Transcript Learning By Example - Mid-Atlantic Association of College and

Learning by Example:
Cultivating Academic
Affairs and Student Affairs
Collaboration
Presentation by:
David Clurman - University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Michael Puma - Loyola University Maryland
October 27, 2011
S
Overview
S Introductions
S Literature Review
S History & Present Status
S Theory & Research
S Our Experiences
S Successes & Pitfalls
S Assumptions that We Make About Each Other
S Exploring Partnerships & Collaboration
S Questions & Answers
D
Learning Objectives
Participants will:
S Explore the theoretical and historical foundations of residential life/
academic affairs collaborations
S Consider the role institutional type, history and culture plays in the
development and implementation of collaboration
S Learn how student affairs/academic affairs collaborations have been
implemented at two different types of institutions
S Discuss the challenges of creating and maintaining collaboration
S Gain insights into common stereotypes held by student affairs
administrators and faculty that could impede collaboration
D
Introductions –
About Us
David Clurman: Assistant Director of Residential Education,
UMBC
Michael Puma: Student Development Co-Director of Living
Learning Programs, Loyola University
Maryland
Introductions –
Your Turn
Explain a time when you were witness
to or part of a successful learning
environment. How did you know it
was successful?
M
About
UMBC
S Carnegie Class: Doctoral/Research-Extensive Institution
S Fall 2010 Enrollment:
S 10,210 Undergraduates
S 2,678 Graduates
S Residential Population: 3,875 (1,116 first-year)
S 2011-2012 Tuition w/ Room & Board: $19,488*
D
About
Loyola
S Private, Jesuit, Catholic Institution
S Located in Baltimore, MD
S Undergraduate Enrollment – 3,800 students
S Over 98% of first year students live on campus
S 2011-2012 Tuition w/ Room & Board: $54,960
S “Learn, Lead & Serve in a Diverse and Changing World”
•
Source: 2009 Loyola Undergraduate Catalog
M
Historical Overview
S Middle Ages
S Residential Colleges of Oxford & Cambridge
S Roots of L/L Programs (Thelin, 2004)
S Early America
S Harvard and Yale
S Expansion of residential college, separation of administration
and college life
S Modern Era
S Alexander Meiklejohn created the “Experimental College” at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1927
M
Linking Theory to Practice
Astin’s Input – Environment – Outcomes Model (1993)
ENVIRONMENTS
INPUTS
OUTCOMES
D
Relevant Theory
“Student-faculty interaction has a stronger relationship to
student satisfaction with the college experience than any other
variable [and] any student characteristic or institutional
characteristic. Students who interact frequently with faculty are
more satisfied with all aspects of their institutional experience,
including student friendships, variety of courses, intellectual
environment, and even administration of the institution.”
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effect of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge.
pp 223 & 233. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
D
Other Studies that Support
Student-Faculty Interaction
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
academic achievement (Astin & Panos, 1969; Centra & Rock,
1970; Pascarella, 1980)
personal and intellectual development (Endo & Harpel, 1982;
Lacy, 1978; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1978)
critical thinking (Wilson, 1975)
satisfaction with faculty (Astin, 1993)
perceptions of college quality (Theophilides & Terenzini, 1981)
educational aspirations (Astin & Panos, 1969), such as their
decision to pursue advanced (graduate) degrees (Kocher &
Pascarella, 1987; Pascarella, 1980; Stoecker, Pascarella & Wolfle,
1988)
retention (Noel, 1978; Tinto, 1987)
D
Linking Theory to Practice
S Tinto’s Integration Theory (1993)
S Integration into academic and social realms
S Shared learning and knowing (1997)
S Pascarella & Terenzini Engagement (2005)
S Interactions with faculty
S Interactions with peers
S Living on campus
D
What Makes Collaboration
Successful?
