Institute/Session Summary:

Institution Summary:

The University of New Mexico established a Freshman Learning Community (FLC) program (paired courses taken exclusively by freshman students) six years ago.  The program has evolved into more than 40 FLCs offered each fall semester with approximately one-third of the freshman class enrolled in the program.  A standard end-of-semester evaluation system has been used each year for summative assessment of the courses and instructors.  The program was established to help increase the retention rate of freshman students to the third semester of University enrollment and to help increase the number of freshman students who qualified for a state-supported scholarship program which is based upon first semester academic success. 

Instructors in the program (primarily tenured faculty teaching one seminar course paired with agraduate teaching assistant teaching an introductory writing or public speaking course) desired additional input, finding that there were unique challenges to teaching freshman-only courses.  The Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID), a facilitated mid-semester assessment, was incorporated into each FLC during the Fall 2004 semester.  The director of the campus faculty development center, the Center for the Advancement of Scholarship in Teaching and Learning, was asked to coordinate the program by training the SGID facilitators, conducting some SGID sessions, and writing a report summarizing the outcomes of the in-class sessions. 

The SGID facilitator conducts an assessment session with the 20 – 25 students enrolled in both courses in the FLC during the fifth to tenth week of the semester.  The facilitator asks the students what they like about the FLC so far, what they do not like about the FLC so far, what the instructors could do to improve/enhance student learning, what the students could do to improve their own learning, and how well the paired courses are linked (a key component of an effective FLC).  Students answer the questions individually and in small groups; the facilitator conducts the session so that small group input is used to develop a class input (with votes) on answers to each question.  An overhead projector is used to make the responses visible to all participants and to ensure accurate recording of responses.  The instructors are not present during the SGID.  The facilitator prepared a detailed, structured report for the instructors and meets with them to present the report and answer an
y specific questions that they may have. 

SGIDs have been conducted in more than 90 FLCs over the past three fall semesters at the University of New Mexico.  Patterns of responses have become clear.  Insights into challenges that freshman students face while trying to bridge the gap between high school and college are apparent.  Content for training instructors in the FLC program has been generated from the SGID reports.

During the presentation, the results of the SGIDs will be presented highlighting the patterns discerned and the content for FLC instructor training that has been created.  This information includes the more philosophical aspects of teaching freshmen including what beliefs instructors have about teaching freshmen; the theoretical approaches to teaching including experiential learning theory, and practical aspects of grading systems, developing critical thinking skills and college level study skills.  In addition, some issues related to how two instructors best work together to create an effective linkage between two courses have been identified through the SGID process.  Much of the content that has been generated for training instructors in the FLC program focuses on helping students bridge the gap between high school and college.  For example, it has become very apparent that freshman students will apply their high school study skills to college level coursework until those efforts
do not result in their desired grades.  By asking students what instructors can do to help them improve their learning, concrete behaviors and activities have been identified.  Another example concerns helping students understand coursework expectations.  One finding is that having students grade sample research papers before writing their own papers generates better quality research papers than simply sharing specifics of the research paper assignment. 

After presenting the results of the SGID process (which is the focus of the presentation), I will elaborate on the process, how people are trained, the logistics of scheduling the sessions and meetings with instructors, etc.  Participants will receive handouts outlining the process as well as the summarized results of the SGIDs.

I am the person who was the director of faculty developed when this program started and have continued to coordinate the SGID/FLC process through the Fall 2006 semester.  I was trained to conduct SGID sessions through a professional development workshop sponsored by the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education (POD).  I trained five graduate students over the past three years to conduct sessions while conducting a number of these SGID sessions myself.  I have also taught in the FLC program for 5 years and have had SGIDs conducted in my courses.  My experiences both as a SGID facilitator and as an FLC instructor allow me to bring both sides of the assessment process to the presentation.

Because this is a one-hour presentation, my focus is more on sharing information than on involving participants in a specific activity.  However, I will engage participants by having them predict some of the SGID findings, by using a energetic presentation style focusing on the presentation description, and by saving adequate time to explore participant questions/comments.  I will use an overhead project to highlight information provided on handouts and to demonstrate the SGID classroom process. 

This session will be of interest to classroom instructors of paired courses, to classroom instructors who are interested in options for mid-semester assessments, to program administrators looking at assessment options, and to researchers in the field of student learning, paired courses, and teaching freshmen.

