Faculty Learning Communities’ Impacts: Results of a National Survey

1. Faculty Learning Communities’ Impacts: Results of a National Survey Andrea L. Beach, Ph.D. Western Michigan University Milton D. Cox, Ph.D Miami University The Professional and Organizational Development Network October 30, 2005

2. Purpose of this Session • Overview of Miami University’s 3-year FIPSE funded FLC dissemination project, “Developing Faculty Learning Communities to Transform Campus Culture for Learning” • Presentation of results of follow-up survey • Discussion of survey results

3. FLCs Defined • Year-long, cross-disciplinary communities of 8-12 faculty members who collaboratively engage in the exploration and implementation of new (to them) teaching approaches. • Cohort or Topic based • Focus course or project • Structured or semi-structured curriculum

4. About the FIPSE FLC Project . . . • Miami University and six adapting institutions: • Claremont Graduate University, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Kent State University, Notre Dame University, Ohio University, and The Ohio State University • Project sought to test the “Miami Model” and the success of mentored, accelerated adaptation – 12 FLCs at each institution in 3 years.

5. Miami Model: How FLC Components Are Connected Individual Partnerships Individual Classroom Activities Program Goals Program Objectives Focus Course: Syllabus TGI CATs SGID Videotape Mini-Portfolio Student Associates Mentors This FLC Community Other Associates The Literature Knowledge Base Seminars Retreats Lilly Teaching Conference Attendance Presidents’ Day Retreat All FLC present Lilly West Conference Teaching Project Individualand Joint Efforts:The Scholarshipof Teaching and Learning

6. More Information on FLCs • National Survey of FLCs – lists US and Canadian FLCs • http://www.cgu.edu/include/FLCList.xls • Information about and Resources for FLCs • http://www.units.muohio.edu/flc/index.shtml • Miami’s Student Learning Survey • http://homepages.wmich.edu/~abeach/FLCAssessment.htm

7. Follow-up Survey • In Spring semester, 2005, we used a web-based survey to follow-up with the participants and facilitators of the FLCs created by the FIPSE project, as well as Miami University FLC participants from the same time frame. (UND declined) • Survey developed by Miami U. and based on The Teaching Goals Inventory (Angelo & Cross, 1993) • 648 invitations sent with 2 follow-up reminders. • 395 responses, for an overall response rate of 61%

8. Demographics: 32% Assistant Professors 20% Associate 13% Full 13% Graduate Students 59% Female 41% Male Type of FLC 22% Cohort 52% Topic 26% Multiple/other Participation Levels 77% Participants only 16% Participant and facilitator 6% Facilitator Survey Results

9. Survey Results: Faculty Changes • Top impacts in themselves faculty reported as a result of participation (on 5 point scale: 1= no impact, 5 = very substantial impact): • 1. Perspective on teaching and learning and other aspects of Higher Education beyond their own discipline. Mean = 3.93 • 2. Interest in the teaching process. Mean =3.86 • 3. Understanding of and interest in Scholarship of Teaching (SoTL). Mean = 3.8 • 4. View of teaching as an intellectual pursuit. Mean = 3.74 • Total effectiveness as a teacher. Mean = 3.55

10. Survey Results • Change in student learning believed to have resulted from individual FLC project (1=no amount, 5=a very substantial amount): • Mean = 3.29, 46% reported a substantial or very substantial amount. 33% reported moderate amount. In total, 79% reported AT LEAST a moderate amount of change from this. • Change in student learning believed to be a result of change in faculty personal attitudes about teaching: • Mean = 3.10, 35% reported substantial or very substantial amount, 38% reported moderate amount. In total, 73% reported at least moderate amount of change from this.

11. Survey Results • FLC Project Undertaken. 6 project areas with over 100 responses: • Revised a course (160) • Learned about/incorporated approaches to reach different learning styles (150) • Designed & employed technology in a course (141) • Designed guidelines for learning processes (e.g., discussions) (123) • Investigated/improved grading schemes or rubrics (110) • Surveyed students to obtain information to incorporate into teaching (104)

12. Survey Results • Student Learning Outcomes Changed as a Result of FLC Activities: • 23 of 31 items rated 3.00 or above (moderate amount). Most means were between 3.0 and 3.5 on a 5-point scale. • 8 rated under 3.00, but only 1 (internships) under 2.5

13. Survey Results • Top Student Learning Outcomes Changes. Development of: • An ability to work productively with others (3.50) • Openness to new ideas (3.46) • A capacity to think for oneself (3.44) • Understanding of perspectives/values of course or discipline (3.39) • Ability to think holistically (3.39) • Ability to think creatively (3.38) • Ability to synthesize and integrated information and ideas (3.37) • Improved learning of concepts and theories (3.36) • Problem solving skills (3.35) • Ability to apply principles and generalizations already learned to new problems and situations (3.35)

14. Survey Results • Assessments used to Judge Changes in Student Learning: • 9 of 21 rated over 3.0 (a moderate amount), • Top 5: • Better class discussion and engagement (3.58) • Better classroom atmosphere (3.50) • Better papers and writing assignments (3.46) • Students more interested (3.46) • More successful achievement of existing learning objectives (3.38)

15. Survey Results • Teaching and Learning Approaches that Resulted in Changed Student Learning: • 5 rated over 3.5 • Active learning (4.07) • Student centered learning (3.99) • Discussion (3.84) • Cooperative or collaborative learning (3.84) • Writing (3.54) • Another 5 rated over 3.0

16. Discussion • Results at adapting institutions were largely the same as at Miami University – only 4 variables were statistically significantly different (using t-tests), and adapting institutions rated these higher: • Faculty awareness of how to serve student learning needs (p=.04) • Improved student learning of terms and facts (p=.03) • Better student performance on tests (p=.04) • Faculty reporting revitalization (p=.006)

17. Discussion • Overall, faculty report at least moderate changes in student learning as a result of their participation in FLCs, 1 to 3 years after their participation. • Faculty identified numerous learning outcomes in which they had observed or measured student change, particularly in students’ abilities to think holistically, critically, and creatively, as well as their ability to work productively with others. • Faculty noted better discussions and class atmosphere, as well as better written work, as ways they judged student learning improvements.

18. Discussion • Next steps • Experimental design – test the knowledge base and attitudes of students in a focus course prior to a faculty member’s participation, and after. • Survey the AI facilitators of FLCs about their processes of facilitating faculty learning. • Expanding into other sectors or areas – health professions, HBCUs, Community Colleges, 4-year comprehensive institutions.