for at least one scheduled hour for the counselors to use each week access the students’ placement scores before the LC for discussion with other faculty work more closely with the counselor prior to the start of the LC to develop content-specific applications of study skills materials schedule a weekly time to meet

“Some of the students were so ill-prepared for college on so many levels that it is hard to imagine that they would have made it otherwise.”

Implications for Practice & Research

 Non-counseling-enhanced LC had best showing on grades and momentum points — higher level students?

 Highest retention rate for students in counseling-enhanced developmental learning communities —we plan to follow students into subsequent terms to track persistence  Need larger N and additional analyses based on educational experience brought to course  High retention rate was enough for the college to commit to CE Dev LC program in 2008-09

And speaking of time management…

 Thanks to The Washington Center for the Improvement of Undergraduate Education at The Evergreen State College (WA) and to MDRC for their continuing support of Skagit’s faculty and administrators in our quest to continuously improve student success through Learning Communities

References

 Dunlap, L., & Pettitt, M (2008). “Assessing Student Outcomes in Learning Communities: Two Decades of Studies at a Community College.”

Journal of Applied Research in the Community College

, 15(2).

 Malnarich, G., et al. (2003).

The Pedagogy of Possibilities: Developmental Education, College Level Studies, and Learning Communities.

NLCP Monograph Series. Olympia, WA: The Evergreen State College.

 Tinto, V. (January, 1998).

Higher Education.

Learning Communities and the Reconstruction of Remedial Education in

Paper presented at the conference on Replacing Remediation in Higher Education, Palo Alto, CA.