Basic Questions - Paper #1
Discussion Question 1

The traditional community college model includes organization by the functions of instruction, student services and administrative services. Historically this model has relegated learning primarily to the instructional dean with support being provided by student and administrative services. O'Banion, Ewell, Barr, Dolance, and many others have argued in numerous publications that the traditional model is no longer optimal for creating a fully engaging learning environment. It seems logical then for PVCC to validate the position of O'Banion et al. Below are issues for discussion.

• The traditional model does not fully place learning at the core of its being. O'Banion suggests that the purpose of a "learning revolution is to place learning first in every policy, program, and practice." His argument continues as he outlines the greatest weakness of the traditional system in its role-bound nature.
  
  "... we make the assumption that one human being, the teacher, can ensure that thirty very different human beings, in one hour a day, three days a week for sixteen weeks, can learn enough to become enlightened citizens, productive workers, and joyful lifelong learners. Then we assume that this one human being can repeat this miracle three more times in the same sixteen week period for ninety additional individuals." (p.3)
  
  In the traditional model only one-third of the executive leadership at the dean level has learning (generally the instructional dean) explicitly stated in his/her role mission.
  
  
• The traditional model does not fully embrace or accept that student learning involves the whole student. Cross, Ewell and others argue that we need to recognize all activities and events as learning opportunities. Further, the focus of pedagogy needs to be placed on the "total student learning experience" (Harvey and Knight 1996). Ewell continues this train of thought when he writes "Öthis means far closer integration between curriculum and co-curriculum than is currently the case at most institutions" (p. 10).
  
  
• It is more difficult for the innovators and trailblazers to pioneer and sustain new learning agendas in a traditional model. In general, the traditional organizational model, which by nature operates to support a "standardized and routine" delivery of programs, is less responsive to innovative or new programs. Ewell comments on the challenges faced by innovators "Rather than cutting across all aspects of campus functioning, therefore, each such innovation tends to become a train on its own track isolated from its fellows and from the real ways the institution does business. As a result, each either fades away fast as the latest fad or must quickly find an organizational home of its own, which behaves like all the rest." (Ewell, p.4)
  
  Ewell in his studies of organizations that promote deeper student learning suggests that "Change requires a fundamental shift of perspective for both the organization and its membersÖwhat we know about learning and effective instructional approaches demands a basic shift {from the traditional} model." This observation in many respects has been validated by the organizational challenges faced by PVCC over the last several years as new initiatives have arisen that do not fit in the traditional organizational structure and/or overlap at least two of existing "stove pipes" including Choices@PVCC, distance learning, service learning, First Year Experience, leadership development programs, high school bridge programs, enhanced learning support programs, and increased use of technology to name a few.
  
  
• Learning outside of the classroom is historically delegated to "less than" or viewed organizationally as a "second-class" academic citizen. If the outcome is student learning, then any activity that engages student in the learning process needs to be viewed as integral. Given that the classroom (or other forms of instructional delivery) serve as the catalyst for learning, if one views learning from an "outcome" view rather than an "input" view, the origin (whether in or out of class) of student academic achievement is generally viewed equally. The following hypothetical example illustrates this point.
  

  A student attends a class lecture and for fifty minutes pays close attention to the material presented by the faculty member. For whatever reason during that fifty-minute period, the student does not "get the material." Later that day the same student stops by the Learning Support Center and participates in a peer tutoring session and during the next hour "gets it."

The strategy of peer tutoring is a documented pedagogy that produces learning. This type of learning happens because "hidden" deficiencies are actively uncovered and corrected through peer interaction and much of the demonstrable effectiveness of collaboration lies in the low-stakes opportunities it provides for feedback and correction (Light 1990). This discussion does not suggest that origin of content and the accountability of curriculum moves away from the faculty role, but only suggests that if one views the fundamental outcome as learning, there is significant learning that occurs outside of the classroom in many non-classroom settings (computer lab, library, service learning, etc.). Recently a college president was lamenting on how difficult it was for her to leave the classroom to assume the presidency role until she realized that her classroom now included the entire campus.

---------->NEXT