acknowledgements - ben.edu web viewi thank dr. sunil chand, ... i would have to say one word, ......
TRANSCRIPT
A Case Study of an Interdisciplinary Social Pedagogy Practice at an Urban Community College
A dissertation submitted
byMichele Cuomo
toBenedictine University
in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education In
Higher Education and Organizational Change
This dissertation has been accepted for the facultyof Benedictine University
___________________________ Tamara Korenman, Ph.D____ ___________Dissertation Committee Director Date
___________________________ Eileen Kolich, Ph.D._______ ___________Dissertation Committee Chair Date
___________________________ Camille Dickson-Deane, Ph.D. ___________Dissertation Committee Reader Date
___________________________ Sunil Chand, Ph.D. ___________Program Director, Faculty . Date
____________________________ Ethel Ragland, Ed.D., M.N.R.N. ____________ Dean, College of Education and Health Services Date
Copyright by Michele Cuomo 2017All rights reserved.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to my dissertation committee members: Dr. Tamara Korenman, Dr. Eileen Kolich and Dr. Camille Dickson-Deane for their guidance and encouragement. I thank Dr. Sunil Chand, program director. I thank Dr. Tia McNair of the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Thank you to Paul Sanders, my partner. I thank my family: Leo F. Cuomo, Lucia Gibson, Philip Cuomo, Maureen Porter, Lisa Gabel, Sydney Gabel, Claudia Gabel, Leo Cuomo, Lorenzo Cuomo and Yolanda Cuomo. I thank Geralyn Marchisello and Anida Pobric.
Thank you Dr. Vicki Bastecki-Perez, Dr. Lianne Hartman, Dr. Aaron Shatzman, Ayisha Sereni, Nancy Atkinson, Dr. Paul Marchese, Dr. Sandra Palmer, Carol Imandt, Susan Madera, Dr. Victor Fichera, Dr. Kiki Byas, Jillian Abbott, Alisa Cercone, Dr. Kathleen Wentrack, Barbara Lynch, Anita Ferdenzi, Joan Dupre, Regina Rochford, Georgina Collalillo, Jean Darcy.
I thank the faculty participants
Thank you to Faith Green for transcribing the interviews. I thank Barbara Auris for serving as peer debriefer, and for all her encouragement. I thank Dr. Asher Beckwitt and Heather McCambly for providing support with NVivo and qualitative research methodology.
iii
DEDICATION
Dedicated to the memory of Marie Victoria Masi Cuomo.I hope I make you proud, Mom.
To my father, Leo F. Cuomo, who taught me to keep social justice in mind.
iv
The teacher is of course an artist, but being an artist does not mean that he or she can make the profile, can shape the students. What the educator does in teaching is to make it possible for the students to become themselves.
― Paulo Freire in We Make The Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change (Horton, 1990).
v
PREFACE
I began teaching in an open access urban community college in 2004. After nine
previous years of teaching at the college level, I spent my first years as a community
college faculty member rethinking all of my teaching strategies for my students to engage
and meet expected learning outcomes. There was a range of student preparedness and a
higher level of importance students placed on their conflicting commitments to their
family, community, and work than to their identities as students. I encountered these
phenomena as barriers to their success as students and mine as an educator. Fortunately,
my institution had many opportunities for faculty development and supported my quest to
be an effective teacher.
When I became a college administrator at the same institution, I led high-impact
strategies initiatives, determining which promising practices would support student
success efforts. An initiative led by a small group of faculty members undergoing
development in ePortfolio pedagogy, an electronic personal student webpage that
archives student work for long-term observation of growth, came to my attention. The
initiative provided a student-centered learning experience through an online learning
environment. For two semesters, my students became part of this learning group. The
student sense of engagement was notable, and my involvement in this pedagogy changed
my teaching and sense of myself as a teacher. I began to provide a more consciously
student-centered approach where peer-to-peer learning
vi
could occur and incorporated more reflection prompts into my lessons. Moreover, I
joined forces with the institutional research department to determine which approaches
within the overall student success initiative demonstrated improved retention and
graduation rates.
The success and retention data for the initiative were especially promising.
However, no one studied the impact of the initiative on the faculty and how the
development they received through a national development program had changed their
teaching and the way they viewed their roles as faculty members. The success data did
not capture the actual activity that led to greater student success either. This dissertation
is an attempt to explore the faculty experience for those who participated, as well as to
understand the impact of the activity itself on the students and the college community.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................iii
PREFACE...........................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................xii
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................xiii
CHAPTER 1: SETTING THE STAGE...............................................................................1
History and Context.................................................................................................1
High Impact Classroom Strategies..........................................................................4
Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities.....................................................5
Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................6
Purpose and Questions.............................................................................................7
Significance.............................................................................................................7
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................9
Community College Faculty and Faculty Development.........................................9
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning...........................................................12
High Impact and Highly Engaging Practices.........................................................13
Student Success and Engagement..........................................................................14
Contributing Educational Theories........................................................................15
Summary................................................................................................................24
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY...................................................................................26
Conceptual Framework..........................................................................................27
viii
Data Collection......................................................................................................28
Data Analysis.........................................................................................................29
Researcher Role and Biases...................................................................................32
Trustworthiness and Ethical Considerations.........................................................32
Limitations.............................................................................................................34
Conclusion.............................................................................................................35
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS...............................................................................................36
The Participants.....................................................................................................37
Callie...........................................................................................................38
Romy...........................................................................................................38
Jane..............................................................................................................39
Rita..............................................................................................................39
Theme 1: Institutional Support Evolution.............................................................40
Background.................................................................................................40
Origins – 2004-2009...................................................................................42
Freshman Academies – 2009-2013.............................................................42
The Academies 2013-2015.........................................................................43
New Leadership 2015-2016........................................................................44
Theme 2: Faculty in a Community of Practice......................................................46
Faculty Mentorship.....................................................................................46
Faculty Participating in Multiple High Impact Practices............................47
ix
Faculty Participation and the Question of Time.........................................48
Authentic Assessment.................................................................................50
Faculty Mirroring Student Experience........................................................51
Teaching Transformed Beyond IVLC........................................................53
Theme 3: Students Experiencing Social Pedagogy...............................................54
Student Authority- Represent Knowledge for an Authentic Audience.......55
Audience and Student Authority: Structure Provided Through Authenticity
and Difficulty..............................................................................................56
Culture and the Self – An Integrated Sense of Personal and Intellectual
Significance.................................................................................................58
Resistance Transformed into Engagement – Connecting the Cognitive and
the Affective................................................................................................62
Summary................................................................................................................64
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION............................................................................................66
Overview of Study.................................................................................................66
Discussion of Findings in Relationship to the Literature......................................67
Institutional Support Evolution...................................................................67
Faculty Community of Practice..................................................................69
Students Experiencing Social Pedagogy.....................................................70
Implications for Practice and Policy......................................................................73
An Ecosystem for Teaching and Learning..................................................75
x
Threshold to an Academic Identity for a Community College Student......78
Implications for Community Colleges........................................................81
For Further Study...................................................................................................84
Conclusion.............................................................................................................85
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................87
APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT QUESTIONS................................................................98
APPENDIX B: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL............................101
APPENDIX C: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH CERTIFICATION...............103
APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT FORM...........................................................105
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Social pedagogies: Design elements and goals..................................................23
Figure 2. An ecosystem of teaching and learning..............................................................78
xii
ABSTRACT
A new culture of learning enabled by technology and collective social media
practices has emerged in the 21st century along with the identification of high impact
practices for student engagement. Technology-enabled modalities have required a
response from faculty across higher education. Faculty development has become very
important to the faculty experience in order for college students to experience the
potential of new social pedagogies. Community college faculty members are in the
sector of higher education where strong teaching is most required. Community college
faculty, however, are the least studied faculty group in a sector which has unique
characteristics and a mission to assist an underserved population. Three themes emerged
from the study: institutional support evolution, faculty in a community of practice and
students experiencing social pedagogy. The uncovering of these themes generated two
theories: an ecosystem for teaching and learning and a threshold to an academic identity
for a college student.
A greater understanding of the successes and limitations of an initiative that
thoughtfully employed technology-based learning has the potential to support the
community college mission of open access and equity, and move toward the notion of
learner centered student success. A case study of an initiative viewed through the lens of
social pedagogy exploring the structures of a supporting institution and the lived
experiences of community college faculty members who participated in it, has the
xiii
potential to shed light on the role of faculty development and innovative classroom
teaching on student success.
xiv
CHAPTER 1: SETTING THE STAGE
History and Context
Community colleges first emerged at the end of the 18th century in response to a
gap between teaching at the secondary education level and requisites for college study
(Hirt, 2006, p. 136). The need for vocational training increased due to industrial
expansion in the 19th century. Emerging technologies in that century also enabled an
extension of adolescence for more social classes, allowing the general population to stay
in school longer (Sydow & Alfred, 2013, p. 12). Escalating enrollment at community
colleges led to expanding workloads for college faculty and staff (Hirt, 2006, p. 138). As
higher education became a more common expectation in the United States, the
community college mission to educate members of the community meant that colleges
increasingly spent their resources on remedial education and promoting college readiness
(Hirt, 2006, p. 142). Beach (2011) notes that about half of all first-time college students
enroll in community colleges. Although community college students tend to declare
aspirations towards bachelor’s degrees, graduation rates hover at 10–15%. Attainment of
any degree (associate or bachelor’s) is 34% in eight years for students who begin at
community colleges (Sydow & Alfred, 2013). Most students at community colleges come
from the bottom half of their high school classes and a greater percentage of community
college students receive financial aid than do their four-year counterparts (Hirt, 2006, p.
144). A discussion of an urban community college must take into account that students
1
in these institutions are more racially diverse and economically challenged than those
students in suburban community colleges (Beach, 2011).
Community college faculty members share distinctive characteristics that set them
apart from faculty colleagues at other higher education institutions (Hirt, 2006, p. 142).
Community colleges hire a disproportionate number of contingent (part-time or
substitute) faculty and more women and minorities than other institutions (Beach, 2011).
Sydow and Alfred (2013) describe part-time faculty as the “new majority” of community
college faculty (p. 81). Only 16% of community college faculty holds a terminal degree
(Hirt, 2006, p. 142). Community college faculty members spend 72% of their time
teaching as compared to 40% percent of time spent on instruction by other higher
education faculty. (Hirt, 2006, p. 143).
Fullan and Scott (2009) describe a “new agenda” in higher education (p. 43).
New expectations around teaching and learning are occurring alongside the need for
increased accountability. While full-time faculty members assume increased
departmental and institutional responsibility, the majority of the faculty are contingent
and therefore do not have the same level of commitment or requirements to maintain
employment (Sydow & Alfred, 2013).
Bass (2012) identifies a practice he terms “social pedagogy” to describe collective
learning that occurs in technology-enabled classrooms. Technology-based instruction
effectively encourages a student participatory culture and provides student-centered and
inquiry-based learning. However, technology-based instruction has the potential to
further the opportunity gap for underprepared students in some cases. Therefore, the
2
development of technology-based instruction that supports the most vulnerable college
students is a critical opportunity.
Boyer (1997) supports a broad interpretation of faculty scholarship to further a
more coherent curriculum to encourage student learning (p. 2). Robert Zemsky claims
faculty discussions “haven’t been, for a very long time, about the learning process”
(Goral, 2013, p. 12). Zemsky suggests that administrative change on the national through
the local levels lead faculty to prefer to wait out innovation, muting the drive for change
in higher education (Goral, 2013). McFarland (2011) notes the lack of discussion of
faculty as leaders. McFarland’s findings conclude that faculty members believe there is a
lack of alignment between the administrative priorities and their own, and in the under-
utilization of faculty expertise. Some qualities identified by McFarland propose the role
of a professor as an intellectual leader: role model, mentor, advocate, guardian,
acquisitor, and ambassador. New managerialism and performative expectations are
reshaping the role of the professoriate, and institutions need to do more to develop their
leadership capacity.
Community college faculty members are the least studied faculty group in higher
education (Goldrick-Rab, 2010). According to Dr. Susan Albertine, Vice President of the
Office of Student Diversity, Equity, and Success at the Association of American Colleges
and Universities (AAC&U), learner-centered student success initiatives must have faculty
participation when considering student needs (personal communication, March 23, 2012).
An exploration of the lived experiences of community college faculty members who
implemented a successful innovation has the potential to uncover the factors that led to
3
success and replicate those efforts. This exploration would support the community
college mission of open access and equity.
Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011) note that case studies provide a unique research
approach due to the inherent “holistic understanding of a problem, issue, or phenomenon
within its social context” (p. 256). Hesse-Biber and Leavy also observe that a holistic
understanding promotes social justice. A deeper understanding of the unique profession
of community college faculty can further the trend toward social equity, which birthed
the community college movement (Hirt, 2006, p. 138).
High Impact Classroom Strategies
The Association of American Colleges and Universities identifies a series of
higher education classroom strategies as high impact, such as learning communities,
service learning, and writing intensive courses (Kuh, 2008). These practices engage and
retain academically underprepared and historically underserved students (Finley &
McNair, 2013; Kuh, 2008).
An urban community college (hereafter, “UCC”) developed a freshman academy
protocol in 2009, to measure the impact of the introduction of a series of academic and
student service interventions, including high impact practices (Fichera, 2012). The
protocol included the provision of a dedicated institutional researcher. The researcher
tracked the progress of students in the “Freshman Academies,” a new structure within the
college. The Freshman Academies provided additional academic and advisement support
for the first 30 credits of the student’s experience. The protocol demonstrated significant
retention and success rates for students who participated in Interdisciplinary Virtual
Learning Communities (IVLC), which employs interdisciplinary social pedagogy across
4
classrooms in asynchronous, virtual learning communities (Fichera, 2012). Traditional
learning communities, service learning, and writing intensive classes also offered as high-
impact practices as part of the Freshman Academies had less significant results in its
success data for these strategies (Fichera, 2012).
The Freshman Academies initiative incorporated academic and student support
interventions and targeted first-year students. All first-time, full-time students entered
into an academy based on a major program of study and engaged in two high-impact
practices within their first 30 credits (Fichera, 2012). The institution awarded stipends to
faculty members who participated in faculty development and high- impact practice
design. Because of this initiative, the AAC&U named the college as one of 12
community colleges invited to participate in the two-year project, “Developing a
Community College Roadmap” in 2011. This initiative supported the campus through
faculty and staff development. In 2009, five UCC faculty members participated in a
national grant initiative hosted by another community college in support of ePortfolio
pedagogy. The work in Making Connections, led to an invitation for UCC to be part of
the “Learning Connection” Project.
Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities
Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities (hereafter, IVLC) comprise UCC
faculty, many of whom participated in the “Learning Connection” national faculty
development program, supported by a national grant. The original group of five faculty
members involved in the Learning Connection program responded to the faculty
development that they received and developed the IVLC project. This group of five
5
faculty members grew to a cohort of 16. A group of faculty continues to practice IVLC
through fall 2016.
UCC’s IVLC integrates English and basic educational skills courses with an
additional content course in art history, education, nursing, sociology, speech
communication, and theater. The online, shared, student-centered space allows students
to archive and share their research and written, visual, and aural compositions with
others. Each discipline responds with different assignments to support learning across
classrooms; students’ works produced in composition classes serve as texts for content
classes. The cross-disciplinary sharing and reflective exercises that accompany the
assignments leads to a final product of digital storytelling based on personal narrative
(Darcy & Cuomo, 2010; Kuh, O’Donnell, & Reed, 2013).
A learning management system called Epsilen first enabled the interdisciplinary,
cross-classroom sharing in IVLC. Epsilen included tools for the provision of ePortfolio,
wikis, and online discussion forums. Currently, IVLC uses Blackboard Collaborate as its
learning management product (participant interview).
Statement of the Problem
The challenge of the open access mission of community colleges require those
institutions to provide widespread opportunities while promoting success. Gonzales
(2011) notes, "For the first time in U.S. history, the current generation of college-age
Americans will be less educated than their parents' generation, yet our workplaces require
higher-level skills than ever before." Faculty in United States higher education,
particularly in community colleges, employ social and interdisciplinary pedagogies in
their classrooms to best engage their students (Bass, 2012; Dawson, Mighty, & Britnell,
6
2010). Goldrick-Rab (2010) states, "We know too little about what works" when it comes
to the teaching and learning of community college students (p. 449). Fichera (2012)
observes a successful student initiative at UCC but does not explore why or how the
intervention supported student learning. This study of the faculty involved in the project
is an exploration of the leadership by faculty to promote student learning at an urban
community college.
