Outcomes of Interdisciplinary/Social Pedagogy Development for Community College Faculty

1. Outcomes of Interdisciplinary/Social Pedagogy Development for Community College Faculty HEOC 803 Dissertation SeminarDissertation Prospectus Draft Michele Cuomo Benedictine University

2. Chapter 1Introduction

3. High Impact Practices: A New Culture of Learning • The American Association of Colleges and Universities has identified a series of higher education classroom strategies as ‘high impact,’ including practices such as learning communities, service learning, and writing intensive courses. (Kuh, 2008). • These practices have been demonstrated through the Community College Survey of Student Engagement as engaging academically underprepared and historically underserved students, and therefore retaining them. (Kuh, 2008). • The Faculty Survey of Student Engagement demonstrates that the high impact practices are most highly valued and implemented by faculty women and faculty of color. (Laird, 2012)

4. A New Culture of Learning (Thomas & Seeley Brown, 2012) • The old ways of learning are unable to keep up with our rapidly changing world. • New media forms are making peer-to-peer learning easier and more natural. • Peer-to-peer learning is amplified by emerging technologies that shape the collective nature of participation with those new media.

5. A New Culture of Learning • 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. (Bass, 2012)

6. Learning in the Participatory Culture – Social Pedagogy • Low barriers to entry • Strong support for sharing one’s contributions • Informal mentorship, from experienced to novice • A sense of connection to each other • A sense of ownership in what is being created • A strong collective sense that something is at stake (Bass, 2012)

7. Learning enabled through Technology • “Technologies can play a key role here as new digital, learning, and analytics tools now make it possible to replicate some features of high‑impact activity inside classrooms, 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.” (Bass, 2012).

8. Integrative Learning Theory • Integrative learning is 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. • Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain. The Academy in Transition. Washington, DC.: Association of American Colleges and Universities

9. Interdisciplinarity • “I want to suggest that the value of the term, ‘interdisciplinary’, lies in its flexibility and indeterminacy, and that there are potentially as many forms of interdisciplinarity as there are disciplines. In a sense, to suggest otherwise would be to ‘discipline’ it, to confine it within a set of theoretical and methodological orthodoxies.” (Moran, 2010). • Moran, Joe (2010-03-03). Interdisciplinarity, Second Edition (The New Critical Idiom) (Kindle Location 452). Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.

10. Central Question What is the impact on teaching and learning for community college faculty who participate in interdisciplinary social pedagogy development?

11. Sub Questions According to the faculty, how do they perceive their development experience impacts students? How do community college faculty view their pedagogy who have participated in interdisciplinary social pedagogy development experiences? How does the institution’s support impact the community college faculty development experience?

12. Purpose The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore community college faculty's perceptions about their current pedagogy, as a result of participating in interdisciplinary social pedagogy faculty development within an urban public institution in the northeast.

13. Significance • A study which can uncover the relationship of the community college faculty experience to the process of faculty development has the potential to support increased offerings of faculty development, through greater institutional participation, as well as more nuanced offerings and incentives in response to faculty feedback. • As researchers learn more about the process of community college faculty interdisciplinary pedagogical development based on faculty experiences as well as student outcomes, there is a potential for a further analysis of the phenomena, as well as the possibility of more priority and attention from community college administrations and policy makers to place on this activity to produce meaningful student- faculty interactions which will lead to desired student learning outcomes.

14. Chapter 2Literature Review

15. A New Culture of Learning • The study of teaching and learning is not widely pursued in Ph.D. programs, yet, increasingly faculty in USHE, particularly community college faculty, are called upon to employ interdisciplinary and social pedagogies in their classrooms in order to best engage their students. • Fugate and Amey (2000) observed the lack of understanding of the paths and expectations of community college faculty, despite the common beliefs that the strength of community colleges were in the faculty (p. 1)

16. Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) Predicting Emphasis Placed on Integrative Learning Faculty Characteristics • Women ++ • Faculty of color (all groups) +++ • Years teaching - • FT lecturers/instructors -- • Course load + Course Characteristics • Soft fields +++ • Lower division courses --- • Small and medium courses +++ • General education requirement ++ Are community college level classes participating enough in practices which have been determined to be most beneficial to them (Kuh 2008)? (Laird, 2012)

17. FSSE and Community Colleges Fugate and Amey (2001) observed that most surveys of community college faculty were drawn from national survey data, and that these instruments used models for 4 year institutions or disciplinary specific models, rather than observing community college faculty as a distinct group (p. 1).

