By Elizabeth Wilmer
from Inquiry, Volume 14, Number 1, Spring 2009, 55-67
© Copyright 2009 Virginia Community College System
Abstract
This study investigates whether learning communities significantly increase the level of interaction of community-college students enrolled in developmental English.
Achievement
and retention of students are significant concerns for American community
colleges. While 86 percent of the students surveyed by the Community College
Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) (McClenney, 2004) indicated a goal of
completing a certificate or associate’s degree program, less than a quarter of
those enrolled in the 1995-1996 academic year earned this credential in the
subsequent six-year period.
For students entering college underprepared, these risks are magnified,
increasing the possibility of low satisfaction rates, low achievement rates, and
high attrition rates. Demographically, underprepared students are similar to the
overall population of community college students. However, research shows that
they often have a more difficult time connecting with the academic environment,
are uncertain of their goals, have little academic direction, and share many of
the non-cognitive characteristics found in first-generation and minority
students (McCabe, 2003). These risks are important, because as Stephens (2001)
found, 41 percent of freshmen at two-year colleges are enrolled in developmental
courses.
Studies on retention that have been applied to developmental students have concentrated on the high attrition rates, but few have considered the theories of Astin or Tinto in relation to these students. Even fewer have reviewed the influence of learning communities on developmental English students.
This study investigates whether learning communities significantly increase the
level of interaction of community-college students enrolled in developmental
English.
Two major approaches to improving college student retention are prominent in the
existing literature: Astin’s theory of student involvement and Tinto’s student
departure model.
Alexander Astin developed his theory of student involvement as a way of
explaining the environmental influences that contribute to student development
and retention. He defines student involvement as “the amount of physical and
psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience” (Astin,
1999b, p. 518). He postulated that the amount that a student learns and develops
as the result of an academic program is directly related to the quality and
quantity of involvement that the student has invested in the program. He also
asserts that the effectiveness of any educational policy or program lies in its
ability to increase the level of student involvement (Astin, 1999b), as simply
exposing a student to information or coursework is not enough. The student must
become actively involved in the learning process. In many ways, Astin’s theory
is a theory of student development in which, rather than posing ideas related to
the level of development that a student achieves, Astin is concerned with how
that student develops and the effects that this development has on long-term
retention (Astin, 1999b).
Astin’s 1975 longitudinal study on retention, Preventing Students from
Dropping Out, identified environmental factors that affect students’
persistence. He found that all the
factors that positively influenced retention could be explained by his
involvement theory, while those factors that led to attrition were the results
of lack of involvement. However, he concluded that the factor that contributed
most to student satisfaction and retention was frequent interaction with faculty
(Astin, 1999b). In his 1993 study What Matters in College?, Astin found
that the three most important forms of involvement are academic involvement,
student-faculty involvement, and peer involvement.
Based on this study, he recommends that students be given more
opportunity for cooperative-learning activities that would increase involvement
with faculty and peers inside and outside the classroom (Astin, 1999a).
Astin’s theories have been cited as part of the basis for several
empirical studies. For example, Kuh’s The Effects of Student-Faculty
Interaction in the 1990s (2001) supports Astin’s theory by stating that
student-faculty interaction motivates students to devote more effort and energy
toward educationally purposeful activities.
Tinto’s model posits that the more a student becomes socially and academically
integrated into the college environment, the more committed to graduation that
student will become and the more likely that student is to be retained (Mutter,
1992). Tinto recognized that as students enter college, they are characterized
by a host of variables including previous background, expectations, goal
commitments, and institutional commitments and that these characteristics, along
with the quality of social and academic interactions on campus, ultimately
determine persistence (Haplin, 1990).
Thus, Tinto’s theory is a two-part theory of student attrition, examining
the influence of both personal characteristics and student interactions (Guarino
and Hocevar, 2005). But according to Tinto, “Other things being equal, the
higher the level of academic and social integration of the individual into the
college systems, the greater will be [the] commitment to the specific
institution and the goal of college completion” (Tinto, 1975, p. 96).
Tinto’s study Classrooms as Communities
(1997a) explores the relationship of active, cooperative learning to his earlier
theories. In this study, Tinto states that the classroom is the place where the
academic and the social meet and that for many students (especially part-time
and commuter students), the classroom is the only place to achieve academic and
social integration. Referencing his earlier theories, Tinto explains that while
we know that interaction is important to student success and retention, we do
not know how different types of interaction affect retention. His study then
examines how cooperative learning in the form of a learning community – the
Coordinated Studies Program at Seattle Central Community College – influenced
learning and persistence. The study concluded that involvement does matter and
that classroom involvement in the form of cooperative learning can have positive
effects on persistence (Tinto, 1997a).