Purpose and Questions
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the experiences of four faculty
members’ engagement in Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities within an
urban community college environment in the United States. Three research questions
guided this study:
1. How did the institution’s position on student success influence faculty’s ability to
implement innovations?
2. What were the lived experiences of faculty who participated in Interdisciplinary
Virtual Learning Communities?
3. What were the elements of Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities that
led to desirable student outcomes?
Significance
The results of uncovering the experiences of community college faculty
participants engaging in social pedagogy in their classrooms hold the potential to support
practices and policies to promote student success. The opportunity for further analysis
grows as the academic community learns more about the process of community college
7
faculty's experiences, the resulting student outcomes, and the influence of and to the
larger institutional environment. This research is meaningful in its potential to support
institutional understanding of technology-enabled pedagogy and its most effective
aspects.
8
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review encompasses studies on community college faculty and
faculty development, and the scholarship of teaching and learning, to place an
examination of a particular community college and the lived experiences of its faculty in
context. It also reviews student success and engagement literature, as well as high impact
and highly engaging practices to situate Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities
(IVLC) in that body of work. Finally, it lays out educational theories throughout the last
century and this one, which lead to a model of social pedagogy that serves as a theoretical
model for a study of four faculty members engaging in the practice of IVLC at an urban
community college campus.
Community College Faculty and Faculty Development
Hanson and Amelotte (2013) note the implied assumption in the routine practice
of hiring faculty members without a background in the study of teaching suggests that
education and curriculum do not require rigorous thought or analysis. After a three-year
curriculum reform effort, Hanson and Amelotte state the limitations of this worldview
and the changing mission of community colleges, from the original first two years of
liberal arts college to comprehensive institutions offering both transfer and terminal
degree options inhibited the effectiveness of the faculty to make impactful change.
The Gaining Retention and Achievement for Students Program (GRASP) offered
semester-long faculty development on strategies for student success (Perez, McShannon,
& Hynes, 2012). The GRASP model implemented at Dona Ana Community College in
9
New Mexico, experienced positive results in overall success and retention (Perez et al.,
2012).
Fugate and Amey's (2000) qualitative study of community college faculty in early
career stages responds to the lack of understanding of the paths and expectations of
community college faculty, despite the common belief that the strength of community
colleges is the faculty. A historical view of the literature on community college can
illustrate changing perceptions about the profession. In the 1950s, community college
faculty members had often been high school teachers who wanted to leave the public
school system (Fugate & Amey, 2000, p. 1). Most surveys of community college faculty
use national survey data, instruments modeled on four-year institutions or disciplinary
specific models, rather than observing community college faculty as a distinct group
(Fugate & Amey, 2000, p. 1). Faculty members consider faculty development
significant, as it includes active participation in not only an important orientation but also
ongoing seminars and interactions with the teaching and learning centers of campus
(Fugate & Amey, 2000). Faculty members deem it necessary to pursue faculty
development as their education has not prepared them for the task of teaching in a
community college classroom (Fugate & Amey, 2000, p. 13). Faculty members fear
burnout, as well as the challenges of facing new generations of students and how best to
reach them in an open access environment (Fugate & Amey, 2000, p. 11). They
distinguished their role from that of four-year university faculty in that they see a need to
provide not only the classroom content but also the tools students needed to learn (Fugate
& Amey, 2000, p. 13). One faculty member became very interested in instruction and
wished to take education classes. However, the faculty member was in pursuit of a
10
doctorate and had to advocate vigorously with the doctoral committee to do so (Fugate &
Amey, 2000, p. 12).
Twombly and Townsend (2008) observe the lack of research regarding
community college faculty and link it directly to transfer concerns:
Knowing about faculty members who instruct community college courses is
important because a lack of knowledge about them often results in the reluctance
of 4-year college faculty members to accept community college courses and in
their disinterest in admitting 2-year college transfer students (p. 3).
Jackson, Stebelton and Santos Laanan (2013) conduct a qualitative study that explores
the lived experiences of community college faculty involved in a learning community
program. The study indicates faculty found participation heightened empathy for their
students, positive relationship building, greater commitment to the institution, and
expanded views of their roles as educators (p. 12). These findings imply participation in
alternative methods of educational delivery have positive outcomes that can support
institutional health and stronger faculty-student relationships (Jackson et al., 2013, p. 13).
Goldrick-Rab (2010) claims there is a lack of resources devoted to the investment
of significant faculty development. Goldrick-Rab (2010) also notes the insufficient study
of community college faculty as detrimental to student outcomes. Goldrick-Rab (2010)
observes the omission as:
Remarkable…especially given that some of the conditions under which these
faculty members work, including a reliance on adjunct faculty, a lack of
11
professional development opportunities and shortages in key fields have been
linked, at least via correlational studies with student outcomes. (p. 449)
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Despite the lack of observation of community college faculty, there is a body of
literature regarding the importance of faculty development and the pivotal role faculty
development coordinators and directors serve when considering student success in higher
education (Angelo, 2008; Dawson et al., 2010; Huber & Hutchings, 2005). There is also
literature on the value of faculty learning communities of practice (Cox, 2004; Feldman
& Paulsen, 1998; Feldman & Paulsen, 1999; Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Dawson et al. (2010) discuss the changing role of the faculty in an “age of the
network,” in which student-centered learning is rapidly becoming a desirable mode of
educational delivery (p. 70). Emerging technologies require pedagogical development
across all disciplines to introduce future faculty to the most effective methods for student-
centered learning and integrated learning (Gumport & Chun, 2005; Huber & Hutchings,
2005).
Fullan and Scott (2009) examine several course experience questionnaire
(CEQuery) analysis studies that surveyed students' responses to their learning
environments and emerged with a set of key findings. Fullan and Scott determine the
whole experience "shapes productive learning, not just what happens in the traditional
classroom," (p. 56) as well as that, "Learning is a profoundly social experience," and
"Learning is not teaching" (p. 57). Furthermore, Fullan and Scott (2009) argue self-
managed learning, multiple designs for learning, and faculty development are all
12
requisites in a developmental culture that responds to student learning and continues to
sustain faculty engagement and a sense of meaning.
High Impact and Highly Engaging Practices
From observations of superior college teachers, Bain (2011) claims the best
teachers create a natural critical learning environment, attract and keep student attention,
begin with the individual rather than discipline, seek commitments, assist students with
learning outside of class, engage students in disciplinary thinking, and create diverse
learning experiences. From the student perspective, Kuh (2008) claims the effectiveness
of high-impact practices comprises the following: (a) students investing time and effort;
(b) interacting with faculty and peers about substantive matters; (c) experiencing
diversity; (d) responding to more frequent feedback (e) reflecting and integrating
learning, and (e) discovering the relevance of learning through real-world application.
The shift from an instructional to learning paradigm is what Bass (2012) calls a "post-
course era," indicating the formal curriculum no longer holds the place where the most
significant learning occurs.
Hart Associates (2015) conducted a study on institutional practices for student
equity and success. Hart Associates notes that although institutions who value high
impact practices have equity goals for retention and graduation, there are no goals set for
equity regarding learning outcomes of access to High Impact Practices. Finley and
McNair (2013) observe that the underserved students (as are the majority in the
participant college for this study) receive the most benefit from high impact practices. A
2014 study on high-impact faculty cultures (Laird, BrckaLorenz, Zilvisnskis, & Lambert,
13
2014) asserts that intentional hiring and faculty development are necessary to provide a
campus culture that values high impact practices.
Student Success and Engagement
Tinto's (1993) observation that student success requires the full integration of
students into a social and academic community led to national efforts to improve student
retention and persistence. By 2012, Tinto claims the failure of institutional action is due
to the lack of attention to classroom activity in student success efforts across the country.
Karp and Bork (2012) identify the lack of student understanding of expectations as a
barrier to student success. Gohn and Albin (2006) identify various barriers to the success
experienced by first-generation, historically underserved, and underprepared students.
Kuh's (2008) research, based on the National Survey of Student Engagement, determines
high-impact practices are most effective for these students, who comprise the majority of
students in community college settings. The faculty survey of student engagement notes
predicting emphasis on integrated learning does not substantially occur in lower division
courses, which comprise community college classes (Laird, 2012).
Ullah and Wilson (2007) also use data collected through the National Survey of
Student Engagement to examine students’ academic achievement. Using regression
analysis, Ullah and Wilson determine students' active involvement with learning
influence their academic achievement positively, as well as that a faculty-student
relationship was a significant influence on student success, whereas peer relationships are
dependent upon gender.
Micari and Pazos (2012) assert the importance of the student-faculty relationship
in the most challenging courses. Their study surveyed 113 undergraduates in six organic
14
chemistry courses to examine the connection between student-faculty relationships and
grade assigned, course confidence, and sense of science identity. In regression analyses,
student-faculty relationships positively predicted grades and confidence, but not science
identity (Micari & Pazos, 2012)
Contributing Educational Theories
Dewey’s Theory of Reflection
Darcy and Cuomo (2011) cite Dewey's (1934) theories of reflection as a model
for IVLC's process. Rogers (2002) distils Dewey's theories into four statements: that
reflection is a process of meaning-making that it is systematic and rigorous, that it
happens in a community and that it requires the attitude that values personal and
intellectual growth of self and others (p. 846).
Critical Incidents
IVLC interdisciplinary sharing anticipates the transformation of students’ thinking by a
critical incident. According to Fook and Cooper (2003), a critical incident might include:
an aspect of a project or group work that went particularly well;
an aspect of a project or group work that proved difficult;
a piece of work that was particularly demanding;
a piece of work which increased awareness, or challenged understanding, of
social justice issues; or
an incident involving conflict, hostility, aggression, or criticism.
Critical Theory
Among IVLC faculty members, there were those who identify themselves as
practitioners of critical pedagogy influenced by the work of Freire published in 1970
15
(Ferdenzi & Colallillo, 2013). According to these faculty members, IVLC practice
positions students as the authors of the texts read across the classrooms, thus empowering
students by positioning their personal narratives as academic documents worthy of study.
Students learn to question their assumptions and view their lives in the context of the
hegemonic culture, through peer-to-peer learning. Ferdenzi and Colallillo (2013) assert
the embedding of constructivist influence in the practice of IVLC.
Informed by the work of Freiere (1970), critical theorists question official
knowledge and propose the use of cooperation, unity, organization, and cultural synthesis
to ameliorate the dehumanizing process led by a faculty-student dichotomy. Critical
theory seeks to reflexively step outside of the dominant ideology (insofar as possible) to
create a space for resistive (counter-dominant) knowledge production that destabilizes
oppressive material and symbolic relations of dominance. Critical theorists seek to
access ‘subjugated knowledges’—the unique viewpoints of oppressed groups (p. 21).
Transformative Learning and Narrative Theory
Taylor (2008) sets forth transformative learning theory as that which explains the
“learning process of constructing and appropriating new and revised interpretations of the
meaning of an experience in the world” (p. 5). Transformative learning, as introduced by
Mezirow (1997), is an adult learning theory that revises frames of reference alongside
reflection to achieve a paradigm shift. In transformative learning, the perspective
becomes more inclusive, differentiating, permeable, critically reflective, and integrative
of experience (p. 6).
Transformative learning is an adult learning theory—or andragogy, as defined by
Knowles (1984)—where frames of reference are revised alongside reflection to achieve a
16
paradigm shift (Mezirow, 1997). In transformative learning, the perspective becomes
inclusive, differentiating, permeable, critically reflective, and integrative of experience
(Mezirow, 1997). Taylor (2008) defined transformative learning theory as that which
explains the “learning process of constructing and appropriating new and revised
interpretations of the meaning of an experience in the world” (p. 5). Transformational
learning is an enduring and irreversible process (Taylor, 2008). Critical reflection is
significant in the developmental process of transformational learning due to the
importance of a holistic approach that recognizes emotions and other ways of knowing,
as well as the necessity of observation regarding the lack of transformation in “non-
reflectors” (Taylor, 2008, p. 11). Most significantly, Taylor (2008) asserts,
Fostering transformative learning is much more than implementing a series of
instructional strategies with adult learners. Transformative learning is first and
foremost about educating from a particular worldview, a particular educational
society. It is also not an easy way to teach (p. 11).
Taylor (2008) moves beyond Mezirow's original theory, which holds a
psychoanalytic and psycho-developmental view and only analyzes the individual, to
suggest Freiere's (1970) socio-emancipatory view includes context and social change,
whereas transformational learning goes beyond the individual to a transformation of
society. Taylor (2008) indicated four additional views of transformative learning:
neurobiological, cultural-spiritual, race-centric, and planetary.
The neurobiological view illustrates the change in brain structure that occurs in
transformational learning. Its occurrence requires the following conditions: (a) discomfort
17
prior to discovery; (b) rooted in experiences, needs, and interests; (c) strengthened by
emotive, sensory, and kinesthetic experiences; (d) appreciates differences in learning
between genders; and (e) demands educators have an understanding of neurobiological
systems (Taylor, 2008). A cultural-spiritual viewpoint is one where the individual
focuses on how learners construct knowledge in narrative forms with a culturally relevant
and spiritually grounded approach (Taylor, 2008). The race-centric viewpoint is
particular to the experiences of African descendants and builds on a heritage where
traditional rites of passage and rituals were transformative (Taylor, 2008). Individuals
who seek to transform education as a whole hold the planetary view, away from
dysfunction and industrial values, and toward an interconnected perspective of the
universe, environment, human community, and personal world (Taylor, 2008).
The work of Clarke and Rossiter (2008) contextualizes Knowles' (1984)
andragogy theory by setting forth narrative theory, which by a life lived through more
diverse experiences, the adult learner draws upon a more complex personal story.
Narrative theory seems closer to lived experience than stage theory reflecting the way life
unfold and meaning making occurs. Clarke and Rossiter (2008) suggest that learning
journals, where students enter their reflections as they learn skills and knowledge,
concept-focused autobiographical writing, and instructional case studies all tap into the
rich experience of adult learners to bring their life experiences into their learning.
The empiricist and rationalist views, which separate the mind and body, while
viewing emotions and intuitions as “cloudy,” limit learning theory in its exclusive focus
on perception and observation skills, language development, and mathematical and
logical reasoning (Clarke & Rossiter, 2008). Despite social constructivism,
18
constructivism, and phenomenology having revealed the weaknesses of this limited view,
outdated assumptions do remain within organizational literature (Clarke & Rossiter,
2008).
Multiple Intelligences
Kezar (2005) reviews theories of multiple intelligences, social intelligence,
intuition, and creativity in an expanded view of learning organizations. Citing Gardner’s
(1983) theory of eight areas of intelligence, Kezar compares Gardner to Senge, Kleiner,
Roberts, Ross, Roth, and Smith’s (1999) challenge of western organizational
management. Kezar claims Sternberg observed analytical, practical, and creative
intelligences; Sternberg’s cross-cultural studies determined highly creative scorers come
from more ethnically and socioeconomically diverse groups (Kezar, 2005).
Interdisciplinarity
Moran (2010) examines the nature of interdisciplinarity and its engagement with
disciplinary learning, which has always had a relationship to knowledge and power of a
hierarchal nature (p. 2). Interdisciplinarity, however, “provides a democratic and
dynamic and co-operative alternative to the old-fashioned, inward-looking, and cliquish
nature of disciplines” (Moran, 2010, p. 3). Moreover, the American Association of
Colleges & Universities claim one of the “essential learning outcomes of higher
education” is “integrated and applied learning, including synthesis and advanced
accomplishment across general and specialized study,” “demonstrated through the
application of knowledge, skills, and responsibilities to new settings and complex
problems” (AAC&U, Essential). The positioning of integrative learning as a student-
19
learning outcome suggests interdisciplinary study can provide a necessary path to
exercise synthesis of knowledge.
Constructivism and Connectivism
The Epsilen tool, developed by Dr. Jafari, enabled the pedagogical innovation
used by the members of IVLC. McGee, Carmean, and Jafari’s (2005) work descends
from the work of Vygotsky’s constructivism and activity theory, through the emerging
theory of connectivism (Siemens, 2004).
