Learning by Example:Cultivating Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Collaboration

Presentation by: David Clurman - University of Maryland, Baltimore

CountyMichael Puma - Loyola University Maryland

October 27, 2011

Overview

Introductions

Literature Review History & Present Status Theory & Research

Our Experiences Successes & Pitfalls

Assumptions that We Make About Each Other

Exploring Partnerships & Collaboration

Questions & Answers

D

Learning Objectives

Participants will:

Explore the theoretical and historical foundations of residential life/ academic affairs collaborations

Consider the role institutional type, history and culture plays in the development and implementation of collaboration

Learn how student affairs/academic affairs collaborations have been implemented at two different types of institutions

Discuss the challenges of creating and maintaining collaboration

Gain insights into common stereotypes held by student affairs administrators and faculty that could impede collaboration

D

Introductions –About Us

David Clurman: Assistant Director of Residential Education, UMBC

Michael Puma: Student Development Co-Director of Living Learning Programs, Loyola University Maryland

Introductions – Your Turn

Explain a time when you were witness to or part of a successful learning environment. How did you know it was successful?

M

About UMBC

Carnegie Class: Doctoral/Research-Extensive Institution

Fall 2010 Enrollment: 10,210 Undergraduates 2,678 Graduates

Residential Population: 3,875 (1,116 first-year)

2011-2012 Tuition w/ Room & Board: $19,488*

D

About Loyola

M

Historical Overview

Middle Ages Residential Colleges of Oxford & Cambridge Roots of L/L Programs (Thelin, 2004)

Early America Harvard and Yale Expansion of residential college, separation of

administration and college life

Modern Era Alexander Meiklejohn created the “Experimental

College” at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1927

M

Linking Theory to Practice

Astin’s Input – Environment – Outcomes Model (1993)

INPUTS OUTCOMES

ENVIRONMENTS

D

Relevant Theory

“Student-faculty interaction has a stronger relationship to student satisfaction with the college experience than any other variable [and] any student characteristic or institutional characteristic. Students who interact frequently with faculty are more satisfied with all aspects of their institutional experience, including student friendships, variety of courses, intellectual environment, and even administration of the institution.”

Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effect of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. pp 223 & 233. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

D

Other Studies that Support Student-Faculty Interaction

academic achievement (Astin & Panos, 1969; Centra & Rock, 1970; Pascarella, 1980)

personal and intellectual development (Endo & Harpel, 1982; Lacy, 1978; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1978)

critical thinking (Wilson, 1975) satisfaction with faculty (Astin, 1993) perceptions of college quality (Theophilides &

Terenzini, 1981) educational aspirations (Astin & Panos, 1969), such as

their decision to pursue advanced (graduate) degrees (Kocher & Pascarella, 1987; Pascarella, 1980; Stoecker, Pascarella & Wolfle, 1988)

retention (Noel, 1978; Tinto, 1987)D

Linking Theory to Practice

Tinto’s Integration Theory (1993) Integration into academic and social realms Shared learning and knowing (1997)

Pascarella & Terenzini Engagement (2005) Interactions with faculty Interactions with peers Living on campus

D

What Makes Collaboration Successful?

Strategy

% of Institutions Identifying as

Very Successful

% of Institutions Identifying Very and Moderately

Successful

Leadership 80% 98%

Cross-Institutional Dialogue

57% 93%

Setting Expectations 44% 93%

Generating Enthusiasm

41% 94%

Creating a Common Vision

39% 93%

Staff Development 40% 89%

Planning 30% 90%Source: Kezar, A. (2003). Achieving student success: strategies for creating partnerships between academic and student affairs. NASPA Journal. Vol. 41. pp. 1-22.

M

14

“Hierarchy of Needs” LLP Best Practices Building Blocks

(Inkelas, 2010)

Academicdepartments

ResidenceLife

CollaborationFunding

Dedicatedresidence hall

space

Coursesfor

credit

Facultyadvising

Academicallysupportiveclimate

Sociallysupportive

climate

Study groupsK-12 outreach

Visiting work settingsCareer workshops

Intentionalintegration

INFRA-STRUCTURE

ACADEMICENVIRONMENT

CO-CURRICULARENVIRONMENT

“ICING”

Source: Inkelas, K. (2010), Lessons Learned about One High-Impact Practice, Presented February 15, 2010 at the 29th Annual Conference on the First-year Experience, Denver, CO.

Collaboration is

Essential!

D

What Happens WhenBuilding Blocks Are Missing?