The role of active learning was further tested in a study by Braxton, Milem, and
Sullivan (2000). This study found that active learning in the classroom yielded
statistically significant influences on social integration, institutional
commitment, and students’ intent to persist.
Much of Tinto’s writing (Tinto & Russo, 1994; Tinto, 1997a; Tinto, 1998) has
centered on the fact that because of time constraints and other barriers, the
classroom may be the only place that community-college students can achieve
social and academic involvement, highlighting the impact of active and
cooperative learning in the classroom, including programs such as learning
communities. Tinto and Russo’s (1994) study, Tinto’s (1997a) study on the
Coordinated Studies Program at Seattle Central Community College, and Tinto and
Love’s (1995) study at LaGuardia Community College revealed that participation
in a classroom-based learning community helped students develop a social support
system of peers, bonded them to their faculty and to the college, and engaged
them in the academics of the program. These characteristics were all found to
contribute to continued attendance and participation, as students were able to
bridge the academic and social gaps experienced by many community-college
students. For Tinto, the most important revelation of these studies was the
reaffirmation that involvement matters and that social and academic involvement
can be achieved in a place where “going to college is but one of a number of
tasks to be completed during the course of the day. Yet, even in that setting,
collaborative learning ‘works.’ Indeed, it may be the only viable path to
greater student involvement” (Tinto, 1997a, p. 614).
Retention and Developmental Students
While studies have discussed the higher incidence of attrition among
developmental students, this researcher found only a few studies that tested the
concepts developed by any of the major theorists on developmental
community-college students.
Miller and Gerlach’s (1997) study at the University of Toledo Community
and Technical College was initiated to define why 31 to 35 percent of
developmental students at their medium-size, urban community college in Ohio
were leaving before completing their developmental courses. In reviewing the
literature, Miller and Gerlach were unable to find any studies that focused
purely on the reasons for attrition of developmental students. Citing both Astin
and Tinto in their literature review, Miller and Gerlach developed a two-step
study. The first step involved surveying all students who had dropped out of a
developmental course during the semester under consideration. With a 43 percent
return rate, they were able to create demographic data of the non-persisters, to
catalog self-reported reasons for quitting, and to identify levels of
interaction among the students surveyed. The most frequently given reason for
quitting was family problems. In addition, 68 percent indicated that they sought
no tutoring assistance even though free, conveniently scheduled tutoring was
available. Also, 61 percent stated
that they did not interact with faculty outside of the classroom. Of these
students, one third left without knowing if they were passing their classes, and
35 percent of those who quit knew that they were passing when they left.
Given this information, Miller and Gerlach developed three separate programs to
enhance retention of developmental students. The first was a one-time telephone
intervention program. While initially promising, this program yielded no
significant sustainable effects on retention. The second intervention strategy
was a mentoring program. Here, 87 percent of students participating in this
program were retained in the course. Of those, 21 of the 23 students were still
in school two semesters later. This was significant when considering that only
65 to 69 percent of developmental students at the college complete developmental
classes. The third program was a
skills-enhancement program designed to help students while enrolled in their
first developmental class. A year later, 84 percent of participants were
retained. Based on the success of the second and third programs, Miller and
Gerlach (1997) determined that when a college makes significant efforts to
increase meaningful interaction with faculty and staff, developmental students
are retained at a significantly higher rate than the college average for
retention of developmental students.
Defining Learning Communities
Learning communities represent one academic
organizational structure that has proven effective in increasing the level of
academic and social interaction. Minkler (2002, p. 2) defines a learning
community as a way of “deliberately structur[ing] the curriculum so that
students are more actively engaged in a sustained academic relationship with
other students and faculty over a longer period of time than in traditional
course settings.” By comparison,
Tinto defines learning communities as existing any time students are
intentionally registered for two or more of the same classes (Tinto, 1997b).
Active- and collaborative-learning
constructs are a central theme of learning communities. Cooperative learning is
defined as students and faculty actively working together in a non-competitive
environment to achieve shared learning goals. Cooperative learning occurs when
students work together to achieve the goals of the group. The group mentality
serves to boost the confidence levels of students, thus increasing their
self-esteem and potential of academic success (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998).
Tinto (1997b) found that collaborative learning in a learning community enhances
satisfaction, achievement, and retention. Collaborative learning is effective
because, rather than using the traditional lecture format, it forces the
students to take a more active and responsible role in the learning process,
“causing students to look forward to the class, to feel respected and needed in
the pursuit of knowledge, and to respect and rely upon each other in these
endeavors” (J. H. Gill, as cited in Minkler, 2002).