Due to the emphasis on the role of social interaction in development, Vygotsky's
theories led to the advent of social constructivism (Galloway, 2001). The zone of
proximal development, wherein a learner uses capable peers to advance his or her
personal development, was Vygotsky's creation (Galloway, 2001). Constructivist
learning theory differs from social constructivism in that social constructivist theories of
Vygotsky and Piaget focused on early learning, whereas constructivist-learning theory
emerged from Dewey, Montessori, and Kolb (Jonassen, 1999). There are eight
characteristics of constructivist learning environments (Jonassen, 1999):
1. Provide multiple representations of reality.
2. Avoid oversimplification and represent the complexity of the real world.
3. Emphasize knowledge construction over knowledge reproduction.
4. Emphasize authentic tasks in meaningful contexts.
5. Provide a real world setting or case-based learning.
6. Encourage thorough reflection on experience.
7. Enable context and content dependent knowledge construction.
8. Support collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation.
20
Siemens (2004) asserts that constructivist theory developed before the digital age
cannot describe the impact of technology. Connectivism, as described by Siemens, is “a
learning theory for the digital age” that proposes a similar perspective to Vygotsky’s zone
of proximal development, which is enabled by technology. Siemens (2004) states
connectivist principles are:
Learning and knowledge rest in diversity of opinions.
Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.
Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual
learning.
Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
Accurate and up-to-date knowledge, or currency, is the intent of all
connectivist-learning activities.
Decision-making itself is a learning process.
Current research on technology-enabled education (Cabiness, Donovan, & Green,
2013; Evans, 2015; Zaugg, Davies, Parkinson, & Magleby, 2015) notes connectivism as a
central tenant of online personal and shared learning spaces.
A New Culture of Learning
Thomas and Brown (2011) observe a “new culture of learning” in which
traditional education is unable to keep up with the rapidly changing world. New media
forms make peer-to-peer learning easier and more natural while amplifying peer-to-peer
learning using emerging technologies that shape the collective nature of participation
21
(Brown & Adler, 2008; Thomas & Brown, 2011). Bass (2012) notes, “A growing
appreciation for the porous boundaries between the classroom and life experience, along
with the power of social learning, authentic audiences, and integrative contexts, has
created not only promising changes in learning but also disruptive moments in teaching”
(p. 1). Bass (2012) indicates the features of social pedagogy, including (a) low barriers to
entry, (b) strong support for sharing one’s contributions, (c) informal mentorship from
experienced to novice, (d) a sense of connection to each other, (e) a sense of ownership in
what is being created, and (f) a strong collective sense that something is at stake.
Furthermore, Bass (2012) observes the ability of technology to replicate high-impact
practices, "Whether through the design of inquiry-based learning or through the ability to
access and manipulate data, mount simulations, leverage ‘the crowd' for collaboration
and social learning, or redesign when and how, students can engage course content” (p.
1).
Social Pedagogy
Bass and Elmendorf (2012) describe a process model for social pedagogies that
illustrates the task, process, assessment, and integration together with a social core,
creating opportunities for students to learn and develop a sense of voice and purpose (see
Figure 1). The Bass-Elmendorf model reflects the elements present in constructivism and
connectivism. Ferdenzi and Colallillo (2013) layers Bass and Elmendorf’s process model
on the pedagogical innovation of IVLC.
22
Figure 1. Social pedagogies: Design elements and goals (Bass & Elmendorf, 2012).
Inquiry Based and Integrative Learning
The identification of social pedagogy, according to Bass (2012), encompasses
within its discussion the dispositions of inquiry-based learning and integrative learning.
Thomas and Brown (2011) claim inquiry-based learning embraces and endorses student
diversity:
When the idea is to ask questions, diversity is a good thing. Moreover, students
are both willing and capable of learning from one another in deep and profound
ways. They turn diversity into strength and build their own networked
communities based on interest and shared passion and perspective (p. 1223).
23
Integrative learning is defined as “an understanding and a disposition that a
student builds across the curriculum and co-curriculum, from making simple connections
among ideas and experiences to synthesizing and transferring learning to new, complex
situations within and beyond the campus” (AAC&U, Collaborative). Bain (2011) asserts
the importance of integrated learning and interdisciplinarity in his study of college
teaching:
Whereas some professors might see their job as teaching the facts, concepts, and
procedures of their subject, the teachers we studied emphasized the pursuit of
answers to important questions and often encouraged students to use the
methodologies, assumptions, and concepts from a variety of fields to solve
complex problems. They often incorporated literature from other fields into their
teaching and emphasized what it means to get an education. They spoke about
the value of an integrated education rather than one fragmented between
individual courses (p. 5).
Summary
There is not enough information regarding what works for community college
students (Goldrick-Rab, 2010). The literature on community college faculty observed for
this review suggested there is more to learn about faculty themselves, their understanding
of learning theories and practices, and their relationship to student success. The reviewed
literature on faculty development throughout higher education supports faculty
development as crucial in higher education, faculty leadership as called for, and the claim
that learning theory and the scholarship of teaching and learning can support a
developmental culture of student learning. Technology-enabled pedagogy is rooted in
24
concepts that predate the technology and interact very closely with learning theory.
Technology provides access to learner-centeredness, and access is critical when
considering the community college student's entrée into college study. These factors
warrant a study of community college faculty views on interdisciplinary social
pedagogical development and practice, the complex learning environment that affects
activities undertaken by faculty, and the relationship to outcomes on student learning.
25
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
This case study explored the experiences of four faculty members participating in
Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities in an urban community college setting.
The lens of the study was that of social pedagogy as set forth by the process model of
Bass and Elmendorf. Critical theory, constructivism, and connectivism are theoretical
frameworks that supported contextual descriptions of pedagogy and described the
activities. Three research questions guided this case study: (a) How did the institution’s
position on student success influence faculty’s ability to implement innovations? (b)
What were the lived experiences of faculty who participated in Interdisciplinary Virtual
Learning Communities? (c) What were the elements of Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning
Communities, which led to desirable student outcomes?
The case study is not a research methodology, but a “decision about what is to be
studied” (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011, p. 255). It is both a way to proceed in research
and the product of research (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). Hesse-Biber and Leavy
(2011) also observe the performance of case study research holds a social justice
framework.
Three general case study types have been identified: (a) intrinsic: to promote a
holistic understanding; (b) instrumental: to generalize on a larger topic; and (c) multiple:
to investigate large phenomena from which the cases are drawn (Hesse-Biber & Leavy,
2011). This study was intrinsic, thus promoting a holistic understanding.
26
Case studies can be theory-based, problem-based, descriptive, or exploratory
(Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). The focus of this research was both theory-based and
exploratory, in that it documented and analyzed the faculty group’s work and explored
the impact on the internal and lived experiences of the participants while testing its
relationship to the Bass-Elmendorf model (2012, Figure 1).
I sourced evidence from archival records, scholarly papers by faculty participants,
interviews, and direct observation. The use of multiple sources and types of evidence
triangulated findings and compensated for weaknesses in just any one form of evidence.
Triangulation, an analytical technique, enhances the credibility of a qualitative study by
comparing the findings of different techniques using different samples and approaches
(McMillan, 2008).
Conceptual Framework
The case study proposed that the social pedagogy process model of Bass and
Elmendorf (see Figure 1) would serve as a theoretical model for IVLC activities. The
study examined the interviews and document analysis through this conceptual lens to
explore further IVLC activity beyond the successful outcomes in student GPA and
retention observed by Fichera (2012). The conceptual framework of social pedagogy
descends from the constructivist and connectivist theories of learning as described in
Chapter II.
The study observed elements of social pedagogy and attempted to explore the
Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities' relationship to these elements:
27
engagement with authenticity and difficulty for deepened and conceptualized
learning;
the value of process and product of learning for flexibility of knowledge in open-
ended contexts;
representation of knowledge for an authentic audience to develop a sense of voice
and purpose specific to a domain or community;
participation in an intellectual community for the ability to give and get feedback
from multiple perspectives and
to connect the affective and cognitive to develop an integrated sense of personal
and intellectual significance (Bass & Elmendorf, 2012).
Narrative and transformative theory held models that supported an understanding of
the practice and served as reference points for emerging themes throughout the study.
Data Collection
Thick descriptions of the lived experiences of the faculty members, as participants
of IVLC, and observation of themes emerged through semi-structured interviews. A case
study database with documents including interview transcripts, website data, scholarly
articles, and conference artifacts organized the data and maintained a chain of evidence
(Yin, 1989).
The data collection process upheld Yin’s (1989) three principles of data
collection. The first principle is the use of multiple sources of evidence, as this method
of data collection is one of the strengths of the case study and leads to convergent lines of
inquiry. Thus, any finding or conclusion in a case study is likely to be much more
convincing and accurate when based on several different sources of information,
28
following a corroboratory mode. The second principle is to create a case study database
to compose the case study report. The third principle is the use of a peer debriefer to
review the database maintaining the chain of evidence and to verify the actual evidence
according to the study protocol (ThenGuyin, 2008).
Four purposefully sampled faculty members participated in the study. Each was a
member of the leadership team of IVLC and had extensive experience with the project,
including faculty development. In one-on-one interviews, participants responded to a
series of questions in the format of semi-structured interviews (see Appendix A). The
participant questions each addressed one or two of the research questions (see Appendix
A).
The questions were open-ended, in a focused interview format. The wording of
questions allowed for faculty participant commentary and to capture fresh impressions of
phenomena, as Yin (1989) advises. Interviews, according to Yin, are verbal reports,
subject to biases, and faulty recall, and it is, therefore, reasonable to rely on triangulating
evidence when constructing a case study (p. 91).
Pseudonyms protected participant confidentiality. The informed consent form
acknowledged that due to the small sample and unique topic that there was a slight risk of
identity revelation by readers of the study (see Appendix E).
Data Analysis
Yin (1989) describes a strategy for data analysis, which relies on a theoretical
proposition. This strategy helps orient and focus the analysis for a case study designed
on such a proposition. The proposition that the IVLC activities reflected the Bass-
29
Elmendorf model of social pedagogy (2012), which is rooted in constructivist and
connectivist theory, and focused the analysis of the interview and document data.
The process primarily reflected a deductive approach in that the inquiry began
with the theory that IVLC was a social pedagogy in the mode of Bass-Elmendorf (2012).
The research tested this hypothesis, and observation of the data confirmed the hypothesis.
Deductive codes of both the interviews and archival evidence reflecting the Bass-
Elmendorf model (2012) in a database in Microsoft Excel confirmed the proposition that
IVLC contains the elements of social pedagogy. Further categories uncovered during the
process beyond the Bass-Elmendorf model, particularly related to implementation,
institutional position, and faculty experiences. Categorization of interviews using NVivo
software uncovered more information and triangulated findings. This information led to
theory generation beyond the proposition that IVLC met the Bass-Elmendorf model.
Coding of participants’ words through NVivo software led to emerging themes that
triangulated with the case study database. (Creswell, 2008; Yin, 1989). I undertook an
eight step series to code the transcripts of the interviews:
1. Each sentence/passage of the text identified by one or more codes. Codes were
derived from participant's words. Codes were added or modified as necessary as
new meanings or categories emerged.
2. Once the codes were established, each piece of text was systematically compared
and assigned to one code.
3. Codes were rechecked and assigned text to assess coding consistency.
4. Codes most referenced were identified.
5. The relationship among codes was observed.
30
6. Themes and sub-themes were identified.
7. Negative case study analysis with remaining codes was performed to ensure
trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and saturation of themes.
8. Codes from the Microsoft Excel database and the NVivo database were weaved to
determine how the categories related to each other (Saldana, 2009).
The NVivo coding process modeled the constant comparative method, described by
Strauss (1987), Strauss, and Corbin (1998), to analyze interview data for core
identification of themes and findings. The constant comparative method, a tool of
grounded theory qualitative research design, reflected a focus on the views, assumptions,
and experiences of the participants in meaning making, while simultaneously generating
theory.
According to Gilgun, (2010) grounded theory was originally a set of procedures for
generating theory, yet it is also a set of generic procedures that researchers could use for
general qualitative research. Grounded theory is both a methodology and a product
(Gilgun, 2010). Gilgun defines research using the grounded theory methodology as
interpretive phenomenology.
Phenomenology, a philosophy and research method to generate understanding of
lived experiences of the individual emerged in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth
century (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). It is closely associated with the German
philosopher Edmund Husserl who was interested in how human consciousness is
experienced (Hesse-Bieber & Leavy, 2011).
31
Researcher Role and Biases
The role of the researcher was that of an insider or a participant observer. I am a
former member of Learning Connection and, a former participant in the IVLC project. I
am no longer an employee of the institution, and no longer hold any positional
relationship to the participating faculty. An insider perspective provided advantages
regarding trust and comfort level with the participants. I had access to unpublished
scholarly articles from IVLC faculty members. I also had access to the “Learning
Connection” website, which served as a repository for faculty reflections on their
developing innovations over the life of the project, as well as summative data collected
from all 22 participating institutions in that national initiative.
Insider status required constant reflection and awareness of biases in an iterative
process throughout the research, which supported caution in interpreting data. Journal
entries following each interview and coding phase provided opportunity for me to reflect
and be aware of biases. Triangulating documentation, participant review, and a peer
debriefer also supported integrity. I placed research findings in the context of the topic
literature and to apt learning theories.
Trustworthiness and Ethical Considerations
The Bass-Elmendorf social pedagogy process (see Figure 1) provided a
framework that supported validity in interpretation. Triangulation of various forms of
evidence, including archival, semi-structured interviews, and student testimony from
faculty sources, increased reliability. Faculty participants reviewed and approved
transcriptions of semi-structured interviews and findings to support reliability.
32
A peer debriefer reviewed one of the four transcripts, identifying codes in a
preliminary discussion that led to greater reliability of data interpretation. This first
review of data occurred at the first cycle of coding, and the discussion took the form of
discussion regarding the Bass-Elmendorf model as well as data that emerged centering on
institution and faculty issues that were beyond the model. The initial discussion with the
peer debriefer served as a “reality check” such as Saldana (2009) describes, as well as a
method to establish interpretive convergence (p. 27).
The peer debriefer also reviewed the complete case study database and reviewed
the findings and discussion in draft form. According to ThenGuyin (2008), peer
debriefing or analytic triangulation is “the process whereby a researcher calls upon a
disinterested peer to aid in probing the researcher’s thinking around all or parts of the
research process” (p. 605). Data analysis provided transparency and evidence of
credibility.
Negative Case Study Analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) ensured that emerging
themes were saturated and tested. Lincoln and Guba describe an assertion of
trustworthiness, rather than reliability and validity, to best describe the various processes
undergone in the quest for ethical research.
The research site gave the approval to conduct research on the site in April 2016
after reviewing the Institutional Research Board proposal that described the site-specific
nature of the study. The Benedictine University Institutional Review Board approved the
proposal in April 2016 (Appendix B). I had previously undergone National Institute of
Health training in ethical research (Appendix C).
33
I contacted five faculty members with a request for participation via email. Four
faculty members agreed to participate and signed the informed consent form (Appendix
D). At each interview, I asked each of the faculty participants if there were any questions
or concerns regarding the protocol and the interview. I gave a copy of interview
transcriptions to each of the faculty participants and offered the opportunity to redact any
statements in their interview, as well as to verify the information. Also, I held
conversations with participants as themes emerged, modeling Saldana's (2009) concept of
"member checking" (p. 28).
Limitations
The theory-based, exploratory, and descriptive characteristics of this case study
limit the assertions of generalization beyond theoretical propositions, as described by Yin
(1989). The complex set of activities’ influence within this study will not make this case
easily replicable. The site in an urban, open access, diverse environment provided a
series of possibilities that enabled faculty to undergo interdisciplinary faculty
development, which led to pedagogy innovation.
All faculty participants were part of a leadership team, which made their
experiences different from those faculty members who had participated, but who had not
led the effort. While yielding rich data from faculty who had participated longer and
reflected more deeply upon the activity than the average participant, this meant that the
faculty experiences were less common and less able to be generalized.
The study focused on student learning outcomes and success from the faculty
perspective, and less on the challenges and opportunities of the technological aspects of
the initiative that can support theory regarding unique concerns of technology-enabled
34
classrooms. Student testimony obtained in the study came from archival and published
documents only. Faculty reports of the student experience reflected their perspective and
biases (Yin, 1989).
Conclusion
Bass and Elmendorf (2012) identify a process model (Figure 1) in social
pedagogy that can serve to explore the phenomena that led to a successful student
intervention and a community of practice among faculty. A local example of this process
model, in the form of IVLC, provided information about the activity and the various
communities that interacted with it.
This study looked closely at a particular faculty group that underwent faculty
development and then created a successful pedagogical innovation. The opportunity to
explore the lived experiences of faculty participating in a development process and its
impact on teaching and learning practices in the participating community college
provided rich descriptions that may inform further study.
