Utilizing Multiple Interlocking Learning Communities to Form a Center for Teaching and Learning (original) (raw)

2008, Learning Assistance Review

Abstract

The trend toward implementing models for Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTL) for academic support in higher education is gaining momentum. Whether due to external influences, such as the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, which promotes inquiry about teaching and learning, or more related to internal forces such as the pressure to improve student retention, learning assistance administrators and teaching faculty increasingly share a common mission. The CTL movement assumes that significant learning takes place in multiple environments in and out of the classroom and that learning is a social interaction dependent on multi-layered and diverse learning communities. A case study at Randolph-Macon College suggests that moving learning centers toward the CTL model can effectively address some of the biggest challenges in the current postsecondary climate, such as retention, use of limited resources, and increased access. F aculty and administrators openly acknowledge that major challenges are facing colleges and universities in the new century, including an increasingly diverse learning population, financial challenges, pressure to improve retention rates, and a renewed emphasis on defining specialized institutional missions (Hanes, 2007; Marcy & Guskin, 2003; O'Meara, Kaufman, & Kuntz, 2003). Unfortunately, pressure from unfunded mandates, emphasis on change for change's sake, and turnover in key personnel can result in collective institutional frustration, or, perhaps more critically, may distract stakeholders from making use of assets already in place to address such issues. The recognition and utilization of non-traditional learning communities on campus, in conjunction with an emphasis on the scholarship of teaching and learning, can lead to positive solutions to many of these problems.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (23)

  1. Arendale, D. (1997). Bridging the gap of teaching and learning. Retrieved November 11, 2001, from http://www.umkc.edu/cad/nade/nadedocs/ dagap97.htm.
  2. Berry, R. A. W. (2006). Inclusion, power, and community: Teachers and students interpret the language of community in an inclusion classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 489-529.
  3. Blande, C. J., & Bergquist, W. H. (1997). The vitality of senior faculty members: Snow on the roof--fire in the furnace (Vol. 25). Washington DC: The George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
  4. C. Roland Christensen Center for Teaching and Learning, Harvard Business School. (2007). Retrieved March 29, 2007 from http://www.hbs.edu/ teachingandlearningcenter/
  5. Cambridge, B. L. (2000). The scholarship of teaching and learning: A national initiative. In M. Kaplan & D. Lieberman (Eds.), To improve the academy: (Vol. 18, pp. 55-67). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Co., Inc.
  6. Delohery, A. (2006). Learning center collaborations in the academic community. The Learning Curve (Fall 2006).
  7. Denman, M. (2006). Inquiry about Stanford CTL; December 5 personal communication with Jack Trammell.
  8. DiRamio, D., & Wolverton, M. (2006). Integrating learning communities and distance education: Possibility or pipedream? Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 99.
  9. Erickson, B. L., Peters, C. B., & Strommer, D. W. (2006). Teaching first- year college students (Rev. and expanded ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  10. Faculty Handbook. (2006). Ashland, VA: Randolph-Macon College.
  11. Freedman, D. (1994). Harvard succeeds in the teaching of teachers. (Campus Innovations: Teaching). Science, v266(n5186), p877(871).
  12. Gabelnick, F. G. (1990). Learning communities: creating connections among students, faculty, and disciplines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  13. Hanes, A. (2007, April 27). The demise of university? National Post.
  14. Kight, S., Gaynor, J. J., & Adams, S. D. (2006). Undergraduate research communities. Journal of College Science Teaching (July), 34-39.
  15. Leskes, A. (2003). Greater expectations: Designing institutional change. Liberal Education, 89(1), 32-41.
  16. Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  17. Marcy, M., & Guskin, A. (2003). Project on the future: Teaching and learning in a climate of restricted resources. Liberal Education, 89(2), 22-29.
  18. Mentkowski, M., & Associates. (2000). Learning that lasts: Integrating learning, development, and performance in college and beyond. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
  19. Moore, D. D. (2006). Shooting the gap: Engaging today's faculty in the liberal arts. Liberal Education, 92(3), 46-51.
  20. O'Meara, K., Kaufman, R. R., & Kuntz, A. M. (2003). Faculty work in challenging times: Trends, consequences, & implications. (Featured Topic). Liberal Education, 89(4), 16(18).
  21. Peters, C. B. (2006). Teaching first year college students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  22. Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  23. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221.