The following material arises from the University of Oregon's productivity planning process and is made available here in the hope of engaging the whole university community in that process. This material contains the conclusions of one of the nine productivity working groups; it does NOT represent official university policy.

We solicit your responses and suggestions. Please direct them to the chair of the working group or to Charles Wright, Department of Mathematics. 

REPORT OF THE LEARNING COMMUNITIES PRODUCTIVITY GROUP Transmitted by Barbara Pope -- 11/19/93

MEMBERSHIP: Frank Anderson, Mathematics, Art Education Jack Bennett, Academic Advising Stephen Durrant, Arts and Sciences Gerald Fry, CAPS Helen Gernon, Accounting Jeffrey Hurwit, Art History Anne Leavitt, Student Services Gregg Lobisser, Student Services Robert O'Brien, Sociology George Racette, Finance Ed Whitelaw, Economics Barbara Pope, Women's Studies, Chair

The following represents my understanding of our two meetings as well as an attempt to summarize proposals or detailed clarifications sent to me by committee members. These will be color coded and included in the 25 copies I will bring to Monday's meeting. They are indicated below by COLOR.

[Color-coded materials are available in hard copy from the chair upon request. They are not included in this electronic version.]

I. DEFINITION OF LEARNING COMMUNITIES (LCs)

We attempted to come up with a definition that could apply to many different models and settings. Thus we defined "learning communities" as small, personal and characterized by a high degree of interaction between instructor (usually a faculty member) and students, and students with each other. Accordingly, they would aim to have some (but not necessarily all) of these characteristics (Examples in parentheses):

•  1. Connected and/or reinforced learning (FIG model, undergrad discussion leaders or tutors who work closely with a faculty member)
•  2. Active, often experiential learning (emphasis on discussion rather than lecture, labs, field trips, group facilitation; foreign language houses and tables) 3. An element of self selection that gives a feeling of "special" status (seminars in the major; International and Honors Colleges)
•  4. Cooperative rather than competitive learning (Team approaches in Business School; group projects)
•  5. Non-hierarchical instructional environment
•  6. Often interdisciplinary with collaborative teaching ("Idea of Europe" course with its discussion groups)
•  7. Often connects with extracurricular activities or living situations (Building Community course; study abroad groups)
•  8. Critical and frequent evaluation of student work. In most cases this means close evaluation of written work, but also includes performance, speaking, problem-solving, artistic expression. The goal in all learning groups should be to help students formulate and express their ideas better.

A. "INITIATION EXPERIENCES"

The most highly visible LCs at the UO begin when a student enters the university. These include FIGS (Freshman Interest groups--a cluster of three courses taken by same group of 25 entering students, offered only in the fall); Freshman Seminars (for both transfer and first-year students, offered throughout the year); the International and Honors Colleges (four-year program with separate and selective admissions); Building Community Seminars (for freshmen, fall only); and Introduction to University Study (3 sections each term, for first-year and transfer students). Taken together these programs serve approximately 1200-1600 students. (There is some overlap, so exact calculations are not possible.)

B. OUTSIDE THE MAJOR (Examples) Among the LCs we could identify outside the major were: the Forensics Program (for all levels); Oregon Marine Biology Institute (for juniors and seniors); study abroad programs (usually sophomores and juniors); performing arts groups. Indeed as we began to list these groups it became clear that there were many LCs on campus which are not specifically identified as such. We did not have time to do a complete survey.

C. IN THE MAJOR OR MINOR. (Examples) Among the recommendations of the 1991 Task Force on Undergraduate Education Report were 1) colloquia for potential majors, 2) mandatory advising, 3) workshops which address epistemological and other issues in disciplines, 4) "capstone" seminars and colloquia, and 5) internships and practica. 1 & 2 are addressed in section IV. Here I will mention a few examples of 3,4 & 5 already in place or being considered in majors and minors:

3 & 4 & 5 Science/social science students who work closely with faculty in labs or research projects.

3 & 4. Every history major must take a research seminar.

3 Udovic (in a communication to Wright) has suggested that small groups of students in large introductory science classes can interview "real" scientists and use those interviews as part of their learning assignments.

4. Sociology has decided to guarantee a 400-level small class experience to all majors, at the cost of increasing numbers in survey courses.

5. Both mathematics and women's studies make use of undergraduate facilitators/tutors. Both facilitation and outside practica are thoroughly integrated into the Women's Studies Program (LAVENDER); Mathematics also has a Mathematics Center (BLUE).

**Finally the institution of foreign language houses (or parts of dorms) or, at the very list, foreign language tables (TAN).

A survey would also yield other examples of the above. Our committee wanted to guarantee both acknowledgment and proliferation of such efforts. And urged the following:

1. Communication of teaching strategies to foster LCs within large classes.

2. Institution or acknowledgment of "capstones." Can we offer students a choice between capstones that are in a major and interdisciplinary? To do this well, we would need to be able to cross-list courses.

III. PLANS FOR EXPANSION A. THE FIRST YEAR

Is there an inordinate focus on the first year? We do know that the transition from first to second year is the most treacherous period for dropping out. We have some assessment (See FIGS, YELLOW) that these programs do encourage retention. And everyone wants to expand these programs (1991 Task Force on Undergraduate Education, 1993 Proposal for Undergraduate Resource Fee; see YELLOW Figs proposal; PINK Building Communities Proposal; GREEN Freshman and Transfer Seminar Proposal).