18. High Impact Practices: Mixed Results on Student Success • The MDRC Learning Communities demonstration, it was found that the effect on student graduation and retention was not demonstrated to correlate beyond the semester of enrollment in the learning communities. • The pilot strategies in the Achieving the Dream initiative also yielded disappointing results, although there is evidence that this result may have been due to problems with implementation. (Gonzalez, 2011). • LaGuardia Community College has demonstrated that students who participate in ePortfolio, an electronic archiving system which allows students to archive and reflect longitudinally on their growth, have increased success rates, but students who participate in ePortfoliowith faculty who attend development sessions on ePortfolio, the success rates were markedly increased. (Eynon, 2011). • Queensborough Community College’s Freshman Academy Protocol demonstrated significant retention and success rates for students who participated in the Student Wiki Interdisciplinary Group which employs interdisciplinary social pedagogy across classrooms in asynchronous, virtual learning communities. Traditional learning communities, service learning, writing intensive classes which were also offered as high impact practices as part of the Freshman Academy inititiative did not yield significant retention and success differences. (Fichera, 2011).

19. Community College Faculty According to Goldrick-Rab“we still know too little about what works” (p. 459) for community college students. The literature on community college faculty observed suggested that there was more to learn about faculty themselves and their relationship to student success. The literature on faculty development throughout higher education that was reviewed supports the premise that faculty development is most crucial at this juncture in higher education (Angelo, 2008; Dawson, Mighty & Brittnell (2010); Twombly & Townsend (2008).

20. Community College Faculty Faculty development was considered very significant to the faculty and there was active participation in not only an important orientation, but ongoing seminars and interactions with the teaching and learning center on the campus. (p. 13). Faculty deemed it necessary to pursue faculty development as their education had not prepared them for the task of teaching in a community college classroom (p.13). Faculty feared burnout as well as the challenges of facing new generations of students and how best to reach them in an open access environment (p. 11). They distinguished their roles from 4 year university faculty in that they saw that they needed to provide more than classroom content, but the tools in which students needed to receive the information (p.13). (Fugate & Amey, 2001)

21. What the Best College Teachers Do • “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.” • Ken Bain. What the Best College Teachers Do (Kindle Locations 495-497). Kindle Edition.

22. Chapter 3Proposed Methodology

23. Methodology • Grounded Theory research methodology design will be employed (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) informed by Charmaz’s constructivist design (1990, 2000, 2006) to develop a process model. The choice of this methodology reflects a focus on the views, assumptions and experiences of the participants in meaning making, while generating theory. In vivo codes using participants words will label categories and emerging themes. (Creswell, 2008).

24. Methodology: Intentional Sampling • 5 to 7 participants who have all undergone development through the FIPSE Connect to Learning Grant, 2011-2013 will take part in in- depth, semi-structured interviews.

25. Faculty Development Experience of Participants • Connect to Learning: ePortfolio, Engagement and Student Success is a 3-year FIPSE-funded project coordinated by LaGuardia's Making Connections National Resource Center in partnership with the Association for Authentic, Experiential, and Evidence-based Learning - an emerging international professional association with 100 institutional members focused on ePortfolio practice. Dr. Randy Bass of Georgetown University and Dr. Helen Chen of Stanford University serve as the project's senior research scholars. The Connect to Learning project works with a dynamic national network of 22 campuses - community colleges, private colleges and research universities -- to collectively engage in a recursive knowledge-generation process. Contributing to a structured matrix model of ePortfolio development, with dimensions ranging from learning and engagement to assessment and institutional support, campuses will develop and test the strategies needed to measurably improve student learning outcomes. The project focuses ePortfolio on reflective pedagogy and student learning, correlating improvement on student success measures such as retention with more nuanced assessment of student work using the AAC&U’s nationally normed VALUE rubrics. • (Making Connections, 2011).

26. Draft Questions for Participants • What led faculty members to elect to undergo interdisciplinary faculty development? • What were the faculty members’ experiences as students with highly engaging practices? • How do faculty members view the development they received in support of the community college’s high impact strategies initiatives? • How do faculty members view the development thy received in relationship to their own disciplinary perspective? • How do faculty members view their status (full-time, part-time, rank) as a factor in their participation in faculty development and high impact practices? • How do faculty members view the institutional support available for interdisciplinary faculty development? • Did receiving the faculty development change the way faculty members conducted their classes? If so, how? • Did faculty members observe changes in student response or understanding after faculty had undergone the development? If so, how?