35
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the experience of four faculty
members participating in Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities within an urban
community college environment in the United States. Three research questions guided
this study: (a) How did the institution’s position on student success influence faculty’s
ability to implement innovations? (b) What were the lived experiences of faculty who
participated in Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities? (c) What were the
elements of Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities, which led to desirable
student outcomes?
I conducted four semi-structured interviews of four faculty participants and
analyzed documents from sources including websites and scholarly articles. Three
themes emerged from the data: institutional support evolution, faculty in a community of
practice and students experiencing social pedagogy.
Each of these themes maps to the three research questions. The question “how
did the institution’s position on student success influence faculty’s ability to implement
innovation” led to the theme institutional support evolution. The question “what were the
lived experiences of faculty participating in Students Working on Interdisciplinary
Groups” mapped to the theme of faculty in a community of practice. The question “what
were the elements of Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities which led to
36
desirable student outcomes” mapped to the theme of students experiencing social
pedagogy.
The Participants
All four participants have served as members of the IVLC leadership team, which
supported faculty development, technology assistance, and assessment of the initiative.
The IVLC leadership team is currently creating a handbook for IVLC faculty. Interviews
with faculty revealed that although the original model of IVLC included a triad of
faculty, IVLC often involves two classes only. Increasingly, faculty use elements of the
practice in their stand-alone classes.
The participants included two assistant professors, a part-time faculty member,
and an instructor. The instructor noted that, due to her rank, she did not have the pressure
or opportunity of promotion. She said she participated in IVLC solely to benefit her
students.
One of the faculty participants served in an official capacity as coordinator of
IVLC. She interfaced with the campus administration on matters about the initiative. She
held information meetings to attract new faculty to join the initiative. She documented
outcomes for faculty participation, including conference participation and publication on
the practice in response to directives from the administration.
The four faculty members entered IVLC with a range of experience in
technology, and all received faculty development to learn the technology as well as to
37
develop partnerships. The faculty development occurred through both the “Learning
Connection” initiative as well as on-campus events.
Callie
Callie teaches art history and graphic design. She frequently participated in the
“Learning Connection” initiative. She has taught in a IVLC partnership with another
faculty member since 2011, and she and the faculty member regularly collaborate with
two of their classes every semester. The students in these classes share poetry and visual
imagery and respond within their disciplinary framework to the written and visual works
of art. Callie recently established a new partnership with another faculty member who
together assembled groups of students to collaborate to create graphic novel content. She
used a Common Read text (a book chosen each year by the college and distributed to all
classes that elected to use it). Her which students created presentations in response to the
text contained within her classroom. The Common Read assignment is not an IVLC
project, but she attributes her IVLC association to the collaborative, interdisciplinary
nature of the work. Callie is an active scholar and recently initiated a peer-reviewed
journal for art historians.
Romy
Romy teaches English. She created materials for the handbook, which supported
technical considerations. She also publishes articles on the initiative, which also focus on
the technology and its challenges. She taught IVLC classes since 2009. Romy
38
collaborated with faculty from speech communication and biology. The students in the
three classes collaborate to create visual and written digital content, often in reaction to
the Common Read texts supplied each year at the college.
Jane
Jane teaches English and Speech Communication. She attended “Learning
Connection” training extensively. She taught IVLC classes since 2010. Jane
collaborated with speech communication while teaching English to develop digital stories
through Camtasia technology on the subjects of migration, professional identity, and
cultural identity. Jane had published on the topic of part-time faculty members and high
impact practices as well as digital humanities. She is a regularly published journalist.
Rita
Rita teaches English. She had regularly interacted with technology and online
learning before joining the initiative. She taught IVLC classes since 2012, collaborating
with nursing and biology faculty. She adopted the text The Immortal Life of Henrietta
Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, which was a Common Read offering. The book offered
opportunities for students to discuss matters relevant to the classes with which she
participated: “DNA research… patient rights, access to health care, socio-economic
issues” (Rita). Students across the three classes developed a digital story project. Rita
also incorporates service learning into her assignments by having her students share
health information with the campus.
39
IVLC participants have received stipends for their development and participation
in IVLC, compensation which has ranged from $250.00 to $500.00 a semester
(participant interviews).
Theme 1: Institutional Support Evolution
Background
UCC, founded in 1958, is one of seven community colleges of a city university.
In 1961, the city’s community colleges joined with its public universities to form an
integrated university. The community colleges served as open access institutions, which
fed the more selective four-year institutions. This transition marked the first time the
university charged tuition for its bachelor seeking undergraduates since the founding of
its first college in the 19th century.
UCC offers the Associate in Arts (A.A.), the Associate in Science (A.S.) and the
Associate in Applied Science (A.A.S.) degrees, as well as non-credit Continuing
Education programs. Over 16,000 credit-seeking students enroll at UCC each year, with
over 70% pursuing transfer degrees.
In fall 2014, there were 391 full-time faculty members, fifty-seven percent of
which held doctoral degrees. There were 531 part-time faculty members. The student
body reflected the diversity of the county served, with an almost equal distribution of
students among European/European American, African/African-American, Asian and
Hispanic Students. Also reflective of the county was a substantial immigrant population
40
of students, from 137 countries, with a third of the students who spoke a language other
than English in the home.
As members of the city university faculty, UCC full-time faculty were expected to
perform research as well as teach, although the credit load of 27 a year is higher for
community college faculty than for the baccalaureate colleges, which are required to
teach a 21 credit load. UCC encouraged faculty to consider pedagogical research in
addition to or in place of disciplinary research. The Center for Excellence in Teaching
and Learning provided support for pedagogical research and pedagogical development in
high impact practices.
UCC launched the Freshman Academies, enhanced academic and student support
to all full-time freshmen in fall 2009. Students entered through one of five academies
based on a field of major interest and enrolled in at least two high-impact practices within
their first 30 credits. In fall 2013, the initiative expanded to include all students and
became the Academies. Updated high impact practices included learning communities;
writing-intensive instruction; collaborative projects and assignments (IVLC fell under
this category); academic service learning; undergraduate research; common intellectual
experiences; and diversity/global learning. The Freshman Academies initiative became a
model in publications from both The American Association of Colleges and Universities
(Kuh, et. al. 2013) and the Community College Research Center (Bailey, Smith Jaggars,
& Jenkins, 2015)
41
At the onset of the Freshman Academies in 2009, the graduation rate was 12%,
below the national average (Fichera, 2012). As of fall 2014, the one-year retention rate
(69%) and the three-year graduation rate (18.1%) at UCC exceeded the national average
of Public Urban Associate’s institutions.
Origins – 2004-2009
According to Darcy, Dupre, and Cuomo (2010), the origin of IVLC occurred in
2004 with the "Learning to Look" training undergone by a founding faculty member.
Sponsored by The Graduate Center of the city university, and the American Social
History Project and supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities, "Learning
to Look" trained humanities educators to develop effective strategies for using digitalized
artifacts to promote learning. In 2005 The Georgetown "Crossroads" project, funded by
the Carnegie Foundation, taught faculty members from across the nation, including a
founding faculty member, how to use web-based resources for classroom projects. From
2007 through 2009 faculty attended “Making Connections” institutes, financed by a
national grant. Teams of faculty (including one team of three from UCC) learned how to
use ePortfolio spaces as "learning spaces" that display student projects and facilitate
transfer and reflection. In the fall of 2009, 15 faculty members created five teams of
three classes each to collaborate in producing student digital stories (Darcy, et al., 2010).
42
Freshman Academies – 2009-2013
The Freshman Academies launched in fall 2009, promising two High Impact
Practices to all first-time, full-time students, and the Freshman Academies Protocol
caused college staff to track participation in High Impact Practices. IVLC emerged out
of the ePortfolio movement, but it quickly evolved away from that practice. Early
ePortfolio success data identified IVLC as the source. Later, the 15 classes participated
in IVLC were observed as a group onto itself, and that is when the successful student
outcomes were noted by Fichera, the Freshman Academies Protocol investigator (2012).
During this time, UCC and members of IVLC participated in two partnerships with
another community college "Making Transfer Connections," and "Learning Connection.”
The grant dollars supported IVLC activities and administration. The two grants focused
on ePortfolio pedagogy, as well as social pedagogy as described by Bass and Elmendorf
(2012).
Fichera (2012) observes that that Fall-to-Fall retention had raised for Freshman
Academies students as a whole from 82% to 88%. Students in IVLC classes retained
from Fall to Fall at the rate of 92.7%.
The Academies 2013-2015
The era in which there was some administrative restructuring contracted IVLC
participation, while UCC expanded its goals for High Impact Practices. UCC overhauled
its Freshman Academies, and they became "The Academies” IVLC was newly labeled as
a "Collaborative Assignment & Project." High Impact Coordinators (faculty members on
43
administrative release time) were tasked with meeting formal outcomes "that were less
about student outcomes," according to a faculty participant, but rather, targeted faculty
activity outcomes, such as numbers of conference presentations and publications.
According to three out of the four participants, during this era, expectations for
IVLC faculty to participate in faculty development activities did not always support their
actual activities:
We had to take those two courses every semester, [backward design and reflection courses provided by the Teaching and Learning center] and, you know, we've done it before, and it was a bit repetitive. ...I feel like at the beginning, for the first three or four years, I was learning a lot all of the time. But in the last, I suppose two years; I really wasn't learning anything new or getting new ideas. (participant interview)
Also:
There seemed to be this some type of need for the administration to take control of the development processes in a certain way and to streamline...This person had to take this new training; and while I think this training was valuable, they also put a certain-- more strict framework on it., that turned off some people. Just it was very difficult to make it all work. With the backward design training and the IVLC training, and then if you didn't make it… and that made it sort of difficult to make it all work for everybody. (participant interview)
One faculty member did have a consistently positive experience with faculty
development, and viewed it as a time to learn from other faculty members:
I thought it was great. I was part of one of the last groups that had the IVLC Institute. I was teaching a summer course in the morning. Then I would go in the afternoon and about two or three afternoons, where we were in different--we learned how to launch the project software. It was just great to talk to other people in other departments to see how they were designing their projects, and what kind of questions they were asking. What sort of outcomes they were getting along the way from student work, and how to design, I think is helpful. I think it’s really helpful to faculty to talk together within the department about common goals,
44
basically. Whether it’s a project or some skill they want to see students to master across departments, and then enforce it. (participant interview)
New Leadership 2015-2016
Participants expressed pleasure with new leadership in the current director of the
Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (participant interviews). The position of
UCC, in its literature, in the provision of grants and faculty stipends, and in its reform
efforts to provide High Impact Practices, would have seemed to play a major role in the
development of IVLC.
With one exception, the faculty members participating in the study were less
aware of the institutional support provided than they were of the lack of appreciation
from the college in their particular efforts around IVLC. Some of this appeared to be a
result of the complexity of the practice:
IVLC is now a designated "High Impact Practice" at this point, and it was for a long time. I think that gives a tiny little bit or something. But, I still think that they don't get it. Things like writing intensive, certainly, service learning is a successful High Impact Practice more readily communicable. So, they're more accepted by the administration as valid. And I think IVLC has always been kind of on the fringe of that. (participant interview)
The complexity of the IVLC activity also, according to participants, was a
deterrent to participation:
I think what is more challenging right now is to really make the interdisciplinary collaboration..easier to formulate. You know, like right now, I’m so comfortable with Bonnie [faculty member] and Rita [faculty member] that we just stick with it. But it’s not supposed to be that way. You know? You’re supposed to be able to make it easy to meet with anybody new and then …formulate it. That is something again that I also brought to the attention of the leadership team. We need to create some type of guidelines so that anybody just meeting the person for
45
the first time; they can start with, you know, okay, this is the type of thing we can do for IVLC. You know? Rather than having to go through, like, three semesters of faculty development you know we have to try it out, but at the beginning, it should be made a little easier for people to...formulate the collaboration. Because I think that this is part of the reason why participation is low. Because they always just think about, "Wow! The technology? Forget it! You know?" (Romy)
One participant was aware that UCC provided support that was notable:
We were at several conferences this year, and people were so impressed by what we were doing, they’re like, “Well, how do you do that? What kind of support do you get?” They were… amazed at the support you could get from the administration, the support of CETL [Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning]. (Callie)
Theme 2: Faculty in a Community of Practice
The second theme reflected the second research question: What were the lived
experiences of faculty participating in IVLC? The faculty interviewed, as members of
the leadership team, interdisciplinary partners across classrooms, and participants in
faculty development became members of a community of practice (Lave & Wenger,
1991).
Faculty Mentorship
All four of the participants interviewed came to join IVLC through an invitation
by another faculty member, or by attending a presentation led by IVLC faculty:
Krista [faculty member] had observed my class, just a regular [English] 102…and she noticed that I was using computer technology and I was integrating it She had asked me to join on if I had any interest in attending IVLC institute. It was going on in June I believe. So when I heard about the IVLC collaboration, [a] philosophy of which I've always espoused… and learning more about how to put the IVLC project into my course. (Rita)
46
At the beginning, it was discussions with…Jen [faculty member]. And about what people were doing with this idea of IVLC. And Jen made it very easy because she connected me with George [faculty member]. Who was very pleasant to work with and still involved in our collaboration. We have two classes every semester.... I’m quite curious about what interdisciplinary connections and different things I can bring to the classroom. (Callie)
All four participants served on the leadership team, which met regularly to
encourage participation, develop assessment and produce informational materials for
faculty (participant interviews). As members of the leadership team, faculty found that in
supporting others, they supported themselves:
Sometimes, now that I’m on the leadership team we run workshops for faculty. And they…help me too. Like refreshers for certain things. Sometimes we get away from the things that we know actually work really well because we're trying something new and come back to the other things every now and then. (Rita)
Faculty Participating in Multiple High Impact Practices
The UCC Website as well as the Connect to Learn Website both observe that
"Faculty who are involved in IVLC, cohorts are a part of those cohorts at the same time
that they participate in Service Learning, First Year Programs, Learning Communities
and Capstone courses" (Connect to Learn).
Ferdenzi & Colallilo (2013) frame their IVLC project as a service-learning
project, as education students supported nursing and remedial writing students by
instructing them about the students' learning styles. One of the remedial writing students
writes about her experiences with an education student:
47
One of the students from education informed me that I am on my way to self-
actualization which means that I continually try to be the best by satisfying my
cognitive need through reading books and articles. It actually makes sense…I
strive for knowledge. (Lisa) (Darcy, et. al, 2010)
Faculty participants used the yearly Common Read to guide the themes of their
assignments:
I was already involved Common Read, so the idea that I would do a IVLC project [with] the English department. I was already doing a Common Read project with the book Henrietta Lacks with and discussing with people I knew in the Nursing department. It really got me interested in creating a project that tested the students' abilities to do some more, dare I say real- life…digital applications, working collaboratively, using something that was outside of the 12 point font, certain number of pages research. (Rita)
Another Common Read assignment also related to the theme of teaching
transformed by participation in IVLC:
I had one Common Read we did a book “Until I say Good-Bye: My Year of Living with Joy” [by Susan Spencer-Wendel] of a year-long diary of her body living with ALS. What some of those students in the class did was, they would work in groups of three or four, and they found topics on beauty, and body image and the woman who's dying…would email and her experiences while she was changing. Her body was breaking down. They worked in groups and created Powerpoint presentations so anyone could come and listen to them. I was so afraid of how that was going to work out. Because you never know if they're going to pull their weight. And they did amazing. Amazing! I gave them the responsibility, and they did it! They took it! So, yes, since I've gotten involved with IVLC, I have gotten some other different ways to teach it and I think about it, "Okay, because of IVLC." (Callie)
48
Faculty Participation and the Question of Time
Although there was one participant who served in an adjunct position that had
been an extremely active leadership team member, she did not advocate for more adjunct
participation. The participant found that the positive attention she had received by
administration had been ultimately detrimental when it came to attempting to secure a
full-time position among the faculty. A full-time, tenured faculty participant agreed that
it was challenging to engage part-timers, in consideration of the time that is required of
faculty members to participate effectively:
Right. I would say that it’s definitely easier for a full timer—that I’m already tenured. Because I know that there are a few adjuncts, for example. It requires a lot of time, you know, to really develop a decent IVLC project. Again, the example that we had, you know, we spent the first semester we developed it, we spent an hour, at least, every week outside of our teaching and all of that. Thankfully, at that time I was personally a full-timer. So, you know, I can only imagine the demands on a part-timer. (participant interview)
Faculty members observed that lack of time barred more involvement:
I think that's probably the biggest hindrance, is just the lack of time, and the sheer number of students that we have to be able to do this in a more in-depth and extensive way. It's just time and the amount of students and normal classes. That to me is one of the most difficult things. Because putting together a collaborative of project, there is a lot of time involved than for the faculty. To make sure that the students are doing that collaborative work; participating enough so that difficulties with students not doing the work on time, or someone dropped a class, or someone in my class didn’t email…you have to serve as somewhat of a referee! (participant interview)
Another feature of time involved the amount of it faculty needed to get better at
working through IVLC assignments, as two participants noted:
49
Every semester I keep notes in a manila folder for that class. I keep whatever things I get back and whatever I give out. And I write notes to myself of whatever I can do to make it better the next semester. So I try to keep a punch list of what to carry over. Because I think, there is no real perfect way until you get it going at least three times. If you have the same assignment, I think you have a shot of getting it right. You know I have this thing, I find that it takes at least three times for ironing out some wrinkles. (Rita)
Well, I think I got better at teaching it, you know. I think there was more confusion, in the beginning, you know, so trying to convey a lot of concepts of inter-disciplinarian-ism, you know. I think, that collaboration, and all of these things. And I think that as time went on, I got much better at understanding what things that confused them …and I could kind of bring them in...and explain things as I got better...but did evolve in time. (Jane)
Collaborating with other faculty took time and coordination. It was not always a
good fit, as discovered by Rita when first working with nursing faculty. The clinical
classrooms were not on the same semester schedule as the rest of the campus.