Academicdepartments

ResidenceLifeFunding

Dedicatedresidence hall

space

Coursesfor

credit

Facultyadvising

Academicallysupportiveclimate

Sociallysupportive

climate

Study groupsK-12 outreach

Visiting work settingsCareer workshops

Intentionalintegration

15Collaboration

16

Academicdepartments

ResidenceLife

CollaborationFunding

Dedicatedresidence hall

space

Coursesfor

credit

Facultyadvising

Academicallysupportiveclimate

Sociallysupportive

climate

Study groupsK-12 outreach

Visiting work settingsCareer workshops

Intentionalintegration

What Happens WhenBuilding Blocks Are Missing?

The “Third Space” of Partnership: New,

Unpredictable and Emergent

Cultural Models

Relationships

Structures & Technologies

Routines & Practices

3rd

Space

A deeply held belief or worldview that is shared among group members

Key aspect of cultural

life that ties

individuals to other, people, groups

and organizati

onsOrganizational features that establish the parameters of what behaviors are possible, permissible, and rewarded

Regular, patterned behaviors

that eventually become habitual M

3 Types of Partnerships

Limited Coordinated Collaborative

Nature of Problem Technical, routineMix of technical and adaptive

Novel and lacking well-known solutions

Time Required Short termIntermediate or Long term

Long term

Number of Partners Required

A few A few or several Several

MotivationsPrimarily Self Interests

CombinationEnlightened Self Interest (self and broader collective)

Capacity and Resources

Limited Medium Substantial

Autonomy High Medium Low

Cultural Tensions Likely to be slightLikely to be moderate

Likely to be severe

Governance Top-down SharedShared/Consensus-Based

Source: Hora, M.T. & Millar, S.B. (2011). A guide to building education partnerships. Sterling,VA: Stylus Publishing. M

Loyola University

Creating a Living Learning Programs – The “corporate

merger” analogy The “Marriage of

Equals” analogy

Loyola Living-

Learning Theme

Clusters (6-7 total for first-

year class)

Faculty/Student

Development

Administrator/

Student Leader Led

“Voices Curriculum”

Residence Hall

Community Programmin

g & Co-Curricular Campus

Programs

Fall Seminar Course

including CORE

Advising followed by

Spring Seminar Course

Living-Learning Aim/Goals

(Consistent with Undergraduate

Educational Aims, Student Development

Learning Outcomes and College Values

Statement)

M

Loyola University Living-Learning Program Timeline

1996-2006……. Four Separate First Year Programs Operate (all have living- learning or themed housing options)

Fall 2006……. Groundwork for new Strategic PlanFall 2007……. Living-Living Strategic Plan Work Group Begins MeetingSpring 2008… Work group makes recommendations Fall 2008…… Strategic Plan endorsed by Board of Trustees and Loyola

Conference; Academic Senate charges a Living-Learning Task Force

2008-2010…. Task Force convenes, submits interim report in May 2009; receives no formal feedback until March 2010

Fall 2010 Senate votes and approves main aspects of program January 2011……. Living-Learning Student Development and Academic Co-

Directors NamedFall 2013…… Anticipated date for campus-wide implementation

M

Loyola University

The Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change (Kotter, 1996) Is there a sense of urgency? Is there a guiding coalition? Do you have a vision and strategy? Have you communicated a change

vision? Are you empowered to change

systems and structures? Can you create short-term wins? How do you harness credibility? How do you measure success?

M

UMBC Faculty Mentor Program

Founded in 1999 to encourage the building of student –faculty relationships

Program Goals are: To promote informal faculty-student interaction in the

residence halls/apartments To provide academic, professional, and personal role

models for students To educate faculty regarding student life on campus

and in the residence halls

To date there have been 31 mentors with an average length of service of 2 years

D

Faculty Mentor Programming Model

First Ten Weeks (September – October) Primary responsibility is relationship building with residents

in the community and staff with whom they work

Second Ten Weeks (November – February) Primary responsibility is putting forth academically

supportive programming Assist students who are reported to have a C or less in their

classes

Third Ten Weeks (March – May) Primary responsibility is educational programming and a

closure activity

D

UMBCLiving-Learning Communities

Begun in 2000, UMBC has housed 10 LLCs – 9 are currently active

UMBC was recognized in 2008 as one of the top four institutions with LLCs

We struggle with understanding why students in LLCs have greater outcomes

True partnership with academics

D

Successes atLoyola

Approved program will transform systems and structures within academic affairs, student development and other partner offices

Program is tied to 16 new tenure-track faculty hires, the current strategic plan, and the future capital campaign; there is long-term commitment

Program is tied into other initiatives including a revamped Honors program and new opportunities for engaged scholarship

M

Successes at UMBC

Both students and faculty have gained insights into their counterparts

Students in LLCs have demonstrated positive outcomes

Students in LLCs have been retained at higher rates

D

Pitfalls

Publicity and marketing of programs to students

Recruitment of faculty

Funding

Making connections with students

Lack of preparation from higher education programs about faculty culture and collaboration

Communication

D

Have You Ever Heard a Conversation Like

This?