% of Institutions
Identifying as Very
Successful
% of Institutions
Identifying Very and
Moderately Successful
Leadership
80%
98%
Cross-Institutional
Dialogue
57%
93%
Setting Expectations
44%
93%
Generating Enthusiasm
41%
94%
Creating a Common
Vision
39%
93%
Staff Development
40%
89%
Planning
30%
90%
Strategy
Source: Kezar, A. (2003). Achieving student success: strategies for creating partnerships between academic
and student affairs. NASPA Journal. Vol. 41. pp. 1-22.
M
“Hierarchy of Needs”
LLP Best Practices Building Blocks
(Inkelas, 2010)
Collaboration
is Essential!
INFRASTRUCTURE
Funding
Intentional
integration
Study groups
K-12 outreach
Visiting work settings
Career workshops
CO-CURRICULAR
ENVIRONMENT
ACADEMIC
ENVIRONMENT
“ICING”
Source: Inkelas, K. (2010), Lessons
Learned about One High-Impact Practice,
Presented February 15, 2010 at the 29th
Annual Conference on the First-year
Experience, Denver, CO.
Courses
for
credit
Faculty
advising
Academic
departments
Academically
Socially
supportive
supportive
climate
climate
Residence
Life
Collaboration
14
Dedicated
residence hall
space
D
What Happens When
Building Blocks Are Missing?
Intentional
integration
Study groups
K-12 outreach
Visiting work settings
Career workshops
Courses
for
credit
Funding
Faculty
advising
Academic
departments
Academically
Socially
supportive
supportive
climate
climate
Residence
Life
Collaboration
15
Dedicated
residence hall
space
What Happens When
Building Blocks Are Missing?
Intentional
integration
Study groups
K-12 outreach
Visiting work settings
Career workshops
Courses
for
credit
Funding
Faculty
advising
Academic
departments
Academically
Socially
supportive
supportive
climate
climate
Residence
Life
Collaboration
16
Dedicated
residence hall
space
The “Third Space” of Partnership:
New, Unpredictable and Emergent
A deeply held
belief or
worldview that
is shared among
group members
Organizational
features that
establish the
parameters of
what behaviors
are possible,
permissible,
and rewarded
Cultural
Models
Relationships
Key aspect of
cultural life
that ties
individuals to
other, people,
groups and
organizations
3rd
Space
Structures &
Technologies
Routines &
Practices
Regular,
patterned
behaviors
that
eventually
become
habitual
M
3 Types of Partnerships
Limited
Coordinated
Collaborative
Nature of Problem
Technical, routine
Mix of technical and
adaptive
Novel and lacking wellknown solutions
Time Required
Short term
Intermediate or
Long term
Long term
Number of Partners
Required
A few
A few or several
Several
Motivations
Primarily Self Interests
Combination
Enlightened Self Interest
(self and broader
collective)
Capacity and Resources
Limited
Medium
Substantial
Autonomy
High
Medium
Low
Cultural Tensions
Likely to be slight
Likely to be moderate
Likely to be severe
Governance
Top-down
Shared
Shared/
Consensus-Based
Source: Hora, M.T. & Millar, S.B. (2011). A guide to building education partnerships. Sterling,VA: Stylus Publishing.
M
Loyola University
Loyola LivingLearning
Theme Clusters
(6-7 total for
first-year class)
S Creating a Living
Learning Programs –
S The “corporate
merger” analogy
S The “Marriage of
Equals” analogy
Fall Seminar
Course including
CORE Advising
followed by
Spring Seminar
Course
Faculty/Student
Development
Administrator/
Student Leader
Led “Voices
Curriculum”
Living-Learning
Aim/Goals (Consistent
with Undergraduate
Educational Aims, Student
Development Learning
Outcomes and College
Values Statement)
Residence Hall
Community
Programming &
Co-Curricular
Campus
Programs
M
Loyola University LivingLearning Program Timeline
1996-2006…….
Four Separate First Year Programs Operate (all have livinglearning or themed housing options)
Fall 2006…….