Furthermore, clinical classrooms had fewer students, so it was challenging to come up
with ways to collaborate with students. Rita did find something redeeming in additional
logistical work required of faculty participating in IVLC:
I think in a regular class, I don’t want to say that there was a sense of boredom, but because there wasn’t as many interactive sort of things to do, it was a more mundane sort of experience in the regular class. Whereas, in the IVLC class, using stuff, where I was booking computer rooms, going off to the library to get sources, it forced us out of our comfort zone too, sort of, do a few things based on the project... I do think that I the regular class there is merit some of the things you do in a regular class, too, but they sort of fall into a little bit of a rut. (Rita)
Authentic Assessment
Faculty participants expressed concern that there had been an inability to assess
the true value of the IVLC initiative for students:
50
You know, because the quantitative can only go so far. While the rich data is actually on the qualitative side of it... It requires, as you know, and training on our part…. Because we cannot just use the institutional data. We need to look carefully into what we have because we have rich data. We do not really collect them, you know. But I think that can become an example for anybody participating. But without that, then you are not doing anything. It's just, the students pass [rate]...The students said that they are doing okay. But how do you know? So that is the frustrating side of it. (Romy)
Another faculty member noted that she had not done any evaluation of the project:
Well, I would say that the evidence is all anecdotal because I haven't done any, you know, quantitative, qualitative research steps, observations. That's something I am looking forward to looking at. (Callie)
While Jane concluded that it is the activities and the valuing of process and product (Bass
& Elmendorf, 2012), which make the initiative effective:
We know it works, statistically. You know, there are certain elements of it, like there's interdisciplinary formulation, then the production of some product...some kind of digital product that is created by the students. (Jane)
Byas and Cercone (2017) suggest that greater organization and collection of
student-level data has the potential to attract additional faculty members to IVLC:
In the future, we hope to implement a few systemic changes as a HIP on campus
to be more organized when collecting data as well as find ways to increase faculty
participation. We would like to conduct a larger study of student samples from all
participating faculty so that we may be able to contribute to our institutional data
with regard to HIPs and success. (Byas & Cercone, 2017)
51
Faculty Mirroring Student Experience
Byas and Cercone (2017) describe the social pedagogy practice undergone by
students as also occurring for faculty:
By collaborating with one another, we are essentially mimicking the process that
the students would be doing in the project as well. Faculty draft project proposals
and syllabi, collaborate to build an interdisciplinary project and then decide how
to best deliver the project to the students. Aside from the practical benefits of this
process, faculty also feel a sense of purpose in their teaching. It is evident in the
student reflections how much of a positive experience this is for the students
(Byas & Cercone, 2017).
Faculty Participants also observed that their experience mirrored that of their
students:
What I observe in the students and what I observe in my own collaboration with the other faculty members are really enriching, in a sense. Because, you know, for example, just to create handouts for students… I usually would start with something, and then I would pass this to other faculty and say "Hey, is this clear enough?" Basically, I am, I and the other faculty members, also, are simplifying the process, or we are going through the process that the students are going through also. I see that enriching, in a way. And then, actually… not only that, but I am also cooperating with a faculty from the same department, even though we are not doing the same project. But we are kind of like... getting to know each other a little better. (Romy)
Another participant particularly noted the experience of interdisciplinary learning:
I think, with IVLC, the collaboration is not just between students, findings those connections. But also between faculty. It's also the collaboration between the faculty, and it's also about interdisciplinary ideas and conflict. You know, there
52
are two layers to that, and I think that is very important. The layer of collaboration and seeing and getting involved with what and how the students are learning... of course not everyone, but you know it makes a difference to a lot of the students... for me, it makes it a community of teachers, that I think is important. It helps the power of your own thinking about teaching. Because you learn what other people are doing. How should we think, how should we approach what we are doing every day? (Callie)
One participant states that she relished the challenge of unscripted outcomes as
important for herself as well as her students. In doing so, she challenged the traditional
delivery of the course content:
Truthfully, if you teach the same sort of course from one semester to another, there's no justice in that, for yourself or your students…there are always things that I can rely on like stock approaches things and skills but I find I have to change it --the reading, the things that I do. I can shake it up—[that] helps me take a look at myself, and so... I can’t always be scripted. In August for December, it’s impossible you know? Security in having a set syllabus, or what have you. But really if I can shake things up a little bit, change things up, I really did some positives with doing the research papers at the beginning of the semester because I thought we could spend some more time on the skills of it. And doing drafts. More than just two drafts, or one draft or two, or do a third draft. Learn from that process. That's my approach, that’s my belief. Like, why have December be your deadline and the next week have your finals? And there’s no conversation about that paper after, It’s weird…crazy. (Rita).
Teaching Transformed Beyond IVLC
Faculty participants consistently agreed that IVLC participation had led to
changes in teaching beyond the IVLC classrooms. The following participant found the
interdisciplinary aspect the only distinction between IVLC and non- IVLC classes:
Well, that is...let me put it this way, all my English 101s, they're all IVLC-ified, so-to-speak. So, even though they might not have other, you know, classes, as their collaborators, but they are still doing the activities inside, within, the class. Actually, I discovered that in order for them to be ready for the interdisciplinary
53
collaboration, I had to start that inside the class. So, I usually would do the IVLC project as a second or third project. So, to prepare them for their first paper, for example, I would pass that practice inside the class, you know, within the English class only so that they are used to the -…the wikis, and they're used to.. The functions and all that. So that when I ask them to move to a different space, which is the IVLC collaborative space, they are …already familiar with it...the procedure, so to speak. So then, how different? The different part is only the disciplinary cooperation. (Romy)
Rita, while attributing some classroom pedagogy to learning from IVLC also
revealed a worldview centered on active learning and learning beyond the classroom:
I think that’s a great question [has your teaching changed in your other classes as a result of IVLC participation], and of course, the answer is "Yes." I do think that anything I can do to shake things up for the students and get them thinking beyond what we’re doing in the classroom is the best experience. In a room with four walls with a board and we’re just talking about how to write that article. Let’s get out there and do it. Let’s get some skill work now; let’s do something. Even if it means experiences. From that they get the sense, they have to document it, they have to share it, and get the feedback at the end, of course. There’s a reason for what I do. (Rita)
A third participant emphasized the collaborative nature of IVLC that she brought
into her other classes:
As I said, I make sure that there are more, as far as the group work—so I make sure they [making] the contributions to the other person clearer. I see the spirit come from my IVLC project to my other classes when they are doing group work… I assign them to do a group project, also, and then they don’t have to meet in person all the time, they can give the subject, whatever they want to give to the group, you, know, and act synchronously. To that effect, I think some students, even if they’re not in the IVLC project, they always comment that it’s a positive element. You know? The fact that they can work together without always having to meet in person. (Callie)
Callie observed IVLC as a gateway to new thinking and community:
I think that [about] all of the development workshops that I went to and that certainly helped me as a faculty member But what I also got out of it was even
54
faculty, different as they were, learning about what they were doing, I just stayed excited about my community… I enjoyed learning and meeting other people; finding out what they were going. And that made it very interesting to me and so that I kept learning more. IVLC opened up my eyes to different ways to teach. When you go to university you get your Ph.D. in art history, in many fields, you're not taught pedagogy. You're not taught different ways to present the material. I don't think anyone's making a lot of changes that don't come from your own desire to do something a little different inside the class. So, I think IVLC opened the door for me and my eyes to that. In respect to that, I think I was probably open to that. (Callie)
Theme 3: Students Experiencing Social Pedagogy
The third theme confirmed the proposition that IVLC was a social pedagogy
aligning with the Bass-Elmendorf model (2012). Descriptions of the student experience,
and student quotes in document analysis mapped to all strands of the Bass-Elmendorf
model. The strands included creating opportunities for student to: engage with
authenticity and difficulty; value process and product; represent knowledge for an
authentic audience; participate in an intellectual community; and connect the affective to
the cognitive. According to Bass & Elmendorf, these opportunities develop the
following: a deepened and contextualized knowledge; flexibility with knowledge in open-
ended contexts; a sense of voice and purpose specific to a domain or community; ability
to give and get feedback from multiple perspectives; and an integrated sense of personal
development. Subthemes reflect the IVLC activities described in interviews and
documents describing Bass-Elmendorf strands while further describing the phenomena.
55
Student Authority- Represent Knowledge for an Authentic Audience
Byas and Cercone (2017) record student reflections on the IVLC experience
which echoes the Bass-Elmendorf model (2012) and the assertion that students, by
representing knowledge for an authentic audience, develop an integrated sense of
intellectual and personal significance:
But it wasn’t until I came to English 101 that I got my voice. … My voice has
entered the discussion that the world is having. (Student14) (Byas & Cercone,
2017)
The student below cited flexibility with knowledge and authentic audiences with
strengthening her own personal significance and effectiveness:
I think my project gives me the advantage to learn about being a good parent and
learning ways to hand[le] a child when I become a mother, … This class gives me
[opportunity] to work on my writing skills, it also helps me brainstorm better.
IVLC assignment have [given] me a chance to communicate with others outside
my class also giv[e] others the chance to read and revise my work ... and giv[e]
me positive feedback for a better outcome. (Student 38) (Byas & Cercone, 2017)
A faculty participant observed that students in IVLC realized how the lessons
learned in that experience served them throughout their educational experience:
Students now, just recently I could reasonably say, are starting to realize that what they are doing is an important lesson for other courses. They're not just sitting in the shoe box for an hour and forty minutes, and then they go into another shoe
56
box. You know what I mean? I tried to make connections; this is something we do in Psychology or Business. This would be the first thing you would do. "X," "Y" and "Z." Making those kind of statements to get them to merge two different things in their minds. And that means helping them make some connections that are things that are very inter-related to one. (Rita)
Audience and Student Authority: Structure Provided Through Authenticity and Difficulty
One of the faculty participants, who also observed initial resistance when
engaging with authenticity and difficulty, noted that the rigor of the IVLC project served
as a support structure for teaching students to engage with college level material and
appropriate time on task:
So when it’s the middle of the semester when they start talking about "oh, it's so much work," then I bring up the credit breakdown to remind them. I think that even though they are in a community college, I think the students are really ready. We just need to slowly guide them. (Romy)
The faculty participant provided a checklist, which described every step of the
student activity for their understanding and reference:
I have the checklist. Because, that way, “See! You are attending this event that is that many hours, writing your reactions-that many hours.” So a rough...idea how to show how many hours they’re doing, or spending for each of the things I required of them. They can complain if it is beyond. (Romy)
Furthermore, beyond establishing structure and a habit of mind that encouraged
more student engagement, this faculty participant observed that awareness of audience,
and responsibility towards classmates engendered in the assignments ultimately asserted
student authority:
One thing that I notice is that students are more aware of their writing...in my class at least. I'm supposed to be teaching them to be aware of their audience, to
57
make sure that these things are in place. So I know that when they realize that they will have a real audience outside just the teacher, they …become more careful with what they say, in a sense. So they don't want to be ashamed, so to speak, you know... I need to do some research here, you know? Posting their contribution, so to speak, to the group project. (Romy)
Rita also observed this phenomenon:
I can say with a fair amount of confidence that the students, once they see the scope and breadth of the project...or, I should say, that at first they are a little intimidated, but once they get moving along on it, they really do get into it. There is evidence of that in their reflections that I got back at the end of the semester. How much they get out of it, not just in content, but in soft skills, as well, and working with others, and being accountable. A lot of times they say, "Oh, you're not the only one who's seeing this?" I say, "No, it's really for the other class," and because there's an authentic audience. They sort of up the ante on their work ethic. (Rita)
Also, with that work ethic, Rita observed students engaging in their work with
new thoughtfulness:
Yeah, I don’t want to sound like this is such a perfect situation that I’m applying such positive things, but I do believe in the practice as a whole. And I do know, at times, that students say, “Wow! I didn’t know what it meant to actually conduct meaningful research!” We even spend time going through things on the Web, and sifting through the bad sources for some viable sources and spend time going through copyrights and fair use. And they’re using all these things that they were too busy to give consideration, [but then] a few light bulbs go off in their head. I’m very big on teaching them a second research strategy in their English classes that they can use in other classes, as well. So, if I can accomplish that with them, I feel good about that when I hear those kind of remarks (Rita).
Culture and the Self – An Integrated Sense of Personal and Intellectual Significance
Darcy, Dupre, and Cuomo (2010) describe particular IVLC projects that focused
on students' cultural backgrounds:
58
At first, several students were disinclined to discuss their family and culture,
insisting that they were “Americans” without a need or desire to explore their
heritage. It was essential to create a classroom environment where students felt
safe from negative stereotyping and understood that their stories of family and
culture would be treated with respect. They came to see that race and ethnicity
could be defined in many ways and that they had a right to define themselves
however they saw fit. When students realized that they had a sympathetic
audience for their narratives, most of them came to embrace the project and revel
in the stories of their racial and ethnic heritage (however they chose to define it),
seeing, I think, an opportunity to discover—and/or make manifest—things about
themselves and their families that had remained largely unexamined. (Darcy et.
al, 2010)
Student reflections on the culture project reported on its transformative and
engaging outcomes, as students engaged with authenticity and difficulty (Bass &
Elmendorf, 2012). "Oscar" was aware of his own evolution as well as that of his
classmates:
Everyone has spoken about how their finished project changed the way they see
themselves, carry themselves, and see life differently. Today you have watched all
of our hard work and all of our dedication, come to life! With Kelsey's experience
on her Puerto Rican heritage and Billy's experiences growing up on the island of
59
Dominica, which allowed Ian to give a great performance. I would have never
thought that this project would open so many doors to so many different people.