Cross (1998) described the basis of cooperative learning as the concept that
knowledge is socially constructed by people working together rather than being
formed through scientific discovery or being transferred by an authoritarian
teacher passing along knowledge to students.
Instead, knowledge is something that teachers and students build
together. Cooperative conversations help students make sense out of ideas. This
concept of socially constructed knowledge highlights the value of active over
passive learning, of collaborative over individual learning, and of cooperative
over competitive learning (Cross, 1998).
Retention
Studies on Learning Communities
Much has been written about the relationship
between learning communities and retention. Cross (1998) connected learning
communities to the retention theories of Astin and Tinto. Her research indicates
that learning communities are valuable because they promote frequent interaction
with faculty and other students inside and outside of the classroom, which
research has shown causes students to be more likely to be satisfied, to
achieve, and to persist. Cross cites Tinto and Russo’s 1994 study as an example
of the success of learning communities in promoting interaction. This study
(Tinto and Russo, 1994) compared students in the coordinated-studies program
with students taking similar non-learning-community classes. They found that
students in the learning community had a more positive outlook, were more
involved, and had a greater appreciation for diversity. Tinto and Love (1995)
had similar findings in their study of learning communities at LaGuardia
Community College. They concluded that students involved in the learning
community had a more positive perception of their college experience, had
completed more credits, had higher grade-point averages, had a slightly higher
retention rate, and had a significantly higher rate of intention to continue
their studies beyond their first year. These students identified group work and
collaboration as important components of the learning community.
Shapiro and Levine (1999) cataloged studies at the University of
Missouri-Columbia, the University of Southern Maine, the University of
Wisconsin, and Bowling Green State University, concluding that learning
communities increase student involvement. They also listed studies at Temple
University, the University of Missouri-Columbia, Indiana University, Purdue
University, and the University of Maryland that found learning communities
increased achievement and retention.
While originally developed and examined for students at residential
four-year institutions, these theories have been revisited and revised to
accommodate the more complex needs of non-traditional students, such as those at
community colleges. A common thread among these theories is the potential role
of academic and social interaction on the personal development, satisfaction,
achievement, and retention of students.
Unfortunately, the existing literature provides little information to
guide retention programs for underprepared learners at community colleges. In
particular, there appears to be an “empirical black hole” (Pascarella and
Terenzini, 1998, p. 155) concerning the influence of social and academic
interaction on the development, satisfaction, achievement, and retention of
underprepared English community college students or the influence of the
concepts of learning communities.
The purpose of our study was
to determine if learning communities increased the level of
interaction experienced by
community-college students enrolled in developmental English.
Methodology and Design
The research design was a quantitative nonexperimental correlational design. The study explored how demographic characteristics and course format influenced the level of interaction experienced by students. The study was conducted by collecting self-reported data through a questionnaire.
The setting for the study was
Virginia Western Community College (VWCC), a suburban, community college in
Roanoke, Virginia. During the fall semester of 2005, we created a pilot learning
community for developmental English, organized around an eight-credit English 07
class. English 07 is an integrated reading and writing course, team taught by a
reading specialist and a writing specialist. In addition to the academic
component, the English 07 learning community includes
·
an intrusive advising component,
·
use of cooperative- and active-learning techniques,
·
a cultural component,
·
a series of outside speakers, and
·
field trip options.
The mission of this learning community is to build academic skills in reading
and writing, to promote personal development, to build an understanding of the
college environment, and to engage students through the use of a cohort.
The intrusive advising component increases student-faculty involvement by
requiring that each student meet with one of the two instructors four times
during the course of the semester.
The participants were members of nine purposefully
selected developmental English classes from VWCC, who agreed to participate,
yielding a sample size of 120 students. Of the 120 students who completed the
survey, 50 students were members of a learning-community class and 70 students
were members of a non-learning-community class.
Demographic characteristics revealed that the
learning-community students surveyed were younger, were less likely to be
first-generation students, were more likely to be full-time enrolled, and had
lower COMPASS reading and writing scores than non-learning-community students.
Otherwise, the two groups were similar in demographic characteristics.
The researcher used a questionnaire that combined several measures.
Measures were selected based on their fit with the constructs measured,
appropriateness for the audience, and existing data showing high reliability.
First, a locally
designed demographic information sheet was developed to collect demographic
characteristics. Second, the course
format was determined by enrollment. Registration in English 01 or 04
represented a non-learning-community format and registration in English 07
represented a learning-community format. Third, the Institutional Integration
Scale (IIS) developed by Pascarella and Terenzini (1980) was used to measure the
level of interaction by determining the level of social and academic integration
and goal and institutional commitment.