Groundwork for new Strategic Plan
Fall 2007…….
Living-Living Strategic Plan Work Group Begins Meeting
Spring 2008…
Work group makes recommendations
Fall 2008……
Strategic Plan endorsed by Board of Trustees and Loyola
Conference; Academic Senate charges a Living-Learning Task
Force
2008-2010….
Task Force convenes, submits interim report in May 2009;
receives no formal feedback until March 2010
Fall 2010
Senate votes and approves main aspects of program
January 2011……. Living-Learning Student Development and Academic CoDirectors Named
Fall 2013……
Anticipated date for campus-wide implementation
M
Loyola University
S The Eight-Stage Process of Creating
Major Change (Kotter, 1996)
S Is there a sense of urgency?
S Is there a guiding coalition?
S Do you have a vision and strategy?
S Have you communicated a change
S
S
S
S
vision?
Are you empowered to change systems
and structures?
Can you create short-term wins?
How do you harness credibility?
How do you measure success?
M
UMBC
Faculty Mentor Program
S Founded in 1999 to encourage the building of student –faculty
relationships
S Program Goals are:
S To promote informal faculty-student interaction in the residence
halls/apartments
S To provide academic, professional, and personal role models for
students
S To educate faculty regarding student life on campus and in the
residence halls
S To date there have been 31 mentors with an average length of
service of 2 years
D
Faculty Mentor
Programming Model
First Ten Weeks (September – October)
S Primary responsibility is relationship building with residents in the
community and staff with whom they work
Second Ten Weeks (November – February)
S Primary responsibility is putting forth academically supportive
programming
S Assist students who are reported to have a C or less in their classes
Third Ten Weeks (March – May)
S Primary responsibility is educational programming and a closure
activity
D
UMBC
Living-Learning Communities
S Begun in 2000, UMBC has housed 10 LLCs – 9 are
currently active
S UMBC was recognized in 2008 as one of the top four
institutions with LLCs
S We struggle with understanding why students in LLCs
have greater outcomes
S True partnership with academics
D
Successes at
Loyola
S Approved program will transform systems and structures
within academic affairs, student development and other
partner offices
S Program is tied to 16 new tenure-track faculty hires, the
current strategic plan, and the future capital campaign;
there is long-term commitment
S Program is tied into other initiatives including a revamped
Honors program and new opportunities for engaged
scholarship
M
Successes at
UMBC
S Both students and faculty have gained insights into their
counterparts
S Students in LLCs have demonstrated positive outcomes
S Students in LLCs have been retained at higher rates
D
Pitfalls
S Publicity and marketing of programs to students
S Recruitment of faculty
S Funding
S Making connections with students
S Lack of preparation from higher education programs about
faculty culture and collaboration
S Communication
D
Have You Ever Heard a Conversation Like This?
If Innovation Starts at Home,
We Need to Know Who Is In
the House…
S What are some common stereotypes of
faculty?
S How did we come to know those stereotypes?
S How do we judge the validity of those
stereotypes?
S What impact do these stereotypes have?
Faculty and Student Affairs Traditional Cultural Characteristics,
Norms, Attitudes
STUDENT AFFAIRS
FACULTY
S
Emphasis on student personal
growth
S
Emphasis on student critical
thinking, acquisition of knowledge
S
Value subjective, relational,
dimensions of knowing and
learning
S
Value objective, rational,
independent ways of knowing
S
Believe intellectual/academic
activities in classroom are superior
to activities occurring outside the
classroom
S
Believe in shared purpose of
faculty and student affairs to
education whole student
Adapted from the Handbook for Student Affairs Administration
Faculty and Student Affairs Traditional Cultural Characteristics,
Norms, Attitudes
STUDENT AFFAIRS
FACULTY
S
Characterized by hierarchical
structures, centralized decisionmaking, defined authority – loyalty
is to one’s department & institution
S
Characterized by structures that
emphasize collegiality through
shared governance, peer leadership
– loyalty is to academic discipline
S
Values defined goals, task
completion and productivity
S
S
Individuals tend to be
interpersonally adept, extraverted,
problem-solvers
Values ambiguity, autonomy,
flexibility, nonconformity,
creativity, and innovation
S
Individuals tend to be introverted.