If Innovation Starts at Home, We Need to Know

Who Is In the House…

What are some common stereotypes of faculty?

How did we come to know those stereotypes?

How do we judge the validity of those stereotypes?

What impact do these stereotypes have?

Faculty and Student Affairs - Traditional Cultural

Characteristics, Norms, Attitudes

STUDENT AFFAIRS

Emphasis on student personal growth

Value subjective, relational, dimensions of knowing and learning

Believe in shared purpose of faculty and student affairs to education whole student

FACULTY

Emphasis on student critical thinking, acquisition of knowledge

Value objective, rational, independent ways of knowing

Believe intellectual/academic activities in classroom are superior to activities occurring outside the classroom

Adapted from the Handbook for Student Affairs Administration

Faculty and Student Affairs - Traditional Cultural

Characteristics, Norms, Attitudes

STUDENT AFFAIRS Characterized by hierarchical

structures, centralized decision-making, defined authority – loyalty is to one’s department & institution

Values defined goals, task completion and productivity

Individuals tend to be interpersonally adept, extraverted, problem-solvers

FACULTY Characterized by structures

that emphasize collegiality through shared governance, peer leadership – loyalty is to academic discipline

Values ambiguity, autonomy, flexibility, nonconformity, creativity, and innovation

Individuals tend to be introverted. Desire to increase scholarly prominence in academic community.

Adapted from the Handbook for Student Affairs Administration

Faculty and Student Affairs - Traditional Cultural

Characteristics, Norms, Attitudes

STUDENT AFFAIRS

Doing, action-oriented, little time for reflection. Unpredictable work environment

Work collaboratively, in groups, to solve immediate problems with real deadlines

Encourage cooperative efforts – conflict that impedes group or goes against policy is not appreciated

FACULTY

Thinking and reflecting, future-focused – predictable and order

Engage in solitary, autonomous, independent work

Encourage non-conformity. Dissent perceived as normal, healthy and expected in a community that values freedom of inquiry

Adapted from the Handbook for Student Affairs Administration

Faculty and Student Affairs - Traditional Cultural

Characteristics, Norms, Attitudes

STUDENT AFFAIRS

Seek student involvement in decision-making

Experts in diversity, student culture, team building, developmental needs

Reward system based on loyal behavior to supervisors and adherence of current administrative norms

FACULTY

Sees faculty as expert or authority

Experts in their academic discipline, teaching, research, writing skills

Reward system based on scholarly productivity as narrowly defined by a select group of scholars

Adapted from the Handbook for Student Affairs Administration

Before Partnership

Know your program goals so that you can communicate concrete expectations and identify outcomes

Know who you are asking (tenure/no tenure, full-time/part-time, specific disciplines)

Know that there is top-down institutional support. Is collaboration rewarded? By whom?

Ask about historical factors and cultural dynamics specific to your campus

Faculty/Partner buy-in is a must

Explore what motivations exist for the partnerships D

During Partnerships

Frequent communication and mutual understanding

Acknowledge tension points

Play to strengths of participants

Remember that it is about the student experience

Practice patience

Know your resources

Step out of conventional roles or stereotypical roles

Need to have staff that will interact with faculty

Effort should be equitable

D

After Partnerships

Share honest feedback

Assess student experience and student learning

Reward positive collaborations – for both the faculty member and the student affairs administrator

Cast a wide net – invite others to share in successful and innovative programs because it: Models collaboration Avoids burnout

Share success stories with campus leadership

Plan for sustaining momentum – share success with alumni, institutional advancement and enrollment management

D

Collaboration on Your Campus

What are the barriers to collaboration?

Who are the champions of collaboration?

Who comprises your faculty? Tenure track appointments Full-time vs. Part-time Demographics (gender, ethnicity, age)

Do you see connections between your faculty composition and barriers to collaboration?

How can you overcome these barriers?

What role does upper-level administration play?M

Current Considerations

How can residence life proactively support learning communities? How can this be a unified and sustained goal?

What opportunities are there for student leadership in learning communities?

What existing campus structures can be modified to enhance student learning (and LLCs) in the residence halls?

How can you assess the LLCs and how do we share successes?

M

Considerations for the Future

Is it dependent on institutions to demonstrate the value and worth of the program by providing concrete assessment evidence?

Will budget cuts force programs to lose components or fail altogether?

Will the teaching and participation in these programs be valued by the institution in tenure and promotion decisions?

How will an increase in adjunct faculty impact buy-in or impede the collaboration needed between academic affairs and student affairs?

M

Questions & Answers

clurman@umbc.edumpuma@loyola.edu