Results
The literature suggests that interaction is increased when the
learning-community concept is applied. To test this, an independent sample
t-test was conducted on each of the five subscales of the Institutional
Integration Scale (IIS) to determine if there was a statistically significant
difference in the level and type of interaction experienced by learners based on
course format.
The results indicated a statistically significant
difference (p < .05) between students participating in a learning community and
those not participating in a learning community in the level of peer
interaction, the level of faculty interaction, but not on the perceived level of
faculty concern, level of academic and intellectual development, and level of
institutional and goal commitment. However on all scales, the learning-community
students had a higher perceived level than the non-learning-community students.
The test yielded the results found in Table 1.
Scale
N
Mean
Std. Dev.
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Non-learning community
70 22.43
5.000
Learning community 50 24.36 4.890
IIS: Faculty Interaction
-3.601
118
.000
Non-learning community
70 16.69
3.693
Learning community
50 19.14
3.665
IIS: Faculty Concern
-1.818
118
.072
Non-learning community
70 20.34
3.930
Learning community
50 21.62
3.591
IIS: Acad/Intel Dev.
-1.536
118
.127
Non-learning community
70 25.04
3.947
Learning community
50 26.18
4.069
IIS: Instit/Goal Commit
-.468
118
.641
Non-learning community
70 26.24
3.173
Learning community
50 26.52
3.234
Note: p < .05
Lessons Learned
The findings of this study are supportive of the existent literature even though
many of the existing studies were conducted at four-year institutions rather
than two-year community colleges and much of what exists is more than ten years
old.
The results of the study suggest that students
participating in a learning-community have a statistically significantly higher
level of interaction than do non-learning-community participants on measures of
peer interaction and faculty interaction. It should also be noted that while not
statistically significantly different, learning-community participants had a
higher mean level of interaction on all interaction scales measured and on both
types of interaction, interaction with faculty and with peers. These findings
support earlier studies that learning communities increase interaction and
student involvement (Cross, 1998; Rendon, 1994; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Tinto &
Love, 1995; Tinto & Russo, 1994).
The demographic characteristics of students in this study are similar to
the diverse demographic tendencies of community-college students in general in
terms of age, gender, ethnicity, full-time employment, part-time enrollment,
single-parent status, first-generation- college-student status, and delayed
entry to college (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Kuh, 2001; Reason, 2003; Schmid & Abell,
2003; Vaughan, 2000). These students are at risk not only due to demographic
characteristics and underprepared status but also due to their lack of
involvement on campus (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Tinto (1999) found that the
classroom is the only place for many community-college students to experience
social and academic integration. This finding is supported by this study that
illustrates that, despite demographic diversity and demographic influences on
interaction, interaction is increased when intentional treatments, such as
learning communities, are applied.
Both the statistical analysis and anecdotal analysis support the use of
learning communities to increase peer interaction and faculty interaction among
students. According to Susan Taylor, learning-community faculty member at VWCC,
the learning-community experience has helped her students to develop “supportive
relationships” with each other. Ms. Taylor has found that her students are
interested in the health and family issues faced by their classmates, as well as
the academic issues that they have in common. She has found that they help each
other academically by sharing notes and by forming study groups. Ms. Taylor
suggested that the support system students form in the learning-community
classes are especially important for developmental students, “who need the
security of a welcoming, emotionally safe environment as they transition into
their first college experience” (S. Taylor, personal communication, July 3,
2008).
Learning-community faculty member Brenda Ashcraft echoed Ms. Taylor’s
description of the peer relationships that are formed and added that
instructor-student relationships are built through participation in the
intrusive advising component of the VWCCs learning community. She found that the
learning community “fosters friendship, understanding, appreciation, and mutual
respect” (B. Ashcraft, personal communication, July 7, 2008) between students
and faculty. In addition, faculty member Kathy Boylan (personal communication,
July 8, 2008) found that the interaction created by the intrusive advising
component gave faculty insights into the issues faced by students that they
might not have otherwise identified and allowed them to assist their students in
some unusual ways. One example was the discovery that some of their students
needed glasses and hearing aids, but could not afford them. Through the use of
campus resources, the faculty members were able to find the funds to help these
students and give them an opportunity to overcome these subtle, yet important
barriers to their success.
The faculty of VWCC’s team-taught learning-community classes have found
that the experience is successful in increasing student-student and
student-faculty interaction, as well as faculty-faculty interaction and is a
positive experience for both students and faculty.
These faculty testimonials, along with the statistical findings, support
the conclusions of the existing literature that learning communities do increase
student involvement. This increase in involvement has translated into high
satisfaction levels from both students and faculty, as indicated in student
essays, student evaluations, and faculty commentary, and has resulted in an
increase from VWCC’s initial offering of two class sections to our current
offering of five sections.
