Learning by Example: Cultivating Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Collaboration Presentation by:...
-
Upload
miles-harris -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
2
Transcript of Learning by Example: Cultivating Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Collaboration Presentation by:...
Learning by Example:Cultivating Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Collaboration
Presentation by: David Clurman - University of Maryland, Baltimore
CountyMichael Puma - Loyola University Maryland
October 27, 2011
Overview
Introductions
Literature Review History & Present Status Theory & Research
Our Experiences Successes & Pitfalls
Assumptions that We Make About Each Other
Exploring Partnerships & Collaboration
Questions & Answers
D
Learning Objectives
Participants will:
Explore the theoretical and historical foundations of residential life/ academic affairs collaborations
Consider the role institutional type, history and culture plays in the development and implementation of collaboration
Learn how student affairs/academic affairs collaborations have been implemented at two different types of institutions
Discuss the challenges of creating and maintaining collaboration
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
Carnegie Class: Doctoral/Research-Extensive Institution
Fall 2010 Enrollment: 10,210 Undergraduates 2,678 Graduates
Residential Population: 3,875 (1,116 first-year)
2011-2012 Tuition w/ Room & Board: $19,488*
D
About Loyola
M
Historical Overview
Middle Ages Residential Colleges of Oxford & Cambridge Roots of L/L Programs (Thelin, 2004)
Early America Harvard and Yale Expansion of residential college, separation of
administration and college life
Modern Era 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)
INPUTS OUTCOMES
ENVIRONMENTS
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
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
Tinto’s Integration Theory (1993) Integration into academic and social realms Shared learning and knowing (1997)
Pascarella & Terenzini Engagement (2005) Interactions with faculty Interactions with peers Living on campus
D
What Makes Collaboration Successful?
Strategy
% 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%Source: Kezar, A. (2003). Achieving student success: strategies for creating partnerships between academic and student affairs. NASPA Journal. Vol. 41. pp. 1-22.
M
14
“Hierarchy of Needs” LLP Best Practices Building Blocks
(Inkelas, 2010)
Academicdepartments
ResidenceLife
CollaborationFunding
Dedicatedresidence hall
space
Coursesfor
credit
Facultyadvising
Academicallysupportiveclimate
Sociallysupportive
climate
Study groupsK-12 outreach
Visiting work settingsCareer workshops
Intentionalintegration
INFRA-STRUCTURE
ACADEMICENVIRONMENT
CO-CURRICULARENVIRONMENT
“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.
Collaboration is
Essential!
D
What Happens WhenBuilding Blocks Are Missing?
Academicdepartments
ResidenceLifeFunding
Dedicatedresidence hall
space
Coursesfor
credit
Facultyadvising
Academicallysupportiveclimate
Sociallysupportive
climate
Study groupsK-12 outreach
Visiting work settingsCareer workshops
Intentionalintegration
15Collaboration
16
Academicdepartments
ResidenceLife
CollaborationFunding
Dedicatedresidence hall
space
Coursesfor
credit
Facultyadvising
Academicallysupportiveclimate
Sociallysupportive
climate
Study groupsK-12 outreach
Visiting work settingsCareer workshops
Intentionalintegration
What Happens WhenBuilding Blocks Are Missing?
The “Third Space” of Partnership: New,
Unpredictable and Emergent
Cultural Models
Relationships
Structures & Technologies
Routines & Practices
3rd
Space
A deeply held belief or worldview that is shared among group members
Key aspect of cultural
life that ties
individuals to other, people, groups
and organizati
onsOrganizational features that establish the parameters of what behaviors are possible, permissible, and rewarded
Regular, patterned behaviors
that eventually become habitual M
3 Types of Partnerships
Limited Coordinated Collaborative
Nature of Problem Technical, routineMix of technical and adaptive
Novel and lacking well-known solutions
Time Required Short termIntermediate or Long term
Long term
Number of Partners Required
A few A few or several Several
MotivationsPrimarily Self Interests
CombinationEnlightened Self Interest (self and broader collective)
Capacity and Resources
Limited Medium Substantial
Autonomy High Medium Low
Cultural Tensions Likely to be slightLikely to be moderate
Likely to be severe
Governance Top-down SharedShared/Consensus-Based
Source: Hora, M.T. & Millar, S.B. (2011). A guide to building education partnerships. Sterling,VA: Stylus Publishing. M
Loyola University
Creating a Living Learning Programs – The “corporate
merger” analogy The “Marriage of
Equals” analogy
Loyola Living-
Learning Theme
Clusters (6-7 total for first-
year class)
Faculty/Student
Development
Administrator/
Student Leader Led
“Voices Curriculum”
Residence Hall
Community Programmin
g & Co-Curricular Campus
Programs
Fall Seminar Course
including CORE
Advising followed by
Spring Seminar Course
Living-Learning Aim/Goals
(Consistent with Undergraduate
Educational Aims, Student Development
Learning Outcomes and College Values
Statement)
M
Loyola University Living-Learning Program Timeline
1996-2006……. Four Separate First Year Programs Operate (all have living- learning or themed housing options)
Fall 2006……. Groundwork for new Strategic PlanFall 2007……. Living-Living Strategic Plan Work Group Begins MeetingSpring 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 Co-
Directors NamedFall 2013…… Anticipated date for campus-wide implementation
M
Loyola University
The Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change (Kotter, 1996) Is there a sense of urgency? Is there a guiding coalition? Do you have a vision and strategy? Have you communicated a change
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
Founded in 1999 to encourage the building of student –faculty relationships
Program Goals are: To promote informal faculty-student interaction in the
