FACULTY WORK AND STUDENT LEARNING: MEETING NEW CHALLENGES OF A WORLD IN TRANSITION by Lorna Hernandez Jarvis and John Shaughnessy Fall 2002

We attended a conference November 7-9 in Indianapolis sponsored by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) that examined the relationships between the nature of faculty work and of students’ learning in higher education today. In this article we provide a brief summary of the topics discussed and ideas shared in the plenary sessions of the conference.

The conference focused on issues that have been summarized in a recent National Panel Report of the AAC&U entitled, Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College. The report lists the following statistics regarding higher education:

* 75 percent of high school graduates enroll in post-secondary education within two years.

* Only 47 percent of students who enter college
have completed a college-prep curriculum.

* 40 percent of college students in four-year colleges
and 53 percent overall take remedial courses in reading, writing, or mathematics.

* 58 percent of recipients of a Bachelor’s degree attend two or more colleges.

* In the next 15 years, 1 to 2 million additional
young adults are expected to seek access to higher
education and many of them will be minorities.

These statistics confirm that institutions of higher education are facing an increase in enrollment and a more diverse and unevenly prepared student body. Professors are being asked to meet the educational needs of students who live in a world in transition. These changes are occurring at a time when resources for higher education might be scarce.

At the same time, society’s rising expectations are making universities accountable for students’ learning. There is a need to assess higher education’s effectiveness in achieving (and revising) educational goals. Are we meeting the rising societal expectations? What changes need to take place? What initiatives and programs need to continue?

Transforming Pedagogy to Transform Learning

Research on how people learn should inform the pedagogy used in colleges and universities. Marcia Baxter Magolda of Miami University of Ohio presented a summary of the findings from her longitudinal study investigating how college students learn. She described how students’ thinking and learning processes go through developmental changes during and after college. She argued that effective instruction requires that professors should teach in ways that “meets students where they are” and leads them to higher levels of cognitive development. Her research indicates that there is often a mismatch between students’ level of cognitive development and the pedagogy that is used in college classes. This mismatch can lead to lower levels of student achievement and considerable frustration for professors and for students. Karen Kashmanian Oates of George Mason University addressed ways to lessen the mismatch between where students are and the instruction they receive. She described a model based on research on how students learn (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9853.html) that can encourage students to learn at a deeper level. The goals of the model are to ensure that: (1) students develop expertise by learning the material they need to know, (2) students have opportunities to learn through experience, and (3) students have opportunities for social learning by working collaboratively on group projects.

Faculty-Institutional Relationships: The New Academic Compact

Jon Wergin, Professor of Educational Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University argued that it is critical for colleges and universities to establish strong faculty-institution relationships in order to enhance student learning as well as to improve the climate for faculty work. He described that several regional accrediting organizations (including NCA) are working to develop a national agenda for student learning and that new accrediting guidelines are being developed. These national guidelines include: (1) defining institutional quality by how well they fulfill their declared learning mission, (2) establishing clear institutional goals for students’ learning with specification of content and level of attainment, (3) requiring institutions to collect evidence to document the level of students’ learning, and (4) encouraging institutions to be intentional about compiling and disseminating evidence of students’ learning and to gather this evidence from many different sources. He concluded that assessment of students’ learning will be effective only if it is seen as an institutional priority and a responsibility shared by the community. All those with a stake in decisions of educational quality should participate in the process. There should be broad participation in reflecting about students’ learning as a means of building capacity for educational improvement.

Susan Traverso of North Central College discussed the need to redefine faculty roles and institutional relationships. She referred to a “New Academic Compact” which involves reciprocal obligation, civic professionalism, and community. She argued that faculty and administers tend to underestimate the effort required in teaching and curriculum development. [Susan described a compelling analogy for faculty’s tendencies to underestimate their own efforts based on women’s selective memory of childbirth.] She also pointed out that programs designed to coordinate the efforts of faculty and student development professionals to enhance students’ learning often become activities done in “parallel” rather than truly collaborative programs. She also noted a lack of faculty training for the advising of students. More generally, she argued that faculty development is fragmented. National surveys conducted by AAC&U indicate that the highest value for faculty is their autonomy while college and university administrators perceive an increasing need to “rein in faculty.” Susan argued that this is an unnecessary tension. She endorsed a model for institutions in which both faculty and administrators are intellectually engaged and in which there are institutional policies that foster the integration of community and autonomy.

Revisioning Faculty Work and Professionalism for a World in Transition

Dr. McMillin, a History Professor at Susquehanna University, described a model of faculty development intended to encourage young faculty to become “a complete scholar.” Her model suggests that a complete scholar is an individual who understands and participates in interdisciplinary efforts while rooted in his/her discipline, continues to develop teaching skills, is an active scholar (including the scholarship of teaching), and an institutional citizen (not just departmental). [The idea of a complete scholar is described more fully in the book, A New Academic Compact, edited by Linda McMillin & Jerry Berberet and published by Anker Publishing.]

Dr. McMillin argues that society’s expectations for higher education in today’s world requires a more complex professional identity for faculty. This identity is rooted in a particular discipline. But, she argues that young faculty will not develop into “complete scholars” unless their early experiences introduce them to issues beyond teaching and scholarship within their discipline. For example, she suggests that new faculty could benefit from becoming involved in institutional decision-making (i.e., committee work), but only if their work leads to important consequences for the institution. Research has indicated that participation in institutional decision-making leads to higher commitment to the institution, and a greater sense of being part of the community. This type of institutional investment and even interdisciplinary efforts are not typically encouraged or rewarded because institutions want to “protect” younger faculty so they can develop as scholars. This is a very reasonable policy, but if young faculty are not participating in institutional and interdisciplinary efforts at the pre-tenure stage, they are less likely to do so after tenure. Similarly, young faculty need to be involved in the general education program, rather than allowing them to stay exclusively within their field of expertise. New Faculty need a better understanding of a liberal arts education and of their discipline’s contribution to the general education program. They also need to be involved in the development of teaching skills. Mentoring programs that provide a safe place for faculty to share successes and failures is critical for their development as complete scholars.

Attending this conference was a stimulating professional experience for us. As is often the case, however, the conference provided more “food for thought” than “specific recipes” for implementing these good ideas. Our hope is that our report will stimulate discussion to help us discern what ideas are worthwhile for Hope and how we might develop plans to implement these ideas.