We all learned a little something about ourselves. If you were to ask me how this
project reflects on me, I would have to say one word, and that's change! This also
made me evolve as a student. I am starting to see how hard work really pays off. I
see writing not as something not to be feared, but something that can inspire,
change and yes transform you and your work into something beautiful. — Oscar
(Darcy, et. al, 2010)
Students "Brian" and "Mayiam" also cited the enjoyment that comes from the
project. Brian noted the favorable element in the public nature of the practice; Mayiam
observed that working with the technology in and of itself brought satisfying challenges:
The project managed to bring out a unison of culture and literature, eventually
culminating into a project that became worth spending time working on; it was
fun. . . . This project should be used for all 101 classes because everyone wants
their 5 minutes of fame. — Brian (Darcy, et. al, 2010)
I found this learning process to be transformational not only for me but also for
my fellow classmates. This multi-media activity has been an incredible
experience which has made learning enjoyable for me. The best part about this
was not going through pages and pages of boring written material but instead
60
sharing my story via colorful pictures and slides. I also enjoyed listening to other
classmates' stories, which included music, pictures, and videos of their cultures. I
thoroughly enjoyed the experience. — Mariyam (Darcy, et. al. 2010)
As students learned about their cohort members’ cultural stories, they became
aware of commonalities across cultures and genders. In an acting class, the assignment
prompted students to read personal narratives of cultural identity from an English class
and choose one to perform. "Nedal,” chose to portray “Farimah” who migrated from
Afghanistan:
I chose this character because it reminded me of myself. When I was young, my
family moved from predominantly black West-Indian neighborhood to a mostly
white community. On my first day of the new school, I thought I was watching a
"Happy Days" episode with a bunch of Richie Cunninghams. Her closeness to her
family is the same as mine. Family is very important to me—Nedal (Darcy, et al.,
2010)
Jane, a faculty participant, focused on the notion of migration to encourage an
examination of the student experience. She, as does Darcy et al. (2010), noted an initial
resistance to exploration of cultural identity. She described one student’s revelations as
she worked through the assignment:
I remember there was this one girl, an African-American girl from. Jamaica Estates and she said she was here [in the United States] really for generations, blah, blah, and something, and was really cranky about it. So I said to her, "So you don't really have any experience in moving from one space to another, you
61
know, moving or changing schools, or whatever?" She actually ended up doing a really grade A paper for me. She did it about, she was light-skinned black and grew up in Jamaica [low-income neighborhood] on the other side of Hilltop Avenue, and their family had a funeral parlor, and they were pretty well off. But she was kind of persecuted at school because she was light-skinned. Anyway, so they, moved to Jamaica Estates [upper-income neighborhood] …they bought a house up there, and she was standing in her driveway. And her neighbor came around and said, "I'm so glad you're here, you must be the new housekeeper." She realized that was, you know, that she was caught between two cultures and that was, you know, a sort of a migration that she was...she had left one place where she didn't exactly fit in, to arrive at another place that was very different. But she still had all these issues with not really belonging to the culture, you know? (Jane)
Resistance Transformed into Engagement – Connecting the Cognitive and the Affective
The descriptions of the culture project, as in the previous example, all held
embedded within them stories of students' initial resistance to the challenges of the
assignments:
I remember our student saying, "Just tell us what we have to learn so far." I said, "You have to learn to think!" She wasn't very happy with that answer, but, you know, I mean, you have to do that because they are working with other people, that are coming at you with a different perspective, and so you have to evaluate what they were saying and you have to understand what they were doing…it was kind of unavoidable. You know, they had to engage at some level as to what the audience would react to. (Jane)
Initial resistance often led to attrition in classes. One faculty member observed
the attrition as part of the community college student experience, noting student
transience:
Well, sometimes there's attrition in the class. I don't have it tremendously all the time, but still, have students that drop the course…try to get the room set up, and by the fourth week, five or six of them sort of disappear without any explanation. So, there's that. From that point of view, in the classroom. And, then, of course, you try to reach out to try to see what's happening and why. Because it's a
62
community college and there are transients, it's hard to get everybody to be on board. (Rita)
As in the model of Critical Incident (Fook & Cooper, 2013), the resistance can
manifest itself in aggression. The participant below saw that evolve into deep
engagement:
I mean, one, one kind of thing in my classes is that they would become very angry and confused and not know how to do it. Say "I can't do it. I can't make a movie. I just can't do it." And there'd always be one class where they'd be really, really, really angry, and then they'd get it! It'd happen every time, and then once they got it, I'd have to say, "Well, the class is over now, and you have to leave. I said go!" One time we had our [room] 117, and there was another class lined up outside, you know, it's like an hour later, or something, and I almost had to physically throw them out of the classroom. You know? Because they wouldn't leave. And, there was never, I could never figure a way to make a smooth transition. I just had to keep telling them the stuff repeatedly until something went off in their head, and it worked, you know. Then they just loved it. (Jane)
Callie told a story of a student's journey from passive resistance transformed into
student authority and leadership. The student discussion that resulted then took the
lesson well beyond the expected outcomes of the class with a sense of deep intellectual
significance (Bass & Elmendorf, 2012). The assignment was a collaborative project with
graphic design and English students collaborating on short graphic novels based on some
aspect of history and current events, chosen by the students:
This kid, one student who sat in the corner of the room, long hair all in his eyes, not paying attention, you know. He was just kind of like in and out. When it came to this project, he hooked on to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. And he was teaching himself Japanese because he was interested in Japanese Manga and he was an amazing drawer (sic). So…he chose the bombing of Pearl Harbor...he could pick any moment within that event. And so he drew Japanese bombers coming in and hitting the boats. And the boats were amazingly drawn. And he put in Japanese characters, and when he presented it to the class, he spoke in
63
Japanese, which was fascinating and interesting for the students. And then he continued with a panel about Roosevelt and what happened in the aftermath in some other panels. The final image was, and it was with text only and a photograph, and it was a photograph of, relating to internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. It was a sign beside a store, a couple in front of their store, with a big sign that said, "Go home Japs!" And then he worked some text around it. And so this kid, that was truly disengaged, suddenly came to life when he had to share this project with the class. He was so excited, and everyone was so impressed with his drawings, and his writing, it wasn't just me, it made him very proud of his work. Which is so exciting. But another thing that happened from it was the discussion that ensued afterward. About how Japanese-Americans were treated during World War II to how Muslims and Mexican immigrants and others were being talked about in this political state. Particularly with Trump now. And the attitudes of how we were all feeling. And of all of my classes, that it was just a fascinating discussion that made what they were doing very, very relevant to their world today. So I was very excited about that. (Callie)
Summary
This chapter related findings from four faculty participant interviews and
documents on the Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities initiative at an urban
community college. The major themes that emerged were institutional support evolution,
faculty in a community of practice and students experiencing social pedagogy.
The faculty interviews and document analysis pointed to some distinct historical periods
in the evolution of the practice and institutional support evolution. Overall, the
institution provided an impressive amount of support in its position on high impact
practices, faculty development opportunities and its observation of IVLC as a successful
initiative. However, faculty participants had an awareness that IVLC had been a
grassroots initiative and administrative oversight at times did not align with IVLC's
64
unique and complex activities. Furthermore, faculty did not see faculty development as
useful after a certain point.
Faculty participants all engaged in a community of practice in the leadership role
they took with IVLC, and their mentorship of each other and their IVLC partners.
Faculty observed that they experienced social pedagogy in the same way that their
students did, and that interdisciplinary collaboration challenged and energized their
teaching. These faculty members also engaged in multiple high-impact practices,
combining IVLC with the Common Read and service learning initiatives on campus.
Faculty struggled with time constraints as they took on extra work to participate in the
initiative, and through trial and error, improved their ability to work with the pedagogy.
Faculty also found that their teaching transformed beyond the partnerships and
assignments they have formed with IVLC, and as one participant coined it-- “IVLCify”
all their classrooms.
The student experience with social pedagogy through the practice of IVLC
provided them with a sense of authority and empowerment while honing their personal
identity and the way they saw themselves as students. While resistance to the workload
and challenges of group work and interdisciplinary thinking caused some students to
withdraw from IVLC classes, others eventually found great relevance in the practice and
observed their own personal transformation, also observed by faculty.
65
The final chapter of this study will discuss findings in relation to the literature,
present implications for other institutions and communities of practice, and discuss
recommendations for future research.
66
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION
This chapter will present an overview of a case study exploring the experience of
four faculty members engaged in Student Working in Interdisciplinary Groups (IVLC)
within an urban community college environment in the United States. It will set forth a
discussion of the findings about the literature, and present implications for other
institutions and communities of practice. It will propose two theories and a new
schematic that represents the phenomena and discuss recommendations for future
research. Three research questions guided this study: (a) How did the institution’s
position on student success influence faculty’s ability to implement innovations?
(b).What were the lived experiences of faculty who participated in Interdisciplinary
Virtual Learning Communities? (c) What were the elements of Interdisciplinary Virtual
Learning Communities, which led to desirable student outcomes?
Overview of Study
UCC’s IVLC integrates English and basic educational skills courses with an
additional content course in art history, education, nursing, sociology, speech
communication, and theater. The online, shared, student-centered space allows students
to archive and share their research and written, visual, and aural compositions with
others. Each discipline responds with different assignments to support learning across
classrooms; students’ works produced in composition classes serve as texts for content
classes. The cross-disciplinary sharing and reflective exercises that accompany the
67
assignments lead to a final product of digital storytelling based on personal narrative
(Darcy & Cuomo, 2011, Kuh, et. al. 2013).
Participant interviews revealed that the original structure of the IVLC triads
changed and at times, became partnerships between only two faculty members.
Furthermore, participants asserted that their teaching changed due to IVLC, and that they
incorporated parts of the practice in all their classrooms.
The case study proposed that the social pedagogy process model of Bass and
Elmendorf (see Figure 1) would serve as a conceptual lens and theoretical model for
IVLC activities. This proposition supported the study of the faculty and student teaching
and learning experience. Further themes emerged in consideration of the institutional
position that enabled the teaching and learning environment.
Four faculty participants underwent semi-structured in-depth interviews. I also
examined and categorized archival documents, websites and published and unpublished
articles on IVLC. Three major themes emerged institutional support evolution, faculty in
a community of practice and students experiencing social pedagogy.
Discussion of Findings in Relationship to the Literature
Institutional Support Evolution
UCC is an exemplar of an institution that has used high impact practices as a
means to improve student retention and graduation. Its Freshman Academies initiative
has been highlighted by policy and research organizations. The ingredients for this
supportive environment originated in 1968 when the community college became part of
the city university, and faculty at the community college were held to the same research
standards as their counterparts at the university sites. The emphasis on pedagogical
68
research as a supportive means to both improve student learning and promote relevant
faculty scholarship cultivated faculty members who sought out faculty development
opportunities. Upon the initiation of the Freshman Academies, the institution itself
attempted to learn what classroom delivery systems were most effective. With the
identification of IVLC’s success, support for the initiative increased and extended beyond
the original grant funding (participant interviews).
Both Thomas and Brown (2011) and Bass (2012) suggest that the current delivery
of college curriculum does not adequately address the significance of informal learning,
the participatory culture, high impact practices and experiential co-curriculum. UCC took
a step towards meeting the limitation of its curriculum and providing transferable student
learning outcomes that are present in social pedagogy by expanding its curriculum to
include high impact classes. It intentionally reviewed student success data and redirected
its resources to IVLC.
The ability of UCC to respond positively to needed change suggests that it is a
learning organization as defined by Senge (1990):
Learning organizations [are] organizations where people continually expand their
capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns
of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people
are continually learning to see the whole together (p 3).
Faculty participants expressed that IVLC could have been better and more
thoughtfully supported. Yet, the very existence of the leadership team, and the
institutional support through resources and incentives, including faculty development
69
(Angelo, 2008; Dawson et al., 2010; Huber & Hutchings, 2005) demonstrates that the
institutional culture empowered faculty to find the most effective strategies for their
students.
Faculty Community of Practice
The literature notes the value of a supportive teaching culture regarding
motivation, informative feedback, and fostering of interdisciplinary curricula (Cox, 2004;
Feldman & Paulsen, 1998; Feldman & Paulsen, 1999; Fugate & Amey, 2000). IVLC
encourages faculty communities of practices, through the leadership team, and the IVLC
faculty partnerships and triads. Lave and Wenger (1991) define a community of practice:
A community of practice is a set of relations among, persons, activity, and world,
over time and in relation with other tangential and overlapping communities of
practice. A community of practice is an intrinsic condition for the existence of
knowledge, not least because it provides the interpretive support necessary for
making sense of its heritage. Thus, participation in the cultural practice in which
any knowledge exists is an epistemological principle of learning. (p. 1083)
Faculty participants all engaged in multiple high impact practices, observed by
Finley and McNair (2013) as the most efficient form of delivery. Finley & McNair also
note that students who are most supported by high impact practices are historically
underserved students, as are the majority of students in the institution.
Faculty participants reported of their interest in authentic assessment activities, as well as
their ongoing review of their teaching. This faculty group had immersed itself in inquiry-
based learning (Bain, 2011; Moran, 2010; Thomas & Brown, 2011). The
interdisciplinary nature of their pursuit (Moran, 2010) supported faculty participants to
70
make connections with other faculty members, which led to their growth as conscious
educators.
The limitation of examining four faculty participant leaders also provided reports
from the faculty most immersed in the project. The faculty participants moved beyond
McFarland’s (2011) notion of faculty leaders in their conscious assumption of the role.
They have, to a greater or lesser degree, taken on leadership qualities noted by
McFarland, such as mentor, advocate, and ambassador in their community of practice,
and in their relationship with the institution. The coordinator of the project embodies
McFarland’s identification of a new managerialism for faculty. The coordinator of the
project found herself working in a new way with the administration to satisfy expected
administrative outcomes. Moreover, these faculty participants were drivers of change
(Goral, 2013) in an institution that had the will to support their efforts.
Students Experiencing Social Pedagogy
The Bass-Elmendorf Social Pedagogy model (2012) (see Figure 1) which this
study proposed as a model for the practice held elements exemplified in student
testimony and participant interviews. The four most significant aspects of the pedagogy
model that emerged were (a) represent knowledge to an authentic audience, (b) engage
with authenticity and difficulty, (c) connecting the emotional to the cognitive, and (d) an
integrated sense of personal and intellectual significance. “Valuing process and product”
as well as “flexibility with knowledge in open-ended contexts” (Bass-Elmendorf, 2012)
also emerged prominently through coding.
The emergent sub-themes included the Bass-Elmendorf strands. The sub-themes
were further refined in the practice of IVLC to encompass: student authority: represent
71
knowledge to an authentic audience; audience and student authority: structure provided
through authenticity and difficulty; culture and the self: an integrated sense of personal
and intellectual significance; and resistance transformed into engagement: connecting the
cognitive and affective.
Bass-Elmendorf's model in relation to the Fook and Cooper (2003) tenet of
‘critical incidence’ in learning, Taylor’s (2008) model of discomfort before discovery,
and the case study's observation of student transformation from resistance to engagement
all linked to the strand "connecting the cognitive and the affective” (Bass & Elmendorf
2012). Likewise, focus on “culture and the self” (Darcy, Dupre, & Cuomo, 2010)
brought forward student testimony describing an integrated sense of personal and
intellectual significance. Faculty participants frequently noted authority and audience
when discussing engaging with authenticity and difficulty.
Evans (2015) asserts that the distributed labor that occurs in technology-enabled
personal learning spaces, as were formed through sharing on the wiki spaces in IVLC,
means that “learning and social identity is framed by social, participative and on-going
performances of what is legitimate and illegitimate professional learning and practice” (p.
35). Faculty participants unanimously noted that peer learning and authentic audiences
changed students’ disposition to their assignments in IVLC. Cabiness et. al. (2013) also
note the self-regulatory, collaborative, and cooperative behavior elicited from using wikis
in student collaboration, leading to higher order thinking, thereby promoting the ability to
demonstrate disciplinary skills. The democratization of and cooperation in learning as
noted by (Moran, 2010) in interdisciplinary approaches lead to the new authority students
found in their writing and projects as noted by faculty participants and student testimony.
72
Student assertion of the transformative learning that occurred in IVLC can be said
to embody the cultural-spiritual viewpoint of Taylor (2008) and transformational
learning. Students became knowledge producers through their individual cultural
experiences in some cases, or with cultures which they chose to interact with, as in the
case of Callie's student and his interest in Japanese culture.
In approaching student's experiences in their digital stories, students learned to
connect their personal interests and histories to that of academic ones, noted as one of the
strands in the Association of American Colleges and Universities view of integrative
learning (AAC & U). A milestone in the skill of making connections to a discipline in the
Valid Assessment of Student Learning Rubric for Integrative Learning reads,
Effectively selects and develops examples of life experiences, drawn from a
variety of contexts (e.g., family life, artistic participation, civic involvement, work
experience), to illuminate concepts/ theories/ frameworks of fields of study
(AAC & U).
Callie’s art student met this milestone through his graphic novel assignment, and
Nedal experienced this milestone in his acting class (Darcy et al., 2010). Integrated
learning is most often encountered by students later in their academic career than was
experienced by these students (Laird, 2012).
The story of Callie’s student, who created the graphic novel about the bombing of
Pearl Harbor, is one of an individual student transformation (Mezirow, 1997). The story
also embodies the power of the participatory cultural learning described by Bass (2012).
These elements include: (a) low barriers to entry, (b) strong support for sharing one’s
73
contributions, (c) informal mentorship from experienced to novice, (d) a sense of
connection to each other, (e) a sense of ownership in what is being created, and (f) a
strong collective sense that something is at stake.
Zaugg et al. (2015) observe that technology enables cross-cultural experiences
without the necessity for travel. IVLC assignments surrounding culture and identity
embodied this phenomenon. The research site’s rich cultural diversity, with students
largely comprised of immigrants, uniquely supported a cultural exchange without
requiring that the institution to seek external partnerships, although Romy is interested in
working externally and collaborating with outside institutions (participant interview).
