Learning Communities
Learning communities promote an interesting environment for students and faculty. This synopsis provides a snapshot of the field of research in learning communities. First, it provides a breakdown of the different types of learning communities. Second, it gives description of the student learning outcomes caused by participating in a learning community.
Most learning communities fall under four categories described by Saltiel and Reynolds (2001). They describe a community as a way of “ensuring individual students recognize they are a part of a larger community (p.5).” While a community is a broad group of students, a cohort is a smaller group of students that begin a degree or program together (at the same time) and meet most or all programmatic requirements, like courses, together. The students begin together and end together. A learning community is created by administrators as a collaborative, interdisciplinary environment for faculty and students to learn together. Participants typically do not continue being a community for the duration of a program. While few learning community programs fall into the category of collaborative learning, Saltiel and Reynolds define it as “working together with a purposeful goal in mind…sharing the creation of something new (2001, p. 5).” As a whole, these definitions rely on who creates the group of participants (administration, faculty, or students), the amount of time participants spend together (for a project, for a program length), how closely tied the participants become, and the purpose of the group. For instance, Doolen & Biddlecombe (2014) describe a group of first year engineering students that were put into a loose cohort. They began in the same Introduction or Engineering type course. In contrast, Choy, Delahaye, & Saggers (2015) describe a tight cohort of education graduate students that took each required course as a group. Similarly, De Lange, Pillay, & Chikoko (2011) promote the cohort model of learning communities based on research focused on doctoral students over 3 years. Interestingly, Alman, Frey, & Tomer (2012) and Barber, King, & Buchanan (2015) focused their research on a group of online students. Both researched a broad online learning community that interconnected the online students in specific programs. Also utilizing an online platform, Nye (2015) created a broad community for all undergraduates using Moodle. While there is variation between the different categories, the main theme is that connectedness is important for student learning and development.
As there are various versions of learning communities, there are diverse student learning outcomes. One common outcome reported is an increase in student satisfaction (Doolen & Biddlecombe, 2014), (Alman, et. al, 2012). Barber, et. al (2015) discovered that participants in the learning community exhibited more learner autonomy, engagement, motivation, meaningful self & peer evaluations, shared development of collective knowledge, and ownership of learning than the control group (non-participants). De Lange et. al (2011) identified that doctoral students in learning communities showed an increase in scholarship, reflective practice, and retention.
QEPs that include learning communities emphasize increased student engagement: engagement with faculty, with campus resources, and with each other. In order to group students into communities, some institutions adopt a “Linked Courses” model in which a cohort of students enrolls in the same set of linked courses that share curriculum themes. For example, History and English faculty might organize a semester of instruction in which course content and assignments focus on the American Colonies and early American documents. A linked courses model would require faculty, typically general education faculty, to work together to create the curriculum and assignments. These faculty members would need training in learning community teaching methods.
Changes to student advising, academic planning, and orientation are frequently seen in QEPs that feature learning communities. Enrollment systems need to be in place to ensure that linked courses are co-requisites and to ensure that students who are in learning communities enroll in the same linked courses each semester. Advisors will need training in how to mentor students who participate in learning communities.
Assessment of learning communities often compares the learning outcomes of students in learning community cohorts to those in traditional classes. Other measures of success include course completion rate, persistence rate, and a reduction in time to degree.
Examples of Advising QEPs
References
- Alman, S. W., Frey, B. A., & Tomer, C. (2012). Social and Cognitive Presence as Factors in Learning and Student Retention: An Investigation of the Cohort Model in an iSchool Setting. Journal Of Education For Library & Information Science, 53(4), 290-302.
- Barber, W., King, S., & Buchanan, S. (2015). Problem Based Learning and Authentic Assessment in Digital Pedagogy: Embracing the Role of Collaborative Communities. Electronic Journal Of E-Learning, 13(2), 59-67.
- Choy, S., Delahaye, B., & Saggers, B. (2015). Developing learning cohorts for postgraduate research degrees. Australian Educational Researcher (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.), 42(1), 19-34. doi:10.1007/s13384-014-0147-y
- De Lange, N., Pillay, G., & Chikoko, V. (2011). Doctoral learning : a case for a cohort model of supervision and support. South African Journal Of Education, (1), 15.
- Doolen, T. L., & Biddlecombe, E. (2014). The Impact of a Cohort Model Learning Community on First-Year Engineering Student Success. American Journal Of Engineering Education, 5(1), 27-40.
- Nye, A. (2015). Building an online academic learning community among undergraduate students. Distance Education, 36(1), 115-128. doi:10.1080/01587919.2015.1019969
- Saltiel, I., & Reynolds, K. (2001). Student Connections: An Integrative Model of Cohorts, Community and Learning.
