Position Paper #2 - Basic Questions #2
Discussion Question 4

The Intention of the Integrated Learning Cluster

The purpose of this section is to demonstrate that the clustering of integrated learning experiences and the purposeful connection with the student development and learning services clusters suggest a new and innovative organizational strategy. The desired outcome of this strategy is to create deeper student learning and increase levels of academic success.  Rationale for integrated learning, efficacy of the cluster concept, and challenges of structural change will be discussed.

Rationale for Integrated Learning

First Year Experience (FYE), Learning Communities, journalism learning lab (Puma Press), high school bridge programs (SUCCEED), and Service Learning (SL) have been clustered because these pedagogical approaches, by structure, are purposefully value added to enhance learning. Specifically, these experiences enhance learning because the following characteristics of learning are intentionally integrated into the structure of the experience. Learning (as defined by the Powerful Partnership document) is:

• enhanced because it takes place in the context of a compelling situation (theme based course sequencing, service to the community, creation of a newspaper, etc.);
• connected (between courses, between courses and enterprise, discipline content and real life situations);
• developmental  (intentionally sequencing of courses in FYE and SUCCEED, progression of content competencies and responsibilities in creating a newspaper, developmental relationships of the natural cohorts);
• done in environments that connect the intrinsic needs of the learner to others as social beings (relationships established from FYE, comradeship of creating a student newspaper, shared dependency of high school students first exposure to college, cohorts and service learning student teams); 
• viewed informally and incidentally beyond explicit instruction in addition to the purposefully implemented interventions, (co-curricular activities of FYE, happenstances of life lessons learned in the community through service learning, mistakes made in the pressroom, a bridge student’s realization of academic competency while helping another bridge student); and,
• grounded in particular contexts and individual experiences requiring effort to transfer specific knowledge to other circumstances (see examples above).

In addition for FYE, high school bridge programs, and to a lesser extent the journalism learning lab, and Service Learning, the following learning objectives are also explicitly made as part of the pedagogy: “As a result of participating in these experiences students will learn to:

• establish meaningful relationships with other students, faculty and staff;
• create a sense of belonging and/or are connected to the college in some way;
• make a connection between why they are here and where they plan to be in the future (goal setting);
• navigate through our systems, processes and procedures (know the rules – how to play the game); and
• get involved on campus.”

These objectives are intended to lead to the outcomes of deeper student learning, higher student retention rates, and greater success rates of future academic experiences. These outcomes are not explicitly stated or purposefully found in other course experiences.

Thus the benefit of integrative learning experiences is creating more meaningful and deeper learning for students.

Efficacy of this Cluster

The preceding narrative suggests that by design, integrative experiences utilize learning strategies that enhance the traditional discipline based delivery of single courses or course sequences. In addition, the research supports that deeper learning results from these strategies. Perhaps the next question to raise is the logic of the cluster concept. The following support this organizational strategy:

1. Integrated experiences require additional program administrative, organizational, logistical and traditional student service support (marketing, recruiting, specialized advising, counseling, etc.). At this stage of development at PVCC it would be difficult to fiscally justify separate administrative support for each of the integrative learning programs. It seems that a shared pool of administrative support assisting all integrative learning programs would be most efficient at this stage of development.
2. In the relative short time that PVCC has planfully engaged in integrative learning activities, one of the benchmarks of success has been integration and collaboration between all of the programs and several key functional areas outside of the programs. For example: a) Emerging Leaders, a program initiated by the student life center, has been integrated into FYE, with plans for the same relationship to be developed with the high school bridge programs; b) Service Learning is a key component of FYE and learning communities; c) Service Learning programs have been developed around the delivery of the emerging leaders program to youth from the community; and d) during the pilot, athletes comprised a logical target group for FYE. The synergy of these relationships has occurred from the proximity and collective creativity of the faculty and staff developing the programs.
3. As suggested above, since explicit pedagogical outcomes include: establishing meaningful relationships with other students, faculty and staff, creating a sense of belonging and/or are connected to the college in some way; making a connection between why they are here and where they plan to be in the future (goal setting); navigating through our systems, processes and procedures (know the rules – how to play the game); and getting involved on campus, it therefore makes sense to also create purposeful relationships with the student development and learning services clusters (including athletics, student life, counseling, and the Learning Support Center).
4. FYE, SUCCEED, Service Learning, and high school bridge programs are also all rooted in course-based instruction (a.k.a. classes taught by faculty) across all disciplines, share the value added pedagogies discussed above, and require integration with the student development and learning services clusters. The cluster relationship supports this.

Challenges of Structural Change with the Integrated Learning Cluster

The intentional value added of integrated learning pedagogy suggests: leadership roles requiring a new skill set to vision, develop and sustain programs beyond a single college division; a congruent college physical facility to enhance the experience; significant interaction between faculty, support staff; and additional coordination and monitoring not required from a singular delivery of a course. The traditional organizational model does not fully accommodate these needs.

The clustering of integrated learning experiences and the purposeful connection with the student development and learning services clusters, as previously mentioned, suggest a new and innovative organizational strategy.

Thus a choice needs to be made. Will we view the development of new and innovative organizational clustering approaches for enhancing learning from the traditional hierarchical, stratified, and instructional role bound lenses giving into the fears of “less than academic?” Or will we take to heart and apply what we have learned from the research about organizing for deeper student learning and see that this model provides an opportunity for transforming change?

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