Implications for Practice and Policy
Deductive data analysis confirmed that IVLC adheres to the Bass- Elmendorf
model in identification in codes to all aspects of the model. Further data analysis
reasserted the pedagogy itself, as well as the faculty and institutional relationship to the
pedagogy. Although this was a theory-based case study, it was also an exploratory one.
Themes emerged from the data that moved beyond the Bass-Elmendorf model by the
research questions and the design of the participant interview questions. A process of
code weaving (Saldana, 2009), wherein patterns emerged, led to further analysis which
ultimately led to the generation of two theories: an ecosystem for teaching and learning
and a threshold to an academic identity for a college student.
The first theory, an ecosystem for teaching and learning, addressed the inter-
connectivity of the relationship between institution, faculty, and students. The
observations of Thomas and Brown (2011) assisted in articulating the emerging patterns
of connection among institution, faculty, and students.
74
The second theory, a threshold to an academic identity for a college student,
observed the unique entry of students at the community college in relationship to the
initiative. The data analysis suggested that Fook and Cooper's (2003) critical incident of
"resistance" and Bass-Elmendorf's strand of "connecting the cognitive and the affective"
became inter-related in the case of IVLC. This phenomenon led to the theme of
resistance to engagement-connecting the cognitive and the affective. Likewise, Bass-
Elmendorf's strand of "engaging with authenticity and difficulty" emerged uniquely in
IVLC with faculty participants' assertion that students worked harder when aware of their
audiences, and the concrete tasks of IVLC helped structure students' time. Finally, the
strand of "an integrated sense of intellectual and personal significance" emerged in IVLC
alongside the examination of "culture and the self." These subthemes of students
experiencing social pedagogy mapped to Bass’s (2012) concept of “low barrier to entry,”
The idea of a threshold, rather than a barrier, became an appropriate metaphor as the
data was themed and brought to a more abstract and universal level as advised by Saldana
(2009).
Saldana (2009) describes reflective exercises called “analytic memos” (p. 37)
which support the researcher in data analysis. Reflections on emergent patterns,
networks, related theories and problems with the study support the researcher in finding
the appropriate transition from coding to formal write up (p. 41). The analytic memo
process best approximates the researcher approach to identifying emergent data. Saldana
cites Strauss and Corbin (1998) in his discussion of analytic memos, which was the more
consciously modeled approach.
75
An Ecosystem for Teaching and Learning
Thomas and Brown (2011) use a metaphor of a petri dish to describe the new
culture of learning in technology-enabled collectives:
A culture is what a scientist grows in a petri dish in a lab under controlled
conditions, with very limited foreknowledge of what will result. One of the basic
principles of this kind of cultivation is that you don't interfere with the process
because it is the process itself that is interesting. In fact, the entire point of the
experiment is to allow the culture to reproduce in an uninhibited, completely
organic way, within the constraints of medium and environment—and then see
what happens.
Unlike the traditional sense of culture, which strives for stability and adapts to
changes in its environment only when forced, this emerging culture responds to
its surroundings organically. It does not adapt. Rather it thrives on change,
integrating it into its process as one of its environmental variables and creating
further change. In other words, it forms a symbiotic relationship with the
environment. This is the type of culture that exists in the new culture of learning
(p. 356).
How can this metaphor best describe IVLC and its relationship to the faculty and
institution? Perhaps that the institution served as the grant funder of the experiment, the
faculty as the scientists and the student learning occurred as the result of this experiment.
This metaphor seems inadequate when considering that the institution, the faculty and the
students all learned. A more apt model, then, would be to view IVLC as the petri dish,
76
and symbiotic reproduction of knowledge occurred across the institution, faculty, and
students because of this experiment.
A recognition of the value and the nature of the new culture of learning might be
required for an institution, even as it attempts to make positive change. Brown and
Thomas (2011) assert the need for non-interference, and there was a view among faculty
participants that some of the institutional involvement did not serve IVLC well.
Therefore, institutional support for innovative, technology-enabled modalities such as
IVLC, or any promising grassroots community that leads to student success, best not
encroach on a faculty, but rather make allowances for the ‘organic' way in which such
innovation flourishes.
Faculty participants were aware that incentives and recognition, both on campus
and through conference participation supported IVLC well. Institutional support and
promotion of pedagogical innovation would serve other campuses, which seek stronger
learning outcomes for students. Likewise, faculty participants wished for better support
for authentic assessment, so that they could better understand what worked.
Faculty participants asserted that IVLC transformed their teaching beyond the
pedagogy. Proper cultivation creates knowledge reproduction. Ferren and Slavins
(2000) note that investment in faculty development and technology-enabled practices
produces greater learning productivity. Likewise, the power of faculty communities of
practice in providing an opportunity for cross-pollination of ideas and interdisciplinary
thinking among faculty suggests that institutional policy and climates, which can grow
faculty communities of practice, are significant in determining successful student
outcomes.
77
Time was uncovered as one of the most problematic elements when it came to
IVLC implementation. Community college faculty teach more than their university
counterparts do, and part-time faculty members have competing commitments to
construct a meaningful living. IVLC, although a very successful practice, is extremely
time-consuming for both faculty and students. Whereas for students, time on task and
engaging with difficulty ultimately provide valuable lessons for life-long learning, the
intensity of IVLC participation for faculty has limited its ability to scale.
The positive results among faculty participants and student success data on IVLC
suggest that institutions might reconsider current expectations of faculty's use of time.
The access to faculty development and the interest that the faculty, took in seeking to
improve student learning suggest the need for more intentional faculty development
practices. The qualities of leadership that faculty participants exhibited also suggest that
engaging faculty as leaders and employing faculty with indications of McFarland's
leadership qualities are a worthy institutional investment. Faculty leaders at UCC seek
more assessment that is authentic to help them better understand what works about the
initiative. They wish to focus on the most powerful aspects of the effort, as well as to
better promote IVLC to their colleagues and the institution as a whole (participant
interviews).
Lave and Wenger (1991) note:
A learning curriculum is essentially situated. It is not something that can be
considered in isolation, manipulated in arbitrary didactic terms, or analyzed apart
from the social relations that shape legitimate peripheral participation. A learning
curriculum is thus characteristic of a community…[it implies] participations in an
78
activity system about which participants share understandings concerning what
they are doing what that means in their lives and for their communities (p. 1079).
The interdependence of institutional support, a faculty community of practice, and
students experiencing social pedagogy suggests a new ecosystem model for institutions
attempting to support social pedagogy. This model enfolds the Bass Elmendorf model
(2012) and acknowledges the requirements of institutional support and a faculty
community of practice for social pedagogy to engage:
Figure 2. An Ecosystem of Teaching and Learning.
Threshold to an Academic Identity for a Community College Student
Darcy et al. (2010) note a welcoming environment and a transition from personal
to academic experience in the practice of IVLC. Faculty participants spoke about the
challenges students experienced when faced with difficulty, particularly at the beginning
79
Institutional Support
Faculty Community of Practice
Students Experiencing Social Pedagogy
(BASS-ELMENDORF 2012}
of the semester, which led to some attrition in classes. Bain (2011) and Kuh (2008) assert
that high expectations from faculty encourage significant learning to occur for college
students. Jane described that her initially resisting students did not want to leave the
classroom and insisted on extending the classroom discussion until they had to give up
the classroom on the last day of the semester.
The literature on community college pedagogy discusses barriers to learning in
the forms of developmental and gateway classes (Bailey et al. 2015; Karp & Stacey,
2015). The theme of resistance to engagement, observed in this study, suggests that
students in open access institutions must cross a metaphorical threshold to engage in
habits of mind (Dewey, 1934), flexibility with knowledge (Bass, 2012), and higher order
thinking required of them to succeed. IVLC, in its engagement with authenticity and
difficulty, flexibility of knowledge and connecting the cognitive to the affective (Bass,
2012) provides an opportunity for students to enter into higher order activities and
thinking. Both Thomas and Brown (2011) and Bass (2012) suggested that the current
delivery of the college curriculum does not adequately address the significance of
informal learning, the participatory culture, high impact practices and experiential co-
curriculum.
Many community college campuses engage in student success courses and first-
year experiences. This case study upholds Karp & Stacey’s (2015) study on the
limitations of student success courses that do not provide authentic, applied, and
contextualized learning, and suggest that such courses should include aspects of the Bass-
Elmendorf model (2012) which lead to student authority, engagement and enhanced
academic identity.
80
The most significant aspects of the Social Pedagogy model (Bass & Elmendorf,
2012) uncovered in observing IVLC were (a) represent knowledge for an authentic
audience, (b) engage with authenticity and difficulty, (c) connecting the affective and the
cognitive, and (d) an integrated sense of personal and intellectual experience. IVLC's
assignments connected the students' personal experiences to their academic experience.
Students became the authors of the texts read by their peers. Jane's student at first saw no
relationship in her life to that of migrants until challenged to discover how she had indeed
migrated. Callie's student became his peers' teacher in presenting his graphic novel about
the bombing of Pearl Harbor from the Japanese perspective. Student learning became
visible to the students as well as to the faculty (Byas & Cercone, 2017; faculty
participants).
Bass (2012) proposes that social pedagogy offers (a) low barriers to entry, (b)
strong support for sharing one’s contributions, (c) informal mentorship from experienced
to novice, (d) a sense of connection to each other, (e) a sense of ownership in what is
being created, and (f) a strong collective sense that something is at stake. Students
testified, and faculty participants reported, that IVLC incorporated these elements.
Community college students in particular, as recipients of open access enrollment,
benefit strongly from activities that hold low barriers to entry. In high impact practices,
the students who would most benefit from them do not receive them (Finley & McNair,
2013; Kuh, 2008), due to the practices of institutions which tends to offer them in more
advanced classes. Developmental students, as well as students in first semester courses,
participated in IVLC. The diversity of the student population in community college,
which tends to draw from all walks and stages of life offer the richest opportunity for
81
peer mentorship and a shared, high-stakes experience. Due to the transient, non-
residential experience of community college students, a sense of connection is more
challenging to achieve, so the opportunity to make connections within a classroom setting
is well advised (Tinto, 2012). Investment in this high impact practice, which connects
the cognitive and the affective so effectively, suggests the favorable potential for colleges
to focus efforts on academic interventions that support the whole student, a task often
residing solely in student affair contexts.
Implications for Community Colleges
High impact practices are most effective for first-generation, historically
underserved and academically unprepared students (Kuh, 2008). According to Kuh
(2008) and Finley and McNair (2013), in many instances, these students are the least
likely to receive high impact practices in the first semesters of college. Community
college students have the greatest proportion of the students described in the body of high
impact practice literature (Beach, 2011). IVLC, a very effective high impact practice
occurs in both developmental and first level English classes. The pedagogy has an
intentional approach to welcoming students into an academic setting (Darcy, et. al, 2010).
The first research question of this study was "how did the institution's positon on
student success influence faculty's ability to implementation?" The research site invested
in (a) resources into faculty development, (b) a research protocol to determine the most
effective initiatives, and (c) high impact practices. Due to the research protocol in place
at the college, it observed that IVLC was the most effective of the high impact practices
offered, and therefore focused its resources on it to sustain the effort. Investing in
quality, as Ferrin and Slavins (2000) assert, is particularly important for community
colleges in their quest to serve their students well.
82
The second research question was “what were the lived experiences of the faculty
who participated in IVLC?” The satisfaction and personal development that the study's
community college faculty reported on in regards to the interdisciplinary sharing they
experienced in a faculty community of practice suggest that replicating such
opportunities could lead to further innovation in classroom teaching. IVLC required
faculty development for faculty to learn the wiki tools at the outset, and faculty
development became required on a yearly basis to participate in the initiative. The
participants were not universally pleased with all the faculty development requirements
after a certain amount of time but also appreciated that it had provided them with not only
the tools they needed but also a supportive group of faculty across a variety of
disciplines. The community of practice and opportunities for faculty development are
particularly relevant to the community college faculty, in that they are the sector of
faculty who teach the highest percentage of classes. The question or time, due to these
conditions suggests that community colleges look closely at resource allocation to
determine how best to use faculty time. Tinto's (2012) assertion that student success
efforts must include the classroom suggests that reallocation of resources is in order. The
evidence suggests that enlisting faculty poised to deliver transformational learning as
mentors, advocates, and ambassadors (McFarland, 2011) with directed resource
allocation supports student learning.
The final research question was “what were the elements of IVLC that led to
desirable student outcomes? The strongest of the strands uncovered in the Bass-
Elmendorf model (2012) were: “engage with authenticity and difficulty," “represent
knowledge to an authentic audience," “connect the cognitive and the affective," and “an
integrated sense of personal and intellectual significance.” These strands, when
examining the experience of IVLC, in particular, led to the following subthemes: student
authority-represent knowledge for an authentic audience; audience and authority:
83
structure provided through authenticity and difficulty; culture and the self: an integrated
sense of personal and intellectual significance and resistance transformed into
engagement-connecting the cognitive and the effective. Faculty in IVLC used elements of
the initiative in their non-IVLC classes and reported similar success in these classes.
Faculty in community colleges, in particular, have the potential to increase student
success with a greater and wider focus on project-based learning.
The case study suggests that classroom activities in community college should
adopt qualities that occur in social pedagogy. The structure provided through increased
demands, project designs with authentic peer audiences, and projects that reflect student's
interests and identity, enables students to connect their learning to their sense of selves
and begin to come into an academic identity. Intentional classroom design provides a
threshold for students to assume an academic identity. An emphasis on a learner-centered
environment over an instructional-centered environment as Bass (2012) identifies,
suggests that the social practice of learning, which engages the whole student (Lave &
Wenger, 1991) also engages faculty. The open access environment makes this inclusion
of the social world (Lave & Wenger, 1991) more crucial for community college students
than for their counterparts at selective institutions.
The three research questions that focused respectively on the institution, the
faculty and the students uncovered an ecosystem of teaching and learning. Bass-
Elmendorf model (2012) exists as an abstract concept until faculty members receive
faculty development and resource support to implement the pedagogy in their classrooms.
The understanding of this interdependence provides a focus for community colleges that
seek to improve student-learning outcomes.
84
For Further Study
This case study of a successful technology-enabled pedagogy in a diverse, urban,
open-access institution suggested that an experimental and organic approach best
supports a new culture of learning and that institutional position is critical to its ability to
reproduce. Faculty, when participating in a community of practice, grow in their ability
to provide meaningful and interdisciplinary experiences for their students. Moreover,
when engaging with authenticity and difficulty, new college students can cross a
threshold into an academic identity, which promotes transformation into their sense of
authority as knowledge producers as well as knowledge consumers.
The case study, in seeking to understand the relationship among the institutional
position on student success, faculty practice, and student learning when considering
IVLC, a successful innovative pedagogy that remains active yet has not scaled, has
elicited new questions. How can institutions provide adequate time for faculty to engage
in the scholarship of teaching and learning? How can hiring practices, incentives, and
promotion identify and reward innovative faculty leaders? How can social pedagogy be
adapted more readily into curricula across campuses? How can institutions encourage a
new culture of learning when constrained by old forms of accountability and
administrative structures?
Further study could focus more pointedly on any one of the three areas that led
the research questions of this study. Studies on institutional position, allocation of
resources and incentivizing faculty development specifically on technology-enabled
pedagogy both qualitatively and quantitatively would yield information for policy and
practice for campuses. Research connecting faculty communities of practice directly to
85
student learning outcomes could uncover the effectiveness of the practice and promote
appropriate support. Research focusing on individual strands of social pedagogy would
pinpoint the most effective aspects of the pedagogy and promote effective curriculum
design. It could then ameliorate some of the difficulties with the implementation that
some faculty participants observed, and which limited participation (participant
interviews). Moreover, continued studies, which observe the eco-system of institutional
support, faculty practice and student success would provide national models for
institutions to emulate.
Conclusion
The Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities initiative, or IVLC, is an
ongoing initiative at an urban community college. IVLC is at once a classroom social
pedagogy and an opportunity for faculty to create a community of practice, mirroring the
student experience. This case study of IVLC explored, through the lens of social
pedagogy, institutional position, and support, the lived experiences of faculty members
and the elements of the practice that led to student success. The study uncovered a local
culture of learning enabled by technology, faculty willing to engage as leaders in the
scholarship of teaching and learning, and an institution able to provide resources to
support the effort. The ecosystem requires both institutional support and a faculty
community of practice to allow students to experience social pedagogy. The study
confirmed the Bass Elmendorf (2012) model of social pedagogy and enfolded it into a
model of an ecosystem of teaching and learning (figure 2).