27. References (slide 1 of 7) • Association of American Colleges & Universities.  VALUE Valid assessment of learning in undergraduate education. Retrieved on April 12, 2011 from: http://www.aacu.org/value/index.cfm. • Association of American Colleges & Universities. Collaborative for authentic assessment of learning. Retrieved on June 18, 2011 from: http://www.aacu.org/caale/index.cfm. • Angelo, T. A. (2008). Doing faculty development as if we value learning most: Transformative guidelines from research and practices. Retrieved on April 6, 2011 from http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Detail?entitytype=2&searchtype=2&id=355861. • Bain, K. (2010).What the best college teachers do. (Kindle Locations 495-497). Kindle Edition.

28. References slide 2 of 7 • Bass. R. (March/April 2012). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of learning in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 47, no. 2 ((http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume47/DisruptingOurselvesTheProblemo/247690. • Brown, J. S., and R. P. Adler. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review 43 (1): 16-32. http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon/162420. • Brown, T, King, M.C. & Stanley, T. (Eds.). (2011). Fulfilling the promise of the community college: Increasing first-year student engagement and success. Columbia, S.C.: National Resource Center for the First Year Experience & Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.

29. References slide 3 of 7 • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. • Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 3rd ed. Upper Saddler River, NJ: Pearson. • Dawson, D., Mighty, J. & Britnell, J. (2010, July). Moving from the periphery to the center of the academy: Faculty developers as leaders of change. McDonald, J. & Stockley D. (Eds.). New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 22.pp. 69-79. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. • Eynon, B. (2011, April 8). EPortfolio pedagogy. Lecture presented at Making Transfer Connections in La Guardia Community College, Long Island City, NY.

30. References slide 4 of 7 • Fichera, V. (2012, January 26). The freshman academies: A first look. Queensborough Community College January Convocation. Bayside, NY. • Fugart, 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. p. 1-23. Retrieved on June 3, 2011 from: http//web.ebscohost.com.libweb.ben.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=125&si. • Glaser, B.G & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. • Goldrick- Rab, S. (2010, September). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college success. Review of Educational Research. 80. 3. Pp. 437-469 Retrieved on February 21, 2011 from:.http://rer.aera.net. • .

31. References slide 5 of 7 • Gonzalez, J.. (2011). Achieving the dream produces little change at community colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on March 29, 2011 from http://chronicle.com/article/Achieving-the-Dream-Produces/126304 • Gumport, P. & Chun, M. (2005). Technology and Higher Education. Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O. & Gumport,(Eds.) American Higher Education in the Twenty First Century: Social Political and  Economic Challenges. (pp. 393-424). Baltimore: John Hopkins Press. • Huber, M.T. & Hutchings, P. (2005). Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. • Kuh. G. D. (2008). High-Impact Educational Practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and niversities. Retrieved on July 18, 2010 from www.aacu.org.

32. References slide 6 of 7 • Kuh, G.D., Laird, T.N. & Umbach, P.D. (2004, Fall). Aligning faculty activities and student behavior: Realizing the promise of greater expectations. Liberal Education. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved on July 8, 2012 from: http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-fa04/le-fa04feature2.cfm. • Laird, T.N. (2012, June 20). The professor who played with fire (student success). A mystery. Plenary Session of Association of American Colleges and Universities Institute on High Impact Practices and Student Success. Retrieved on July 8, 2012 from: http://www.aacu.org/meetings/hips/documents/NelsonLairdProfWhoPlayedWithFire.pdf. • Making Connections. (2011). FIPSE Connect to Learning Grant. Retrieved on August 3, 2012 from: http://www.connections-community.org/about-making-connections. • MDRC. (2011). Learning communities for students in developmental math: Impact studies at Queensborough and Houston community colleges.Retrieved on March 29, 2011 from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/579/execsum.pdf.

33. References slide 7 of 7 • Moran, J. (2010-03-03). Interdisciplinarity, Second Edition (The New Critical Idiom) (Kindle Location 452). Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition. • Thomas, D. & Seely Brown, J. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change (Kindle Locations 1545-1548). CreateSpace. Kindle Edition. • Twombly, S., & Townsend, B. K. (2008). Community college faculty: What we know and need to know. Community College Review,36, 5-24. Retrieved on May 15, 2011 from: http://web.ebscohost.com.libweb.ben.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=21&hid=111&sid=badee4fa-3100-4c83-aee2-f6fcc22abbda%40sessionmgr115.