For the fall semester 2009, we will pilot the addition of an SDV 108 to
the ENG 07 learning community courses. As summarized by Kathy Boylan (personal
communication, July 8, 2008), this learning community is a “work in progress.
Each year we add a little more to the mix of techniques we are using and
delete those strategies that do not seem to be working.
We know that so far most of the strategies we have been using are working
because we are seeing better retention, more student engagement, and more
success stories. We can only hope to
improve on these achievements."
References
Astin, A. W. (1975).
Preventing students from dropping out. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What
matters in college? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1999a).
Involvement in learning
revisited: Lessons we have learned. Journal of College Student Development,
40(5), 587-598.
Astin, A. W. (1999b). Student
involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College
Student Development, 40(5), 518-29.
Braxton, J. M, Milem, J. F., &
Sullivan, A. S. (2000, September-October). The influence of active learning on
the college student departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto’s theory.
The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 569-590.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B.
(2003). The American community college (4th ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Cross, P. (1998). Why learning
communities? Why now? About Campus,
3(3), 4-11.
Guarino, A. J., & Hocevar, D.
(2005). Tinto’s model and locus of control.
College and University Journal, 80(4),
43-44.
Halpin, R. L. (1990). An
application of the Tinto model to the analysis of freshmen persistence in a
community college.
Community College Review, 17(4), 22-32.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith,
K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college. Change, 30(4),
26-36. Retrieved June 12, 2004, from
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/change/doc/31954423.html
Kuh, G. D. (2001). College
students today: Why we can’t leave serendipity to chance.
In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnston (Eds.), In Defense
of American Higher Education (pp. 277-303). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
McCabe, R. H. (2003) Yes we
can! A community college guide for developing America’s underprepared.
United States of America: League for Innovation in the Community College and
American Association of Community Colleges.
McClenny, K. M. (Director). (2004). Engagement by design: Community college survey of student engagement: Community college survey of student engagement: 2004 findings. The University of Texas at Austin: Community College Leadership Program. Retrieved July 7, 2005 from http://www.ccsse.org/publications/CCSSE_reportfinal2004.pdf
Miller, K., & Gerlach, J.
(1997). A study of student departure from developmental courses. Research and
Teaching in Developmental Education, 13(2), 71-84.
Minkler, J. E. (2002). ERIC
review: Learning communities at the community college. Community College
Review, 30(3), 46-63. Retrieved June 12, 2004, from
http://wilsontxt.hwsilson.com/pdffull/03788/W6B9M/VSI.pdf
Mutter, P. (1992). Tinto’s
theory of departure and community college student persistence. Journal of
College Student Development, 33(4), 310-317.
Pascarella, E. T., &
Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary dropout
decisions from a theoretical model. The Journal of Higher Education,
51(1), 60-75.
Pascarella, E. T., &
Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21st
century: Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2),
151-165.
Reason, R. D. (2003). Student
variables that predict retention: Recent research and new developments. NASPA
Journal, 40(4), 172-191.
Rendon, L. I. (1994, August).
Beyond involvement: Creating validating academic and social communities in the
community college. Keynote address presented at American River Community
College, Sacramento, CA.
Schmid, C., & Abell, P.
(2003). Demographic risk factors, study patterns, and campus involvement as
related to student success among Guilford Technical Community College students.
Community College Review, 31(1).
Retrieved May 30, 2004 from Wilson Web Database.
Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J.
H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical guide to winning
support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stephens, D. (2001).
Increasing access: Educating underprepared students in U.S. colleges and
universities past, present, and future. Retrieved September 22, 2004 from
http://faculty.etsu.edu/Stephen/increasingaccess.htm
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from
higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of
Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1997a). Classrooms
as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence.
The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.
Tinto, V. (1997b). Enhancing
learning via community. The NEA Higher Education Journal,
13(1), 53-58.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as
communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. The
Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167-177.
Tinto, V., & Love, A. G.
(1995, February). A longitudinal study of learning communities at LaGuardia
Community College (R117G10037). University Park, PA: National Center for
Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED380178)
Tinto, V., & Russo, P. (1994).
Coordinated studies programs: Their effect on student involvement at a community
college. Community College Review, 22(2), 16-25.
Vaughan, G. B. (2000). The
community college story (2nd ed.). Washington, D. C.: Community
College Press.
Dr. Elizabeth Wilmer is the dean of humanities of Virginia Western Community College. Her research interests include exploring ways to improve the satisfaction, achievement, and retention of developmental English students in the VCCS.