IVLC emerges as the most innovative and effective among the high impact
practices supported at UCC. Students who participate are welcomed into a community of
86
learners where they become authors and teachers, crossing a threshold from a personal
identity to an academic one. Engaging with authenticity and difficulty does not bar the
way into the academic community, but opens a door into it. Students are aware of the
transformational power of the practice (Byas & Cercone, 2017) and continue to succeed
in subsequent semesters (Fichera, 2012)
Implications for policy and practice include understanding and supporting a new
culture of learning, which requires space and time for experimentation, and recognition
that when engaging with elements of social pedagogy, college students have the potential
to cross a threshold into a full academic identity. Moreover, the connection of the
cognitive to the affective experience for students suggests that this becomes an academic
undertaking, not the sole domain of student affairs professionals.
Further study on institutional support for social pedagogy, faculty communities of
practice and the methods by which institutions can support positive academic innovations
for positive student outcomes would provide models for higher education institutions and
in particular, community colleges to emulate. Further study also supports the potential of
this initiative to scale to a wider audience. Social pedagogy and the new culture of
learning hold promising practices for integrative and authentic student learning.
Institutional support and a faculty community of practice are necessary for social
pedagogy learning to occur.
87
REFERENCES
Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U). (nod). The essential
learning outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/leap/essential-learning-
outcomes
Angelo, T. A. (2008). Doing faculty development as if we value learning most:
Transformative guidelines from research and practices. Retrieved from
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Detail?
entitytype=2&searchtype=2&id=3155861
Bailey, T. R., Smith Jaggars, S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s community
colleges: A clearer path to student success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bain, K. (2011). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bass, R. (2012). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of learning in higher education.
Educause Review, 47(2). Retrieved from
http//www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVo
lume47/DisruptingOurselvesTheProblem/247690
Bass, R., & Elmendorf, H. (2012). Social pedagogies. Retrieved from
https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/bassr/social-pedagogies
88
Beach, J. M. (2011). Gateway to opportunity? A history of the community college in the
United States. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
89
Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and
learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16–32.
Byas, T., & Cercone, A. (2017). Technology enhanced high impact practice for authentic
learning .The International Journal for Scholarship of Technology Enhanced
Learning. Georgia Institute of Technology.
Cabiness, C., Donovan, L., & Green T. D. (2013). Integrating wikis in the support and
practice of historical analysis skills. Tech Trends: Linking Research and Practice
to Improve Learning, 57(6), 38-47.
City University of New York (2014, May 29). The agreement between the City
University of New York and the Professional Staff Congress, PSC 2007-2010.
Retrieved from: http://www.psc-cuny.org/sites/default/files/PSC%20CUNY
%202007-2010%20CBA%2005%2029%2014.pdf
Clarke, M. C., & Rossiter, M. (2008). Narrative learning in adulthood. New Directions
for Adult and Continuing Education, 97, 61–70.
Cox, M. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 97, 5-23.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Darcy J., Dupre, J., & Cuomo, M. (2010). An ePortfolio virtual learning community
within a traditional classroom space. HETS Journal 1((1), 41-60 Retrieved from:
http://c2l.mcnrc.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/8/2013/06/ePVirtualLearning_Darcy
_Dupre_Cuomo1.pdf
90
Darcy, J., & Cuomo, M. (2011, February). Queensborough’s student wiki
interdisciplinary group. Retrieved from the Association of American Colleges
and Universities Leap Project Toolkit website: http://leap.aacu.org/toolkit/high-
impact-practices/2011/queensboroughs-student-wiki-interdisciplinary-group
Dawson, D., Mighty, J., & Britnell, J. (2010). Moving from the periphery to the center of
the academy: Faculty developers as leaders of change. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 122, 69–79. doi:10.1002/tl.399
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Perigee Books.
Evans, P. (2015). Open online spaces of professional learning: Context, personalization
and facilitation. Tech Trends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve
Learning, 59(1), 31-36.
Feldman, K. A., & Paulsen, M. B. (Eds.). (1998). Teaching and learning in the college
classroom. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Feldman, K. A., & Paulsen, M. B. (1999). Faculty motivation: The role of a supportive
teaching culture. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 69–78.
doi:10.1002/tl.7807
Ferdenzi, A., & Colallillo, G. (2013, January). In their own words: Community college
students share reflections on ePortfolio learning experiences. Presented at the
Association of American Colleges and Universities ePortfolio symposium,
Washington, DC.
Ferren, A. S., & Slavins, R. (2000). Investing in quality: Tools for improving curricular
efficiency. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges and Universities.
91
Fichera, V. (2012, January). The freshman academies: A first look. Presented at the
Urban Community College.
Finley, A., & McNair, T. (2013). Assessing underserved students' engagement in high
impact practices. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and
Universities.
Fook, J., & Cooper, L. (2003). Bachelor of social work fieldwork manual. Department of
Social Work, School of Primary Health Care. Melbourne, Australia: Monash
University.
Freiere, P. (1970, 2000, 2006). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Ramos, Trans.). New
York, NY: Continuum International.
Fugate, A. L., & Amey, M. J. (2000, July). Career stages of community college faculty:
A qualitative analysis of their career paths, roles, and development. Community
College Review, 28(1), 1–22. doi:10.1177/009155210002800101
Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Galloway, C. (2001). Vygotsky’s constructionism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging
perspectives on learning, teaching and technology. Retrieved from
http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epitt/
Gardner, H. (1983; 1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Gilgun, J. F. (2010). The intellectual roots of grounded theory. Current Issues in
Qualitative Research, 1(9), 1-7. Retrieved from:
http://www.ssnpstudents.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/gt-.pdf
92
Gohn, L. A., & Albin, G. R. (Eds.). (2006). Understanding college student
subpopulations: A guide for student affairs professionals. National Association of
Student Personnel Administration. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/057235/Understanding_College_Student_Subpopulatio
ns_Asian_American_Students_Ch._17_
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college
success. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437–469.
doi:10.3102/0034654310370163
Goral, T. (2013, October). Robert Zemsky makes case for big higher ed changes.
University Business: Solutions for Higher Education Management. Retrieved
from http://www.universitybusiness.com/article/robert-zemsky-makes-case-big-
higher-ed-changes
Gumport, P., & Chun, M. (2005). Technology and higher education. In P. G. Altbach, P.
J. Gumport, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty first
century: Social political and economic challenges (pp. 393–424). Baltimore, MD:
John Hopkins University Press.
93
Hanson, C. & Amelotte, P. (2013, Winter). Cracking open the curriculum: Lessons from
a community college. Liberal Education, 99 (1). Retrieved from:
http://aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/cracking-open-curriculum-
lessons-community-college.
Hart & Associates (2015, November). Bringing equity and quality learning together:
Institutional priorities for tracking and advancing underserved students’ success.
Washington D.C.: American Association of Colleges and Universities. Retrieved
from http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/
LEAP/2015AACUEquityReport.pdf
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. L. (2011). The practice of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hirt, J. B. (2006). Where you work matters: Student affairs administration at different
types of institutions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Jackson, D. L., Stebleton, M. J., & Santos Laanan, F. (2013). The experience of
community college faculty involved in a learning community program.
Community College Review, 41(3), 5–17. doi:10.1177/0091552112473145
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth
(Ed.), Instructional theories and models (pp. 215–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
94
Karp, M. M., & Stacey, G. W. (2015, September). Student success courses for sustained
impact. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teacher’s College,
Columbia University. Retrieved from:
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/student-success-courses-for-
sustained-impact.pdfhttp://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/student-
success-courses-for-sustained-impact.pdf
Kezar, A. (2005). What do we mean by “learning” in the context of higher education?
New Directions for Higher Education, 131. doi:10.1002/he.186
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to
them, and why they matter. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges
and Universities. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/leap/hips
Kuh, G. D., O’Donnell, K., & Reed, S. (2013). Ensuring quality and taking high-impact
practices to scale. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Laird, T. N. (2012, June 20). The professor who played with fire (student success).
Plenary session of Association of American Colleges and Universities Institute on
High Impact Practices and Student Success. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/
meetings/hips/documents/NelsonLairdProfWhoPlayedWithFire.pdf
95
Laird, T. N., BrckaLorenz, A., Zilvisnskis, J., & Lambert A. (2014, November).
Exploring the effects of a HIP culture on campus: Measuring the relationship
between the importance faculty place on high-impact practices and student
participation in those practices. Indiana Center for PostSecondary Research.
Paper presented at ASHE Conference, Washington D.C. Retrieved from:
http://nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/presentations/2014/ASHE14-
HIPCulturePaperFINAL.pdf
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Making Connections Website. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.connections-
community.org/about-making-connections
McFarland, B. (2011). Professors as intellectual leaders: Formation, identity and role.
Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 57–73. doi:10.1080/03075070903443734
McGee, P., Carmean, C., & Jafari, A. (2005). Course management systems for learning:
Beyond accidental pedagogy. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-512-2
McMillan, J. H. (2008). Educational Research: Fundamentals for the consumer (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12. doi:10.1002/ace.7401
96
Micari, M., & Pazos, P. (2012). Connecting to the professor: Student-faculty relationship
in a highly challenging course. College Teaching, 60(2), 41–47.
doi:10.1080/87567555.2011.627576
Moran, J. (2010). Interdisciplinarity: The new critical idiom (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
NVivo. QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 11, 2015.
Perez, A., McShannon, J., & Hynes, P. (2012). Community college faculty development
program and student achievement. Community College Journal of Research &
Practice, 36(5), 379–385.
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of
change: The challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. London, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
97
Sydow, D., & Alfred, R. (2013). Revisioning community colleges: Positioning for
innovation. ACE series on community colleges. Lantham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative Learning Theory. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 119. doi:10.1002/ace.301
ThenGuyin, T. (2008). Peer debriefing. In L. Given (Ed.), SAGE encyclopedia of
qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the
imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Twombly, S., & Townsend, B. K. (2008). Community college faculty: What we know
and need to know. Community College Review, 36(1), 5–24.
doi:10.1177/0091552108319538
Ullah, H., & Wilson, M. A. (2007). Students’ academic success and its association to
student involvement with learning and relationships with faculty and peers.
College Student Journal, 41(4), 1192–1202.
Urban Community College (UCC). (2015). 2012–2013 Factbook.
Urban Community College Reflective Practices. Catalyst for learning.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Designs and methods (Revised
Edition).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
98
Zaugg, H., Davies, R., Parkinson, A., & Magleby, S. (2015). Best practices for using
global virtual teams. Tech Trends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve
Learning, 59(4), 87-95.
Some sources have been de-identified to protect confidentiality. The researcher
may be reached at [email protected] for further information on
sources.
99
APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT QUESTIONS
100
Appendix A. Participant Questions
What led you to elect to participate in the student wiki interdisciplinary group?
(Research Questions 1 and 2)
What activities did you conduct in your classes that reflected your participation in
the group? (Research Questions 2 and 3)
What changes if any did you observe in student participation and learning? Has
this evolved over time? (Research Question 3)
Can you identify “critical incidences” in student interaction with your pedagogical
innovation? Please describe. (Research Question 3)
Please describe an example of the assignments you gave as a result of your
experience the student wiki interdisciplinary group. (Research Questions 2 and 3)
Please describe an example of a student response to your new assignment. Follow
up: Was there evidence of higher order or interdisciplinary learning from this
student? Please describe.(Research Questions 2 and 3)
How do you view the faculty development you received in relationship to your
own disciplinary perspective? (Research Questions 1 and 2)
How do you view your faculty status (e.g., full-time, part-time, adjunct, etc.) as a
factor in your participation in faculty development and high impact practices,
including IVLC? (Research Questions 1 and 2)
How do you view the institutional support available for interdisciplinary faculty
development? (Research Question 1)
101
Did participating in the Student Wiki Interdisciplinary Project change the way
you conducted your other classes? If so, how? (Research Questions 2 and 3)
What differences did you observe, if any, in student experience between classes in
which you implemented the pedagogical innovation and when you did not? How
has this evolved over time? (Research Questions 2 and 3)
What aspects of the experience of interdisciplinary faculty development and
implementation of pedagogical innovations were disappointing or frustrating?
(Research Questions 1 and 2)
What obstacles did you encounter in your pursuit to improve student learning?
(Research Questions 2 and 3)
Research Questions
1. How did the institution’s position on student success influence faculty’s ability to
implement innovations?
2. What were the lived experiences of faculty who participated in Interdisciplinary
Virtual Learning Communities?
3. What were the elements of Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities that
led to desirable student outcomes?
102
APPENDIX B: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
APPROVAL
103
Appendix B. Institutional Review Board Approval
IRB Notice of Approval
Confirmation Number: #20160418Principal Investigators: Michele Cuomo
Project Title:: A Case Study of a Social PedagogyRenewal Date: April 18, 2017
This letter certifies that the proposed study as described in the revised application (received April 8, 2016), has been approved because the Benedictine University Institutional Review Board has determined that the protocol fulfills all the necessary requirements for human subjects research.
This approval has been granted from April 18, 2016 until April 18, 2017. Should you need to continue this study beyond this period, please submit to the Chairperson of the Benedictine University IRB a one-page continuation application one month prior for additional review. Include in this continuation application a brief description of the progress to date in the study and the original approval number.
Please note that this approval is for the protocol as described in your application. Should you desire to make any modification in your protocol, any and all proposed modification must be submitted to and approved by the Benedictine University IRB prior to being initiated.
Sincerely,
A .Clarke
Alandra Weller-Clarke, PhD Institutional Review Board Chairperson School of Education 5700 College Road Benedictine University Lisle, IL 60532 [email protected]
APPENDIX C: NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF HEALTH
CERTIFICATION
104
Appendix C. National Institute of Health Certification
Certificate of Completion
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural
Research certifies that Michele Cuomo successfully completed
the NIH Web-based training course "Protecting Human
Research Participants".
Date of completion: 06/15/2011.
Certification Number: 703682
105
APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT FORM
106
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form
Title of the Study: A Case Study of an Interdisciplinary Social Pedagogy Practice at an Urban Community College
Introduction:You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Michele Cuomo, from Benedictine University. The researcher will explore the impact of Students Working in Interdisciplinary Group (formerly Student Wiki Interdisciplinary Group) or IVLC. This study is being conducted under the direction and supervision of Dr. Eileen Kolich, director of the Educational Doctoral program at Benedictine University.
You are being approached to participate because of your participation as a member of the Interdisciplinary Virtual Learning Communities(IVLC) and Learning Connection initiativePurpose: The goal of this project is to explore the lived experiences of faculty members who underwent interdisciplinary faculty development as part their role in IVLC, as well as to explore the nature of the activities of IVLC to better understand how it served the students who participated.
Procedures:The interview will take approximately 1 hour. During the interview you will be asked questions about your experiences as a faculty member participating in the faculty development and activities of the Student Wiki Interdisciplinary Group.
If additional information becomes necessary, the researcher will send follow-up questions via e-mail. The interview will be audio recorded and will take place via skype or telephone.
Risks/Benefits:While we are taking steps to maintain your confidentiality, this is a unique topic and a limited number of subjects are involved. Thus, there is a slight risk that you could be identified. You may not receive any direct benefit from taking part in this study, but the study may provide insight for your practice and help to increase knowledge which may help others in the future.
Confidentiality:Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be linked to you or identify you will be handled as confidentially as possible. You will not be identified by your real name in any resulting paper or publication, nor will your institution be identified in association with your statements. This information will be stored on a password protected computer to protect confidentiality.
107
Voluntary Participation:Your participation in this study is voluntary. You do not have to take part in this study, and it will not affect your relationship with Urban Community College of the Learning Connection initiative. Even if you decide to participate, you may withdraw from the study without penalty at any time during or after the study. You may have the results of your participation, to the extent that the can be identified, returned to you, removed from the research records or destroyed.
Contacts and Questions: If you have questions or concerns about your participation in this study, contact Michele Cuomo at [email protected] or 215-626-7233.
Statement of Consent:I agree to participate in this study, and to the use of this interview as described above. The signature below indicates that you have read the information in this document and have had a chance to ask any questions you have about the study.
__________________________________________ ____________
Participant’s Signature Date
__________________________________________ ____________
Researcher’s Signature Date
Research at Benedictine University that involves human participants is overseen by the Institutional Review Board. Questions or problems
regarding your rights as a participant should be addressed to:(630) 829 – 6295 /[email protected].
108