SGIDs have been used in a number of higher education programs/courses.  Some campuses train faculty to conduct SGIDs in colleagues courses; some train students to conduct SGIDs and others use professional assessment staff to conduct the sessions.  I will provide a SGID bibliography so that those who want to investigate the process will have a starting point for doing so. 

Session summary:

The primary purpose of this presentation is to share results of facilitated, mid-semester assessments in Freshman Learning Community (FLC) paired courses.  Secondary purposes include sharing outcomes of these assessments that can be used to create content for professional developmental activities for FLC instructors and to create effective paired-courses for freshman students.

Learning objectives include:

1. Understanding freshman student perspectives, attitudes, and suggestions for instructors from students in Freshman Learning Community paired courses.
2. Understanding specific challenges of teaching freshman-only courses and content for training faculty to teach these courses – paired or not.
3. Introducing the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) process of mid-semester assessment.

Outline:

1. Briefly introduce topic by asking participants to predict what freshman students like and do not like about paired courses (Freshman Learning Community model) and to predict what suggestions students having for faculty to enhance student learning.
2. Share outcomes of SGIDs conducted in more than 90 FLC paired courses including what students liked about the course, what they did not like about the course, what suggestions students had for instructors, what ideas students had for improving their own learning, and how well the link between the paired courses worked.
3. Incorporate the process used in gaining this information – SGIDs – as information is presented.
4. Addressing participant questions and comments and sharing more information about the FLC program as time allows. 

The significance to the field lies in both the area of classroom assessment (formative assessment) and in enhancing the success of freshman students.  University campuses are adding assessment activities, including classroom assessment experiences, to their evaluation programs.  While the end-of-semester course/instructor evaluation process continues to have a place in institutions, it does not address the ability to better meet student learning needs during the actual course.  Universities are also looking at new programs/courses/structures, etc. to help freshman students succeed during the first semester and first year of college.  Universities want to retain students for both altruistic and selfish reasons and are looking for examples of successful programs.

The session is relevant to those who teach in paired courses, those who are interested in success of freshman students, those who are examining classroom assessment methods, and those who work in program that focus on the freshman student experience.  I believe that the presentation includes all three strands of student learning, staff learning, and organization learning.   CRLA members (and other conference go-ers) who are interested in learning about enhancing freshman student learning, in professional development activities for those who teach freshman students and/or professional development through classroom assessment; and/or in organizational approaches to helping freshman students success will find the session valuable.

I will use an overhead projector so that materials can be visible to all participants and will create transparencies that highlight information on the handouts.  [I will not simply make the handouts into transparencies; these are often difficult to read and not effect in highlighting key points.]  I will distribute an overview of the SGID process; a SGID bibliography for those who want to do further exploration of the SGID process, redacted copies of SGID reports and the Fall 2006 comprehensive report, and the content for FLC faculty training.  

Here’s a brief excerpt from the content for FLC faculty training:
“Freshmen may think that they are making higher grades than what they are actually earning.  We can help students monitor their grades by giving them regular feedback.  Some instructors will give students progress reports once or twice during the semester, while others take a more informal approach.  An easy and effective approach is to ask students to record their expected grades on an index card and give the card to you after the first major course assignment (paper, speech, exam, project, etc.).  In front of the class, sort their cards into piles of As, Bs, Cs, etc., then show how that compares to the number of actual As, Bs, Cs, Ds and Fs.  Typically, the students will predict a larger number of higher grades.  If students sign the cards, you can return the cards with their actual grades.”

My experience with the topic, as detailed in section 7 of the proposal, includes teaching for five years in the FLC program and coordinating the FLC SGID process (training facilitators; conducting SGID sessions, writing individual SGID reports and meeting with FLC instructors; and writing comprehensive end-of-semester reports.

Presenter1 Name: Susan Deese-Roberts
Presenter1 Institution: University of New Mexico
Presenter1 Bio: Susan Deese-Roberts, PhD, Professor Emerita, University of New Mexico, is Coordinator of the Teaching Assistant Resource Center (TARC).  Susan teaches a graduate course on college teaching for graduate students who are classroom instructors.  Interested in teaching and student learning, Susan established the University's undergraduate tutoring center in 1984, served as Director of the campus library, and established the University's first faculty development center in 2001.  Susan works part-time as the Coordinator, TARC and teaches a freshman seminar course in the Freshman Learning Community program each fall semester.  Susan serves the University's Title V Faculty Development Steering Committee and coordinates the teaching award selection process for the Outstanding Teaching Assistant of the Year.