residence halls/apartments To provide academic, professional, and personal role
models for students To educate faculty regarding student life on campus
and in the residence halls
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) Primary responsibility is relationship building with residents
in the community and staff with whom they work
Second Ten Weeks (November – February) Primary responsibility is putting forth academically
supportive programming Assist students who are reported to have a C or less in their
classes
Third Ten Weeks (March – May) Primary responsibility is educational programming and a
closure activity
D
UMBCLiving-Learning Communities
Begun in 2000, UMBC has housed 10 LLCs – 9 are currently active
UMBC was recognized in 2008 as one of the top four institutions with LLCs
We struggle with understanding why students in LLCs have greater outcomes
True partnership with academics
D
Successes atLoyola
Approved program will transform systems and structures within academic affairs, student development and other partner offices
Program is tied to 16 new tenure-track faculty hires, the current strategic plan, and the future capital campaign; there is long-term commitment
Program is tied into other initiatives including a revamped Honors program and new opportunities for engaged scholarship
M
Successes at UMBC
Both students and faculty have gained insights into their counterparts
Students in LLCs have demonstrated positive outcomes
Students in LLCs have been retained at higher rates
D
Pitfalls
Publicity and marketing of programs to students
Recruitment of faculty
Funding
Making connections with students
Lack of preparation from higher education programs about faculty culture and collaboration
Communication
D
Have You Ever Heard a Conversation Like
This?
If Innovation Starts at Home, We Need to Know
Who Is In the House…
What are some common stereotypes of faculty?
How did we come to know those stereotypes?
How do we judge the validity of those stereotypes?
What impact do these stereotypes have?
Faculty and Student Affairs - Traditional Cultural
Characteristics, Norms, Attitudes
STUDENT AFFAIRS
Emphasis on student personal growth
Value subjective, relational, dimensions of knowing and learning
Believe in shared purpose of faculty and student affairs to education whole student
FACULTY
Emphasis on student critical thinking, acquisition of knowledge
Value objective, rational, independent ways of knowing
Believe intellectual/academic activities in classroom are superior to activities occurring outside the classroom
Adapted from the Handbook for Student Affairs Administration
Faculty and Student Affairs - Traditional Cultural
Characteristics, Norms, Attitudes
STUDENT AFFAIRS Characterized by hierarchical
structures, centralized decision-making, defined authority – loyalty is to one’s department & institution
Values defined goals, task completion and productivity
Individuals tend to be interpersonally adept, extraverted, problem-solvers
FACULTY Characterized by structures
that emphasize collegiality through shared governance, peer leadership – loyalty is to academic discipline
Values ambiguity, autonomy, flexibility, nonconformity, creativity, and innovation
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
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
FACULTY
Thinking and reflecting, future-focused – predictable and order
Engage in solitary, autonomous, independent work
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
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
FACULTY
Sees faculty as expert or authority
Experts in their academic discipline, teaching, research, writing skills
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
Know your program goals so that you can communicate concrete expectations and identify outcomes
Know who you are asking (tenure/no tenure, full-time/part-time, specific disciplines)
Know that there is top-down institutional support. Is collaboration rewarded? By whom?
Ask about historical factors and cultural dynamics specific to your campus
Faculty/Partner buy-in is a must
Explore what motivations exist for the partnerships D
During Partnerships
Frequent communication and mutual understanding
Acknowledge tension points
Play to strengths of participants
Remember that it is about the student experience
Practice patience
Know your resources
Step out of conventional roles or stereotypical roles
Need to have staff that will interact with faculty
Effort should be equitable
D
After Partnerships
Share honest feedback
Assess student experience and student learning
Reward positive collaborations – for both the faculty member and the student affairs administrator
Cast a wide net – invite others to share in successful and innovative programs because it: Models collaboration Avoids burnout
Share success stories with campus leadership
Plan for sustaining momentum – share success with alumni, institutional advancement and enrollment management
D
Collaboration on Your Campus
What are the barriers to collaboration?
Who are the champions of collaboration?
Who comprises your faculty? Tenure track appointments Full-time vs. Part-time Demographics (gender, ethnicity, age)
Do you see connections between your faculty composition and barriers to collaboration?
How can you overcome these barriers?
What role does upper-level administration play?M
Current Considerations
How can residence life proactively support learning communities? How can this be a unified and sustained goal?
What opportunities are there for student leadership in learning communities?
What existing campus structures can be modified to enhance student learning (and LLCs) in the residence halls?
How can you assess the LLCs and how do we share successes?
M
Considerations for the Future
Is it dependent on institutions to demonstrate the value and worth of the program by providing concrete assessment evidence?
Will budget cuts force programs to lose components or fail altogether?
Will the teaching and participation in these programs be valued by the institution in tenure and promotion decisions?
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]@loyola.edu