The Proposal for Undergraduate Resource Fees suggests a doubling of the Honors and International Colleges as well as an expansion of the FIGS, which would incorporate "Freshman Seminars." This latter recommendation may make management more complicated. It may also restrict the numbers served before an expansion can take place. Our suggestions:
 

1. Can Admissions development a MENU of LCs for every incoming student?

Such a menu would include all of the programs listed in IIA (Initiation Experiences) above, as well as Forensics, performing and visual art blocks.

An advantage to this approach would be to "spread the wealth." (Should students be admitted to both the International and the Honors College? At present Honors College students are only allowed to sign up for the Honors Chemistry FIG.)

2. Can we attach composition courses to specific large survey courses. If so, we want to do this in such a way that will not imply that it is only the English Department's job to teach writing. Such attachments could allow more students to experience "connected learning."

3. A third suggestion was a total reorganizing of our present College and sub-College divisions into smaller groups which would guarantee "learning communities" in block courses upon entry. (See Frank Anderson on BLUE.)

Although the PINK, GREEN AND YELLOW inserts include cost analyses, I do not because of the vexing and unsettled question of faculty compensation. Will all programs have to compensate "loaning" departments for the full-cost of faculty member's teaching time? If yes, how will this be calculated? If no, which LCs will have to compensate at full levels and which won't? If full compensation is infeasible, should we begin to stress "out-load" incentives (as in the Freshman Seminars and Building Communities courses)? Or should faculty simply have an option to negotiate with their own departments? Will departments begin to come up with a quota system for the release of their faculty members?

These questions address the costs AND the QUALITY of faculty who can be attracted to these programs. Answering them will require a consensus among faculty members as well as clear directions from administrators.

B. TRANSFER STUDENTS In his charge to the committee, Wessells asked if the FIG model could work for transfer students. The committee agreed that given the variety of transfer types, this would be unworkable. Transfers can now attend Freshmen Seminars, but this is not ideal. Those who come in with AAs want (or should want) to jump into their majors. The committee thought that if these students were offered special small classes in the majors, this might raise the "fairness" issue. Another option could be interdisciplinary OR major seminars geared towards the more experienced incoming student. Departments which attract many transfers might also think about one- credit weekend workshops which are "introductory" to the University and to the major.

C. THE NEED FOR EXPANSION AT ALL LEVELS The committee agreed that LCs should not be exclusively clustered in the first year. Writing, especially, should be stressed throughout students' career. The decline in writing skills between the first and senior years is a problem that must be addressed by all. Capstones, seminars in majors and minors, and Freshman-seminar-like experiences for the more experienced students are some ways to address this. Also within large classes the use of group projects and the encouragement of students to evaluate each others' work is a way to get at the problem that is less labor intensive for faculty members.

The formalization of the entry into a major might serve as a catalyst. This is the subject of Section IV.

IV. FORMALIZING THE ENTRY INTO A MAJOR. An obvious site of community for most students is the major, although any particular student may find that she has more loyalty to a particular minor (e.g., Ethnic Studies) or a program (e.g., the International College). Locating learning communities in academic fields (in addition to first-year programs) also has the advantage of giving the faculty "ownership" over the concept of learning communities and encouraging their development.

We have discussed above under "models" ways in which existing programs and departments do create such communities. We want to go beyond individual courses to explore the possibility of publicly acknowledging students' entry into majors and minors. This notion can correlate well with two recent developments or suggestions:

1) The experience within the CAS in the last two years of celebrating departmental spring commencements. The enthusiasm these occasions have aroused, from both students and faculty alike, has gone beyond most of our expectations. This raises the possibility of instituting other like changes in the "academic culture." It also raises the question: why celebrate students' academic achievements and choices only at the end of their careers?

2) The Boren committee's recommendation that students must have advising and must declare their major at specific points in their career. All of us prefer the positive role of mentor to that of enforcer. Why not set aside a few days each year to allow students to "meet their" majors, minors, and advisers? I have already adumbrated one possible model, a two-day spring advising fair (ORANGE). Regardless of form, however, these components would enhance "learning community building":

•  1. Group or individual advising sessions;
•  2. Introduction to the major, minor etc.;
•  3. Introduction to opportunities for learning communities within major or minor;
•  4. Solid predictions about course availability.

V. SOME HIGHLIGHTS: QUESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, I highlight some points which were implicit, explicit or totally absent (!) above:

•  1. Move forward on cross-listing now. This is not a registrar decision, it is a faculty decision which will provide us with needed flexibility in pedagogical reforms.
•  2. Find ways to facilitate faculty-student mentoring relationships and formal entry into our departments and programs.
•  3. Seek for ways to integrate the operations of our entry-level programs. Will the MENU work?
•  4. Find ways for publicly recognizing and communicating existing models for encouraging learning communities in our large classes.
•  5. Make decisions about faculty compensation for participation outside their department. Otherwise, how can we have cost analyses?
•  6. Make it one of our goals to deal with the decline in writing skills.
•  7. Realize that space will be an issue. Those who have used small group formats in large classes know this. The institution of foreign language houses and foreign language tables requires space planning.
•  8. Do we need to find ways to publicize our many existing LCs? Is a survey in order? Will any one answer it, given the current paper "overdose"?
•  9. The Productivity Issue addressed by LCs is QUALITY. Most of the suggestions are not cost neutral because of the issues of size and faculty-to-student ratio and interaction. However, communicating the teaching strategies used to encourage group work and evaluation may be cost effective. Recognizing the entry into programs and majors can cost as little as punch and cookies.