Desire to increase scholarly
prominence in academic
community.
Adapted from the Handbook for Student Affairs Administration
Faculty and Student Affairs Traditional Cultural Characteristics,
Norms, Attitudes
STUDENT AFFAIRS
S
S
S
FACULTY
Doing, action-oriented, little time
for reflection. Unpredictable work
environment
Work collaboratively, in groups, to
solve immediate problems with
real deadlines
Encourage cooperative efforts –
conflict that impedes group or goes
against policy is not appreciated
S
Thinking and reflecting, futurefocused – predictable and order
S
Engage in solitary, autonomous,
independent work
S
Encourage non-conformity.
Dissent perceived as normal,
healthy and expected in a
community that values freedom of
inquiry
Adapted from the Handbook for Student Affairs Administration
Faculty and Student Affairs Traditional Cultural Characteristics,
Norms, Attitudes
STUDENT AFFAIRS
S
S
S
FACULTY
Seek student involvement in
decision-making
Experts in diversity, student
culture, team building,
developmental needs
Reward system based on loyal
behavior to supervisors and
adherence of current
administrative norms
S
Sees faculty as expert or authority
S
Experts in their academic
discipline, teaching, research,
writing skills
S
Reward system based on scholarly
productivity as narrowly defined by
a select group of scholars
Adapted from the Handbook for Student Affairs Administration
Before Partnership
S Know your program goals so that you can communicate
concrete expectations and identify outcomes
S Know who you are asking (tenure/no tenure, full-time/part-
time, specific disciplines)
S Know that there is top-down institutional support. Is
collaboration rewarded? By whom?
S Ask about historical factors and cultural dynamics specific to
your campus
S Faculty/Partner buy-in is a must
S Explore what motivations exist for the partnerships
D
During Partnerships
S Frequent communication and mutual understanding
S Acknowledge tension points
S Play to strengths of participants
S Remember that it is about the student experience
S Practice patience
S Know your resources
S Step out of conventional roles or stereotypical roles
S Need to have staff that will interact with faculty
S Effort should be equitable
D
After Partnerships
S Share honest feedback
S Assess student experience and student learning
S Reward positive collaborations – for both the faculty member
and the student affairs administrator
S Cast a wide net – invite others to share in successful and
innovative programs because it:
S Models collaboration
S Avoids burnout
S Share success stories with campus leadership
S Plan for sustaining momentum – share success with alumni,
institutional advancement and enrollment management
D
Collaboration on Your Campus
S What are the barriers to collaboration?
S Who are the champions of collaboration?
S Who comprises your faculty?
S Tenure track appointments
S Full-time vs. Part-time
S Demographics (gender, ethnicity, age)
S Do you see connections between your faculty composition and
barriers to collaboration?
S How can you overcome these barriers?
S What role does upper-level administration play?
M
Current Considerations
S How can residence life proactively support learning
communities? How can this be a unified and sustained goal?
S What opportunities are there for student leadership in learning
communities?
S What existing campus structures can be modified to enhance
student learning (and LLCs) in the residence halls?
S How can you assess the LLCs and how do we share successes?
M
Considerations for the Future
S Is it dependent on institutions to demonstrate the value and
worth of the program by providing concrete assessment
evidence?
S Will budget cuts force programs to lose components or fail
altogether?
S Will the teaching and participation in these programs be
valued by the institution in tenure and promotion decisions?
S How will an increase in adjunct faculty impact buy-in or
impede the collaboration needed between academic affairs
and student affairs?
M
Questions & Answers
[email protected]
[email protected]