1. STUDENTS WORKING IN INTERDISCIPLINARY
GROUPS:
A CASE STUDY OF A SOCIAL PEDAGOGY PRACTICE
AT AN URBAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Dissertation Defense
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
In Higher Education and Organizational Change
Michele Cuomo
Dr. Tamara Korenman, Director
Dr. Eileen Kolich, Chair
Dr. Camille Dickson-Deane, Reader
Benedictine University
January 16, 2017
2. STUDENTS WORKING IN
INTERDISCIPLINARY GROUPS
(SWIG)
Queensborough Community College’s Students Working in
Interdisciplinary Groups partners English and Basic Educational
Skills courses with an additional content course in the following
disciplines: Art History, Education, Nursing, Sociology, Speech
Communication and Theatre
A shared, student-centered space through the technology of an
academic web platform allows students to archive and share
electronically their written, visual, aural compositions and
research with others.
Each discipline responds with different assignments to support
learning across the classrooms, and student work in the
composition classes serve as texts for the content classes.
The cross-disciplinary sharing and reflective exercises which
accompany the assignments leads to a final product of digital
storytelling based on personal narrative (Darcy & Cuomo, 2010).
3. TEACHING IN A NEW
CULTURE OF LEARNING
A growing appreciation for the porous
boundaries between the classroom and
life experience, along with the power of
social learning, authentic audiences, and
integrative contexts, has created not only
promising changes in learning but also
disruptive moments in teaching. (Bass,
2012)
Whereas some professors might
see their job as teaching the facts,
concepts, and procedures of their
subject, the teachers we studied
emphasized the pursuit of answers
to important questions and often
encouraged students to use the
methodologies, assumptions, and
concepts from a variety of fields to
solve complex problems. They
often incorporated literature from
other fields into their teaching and
emphasized what it means to get
an education. They spoke about
the value of an integrated
education rather than one
fragmented between individual
courses. (Bain, 2011)
4. STATEMENT OF THE
PROBLEM
The open access mission of community colleges is currently
challenged to provide both widespread opportunities and support for
student success.
Gonzales (2011) notes, “For the first time in U.S. history, the current
generation of college-age Americans will be less educated than their
parents’ generation, yet our workplaces require higher-level skills
than ever before.”
Faculty in United States higher education, particularly in community
colleges, employ social and interdisciplinary pedagogies in their
classrooms in an effort to best engage their students.(Dawson,
Mighty, & Britnell, 2010; Bass, 2012).
Goldrick-Rab (2010) states "we know too little about what works"
when it comes to the teaching and learning of community college
students (p. 449)
A successful student initiative was observed at Queensborough
Community College (Fichera, 2012) but in that quantitative
observation there was no exploration of why or how the intervention
supported student learning.
5. PURPOSE
The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the
experience of the Students Working in Interdisciplinary
Groups initiative for four faculty members within an
urban community college environment in the
northeastern United States.
6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
How did the institution’s position on student success
influence faculty’s ability to implement innovations?
What were the lived experiences of faculty who
participated in the Students Working in Interdisciplinary
Groups initiative?
What were the elements of Students Working in
Interdisciplinary Groups which led to positive student
outcomes?
7. SIGNIFICANCE
The results of uncovering the experiences of community college
faculty participants engaging in social pedagogy in their
classrooms has the potential to support practices and policies to
promote student success.
The potential for further analysis grows as the academic
community learns more about the process of community college
faculty’s experiences, the resulting student outcomes and the
influence of and to the larger institutional environment.
The possibility of faculty pedagogical development being given
higher priority and increased attention from community college
administrations and policy makers places this research meaningful
in its potential for achieving desired student learning outcomes.
8. LITERATURE
REVIEW
PT. 1
Community College Faculty/Teaching & Learning
(Angelo, 2008; Dawson et al, 2010; Fugate & Amey, 2000; Fullan &
Scott, 2009; Goldrick-Rab, 2010; Hanson & Amelotte, 2013; Gumport &
Chun, 2005; Huber & Hutchings, 2005; Perez et al, 2012; Twombly &
Townsend, 2008)
10. LITERATURE REVIEW PT. 3
Transformative Learning, Narrative Theory & Interdisciplinarity
(Clarke &Rossiter, 2008; Dewey, 1934; Fook & Cooper, 2003;
Freiere, 1970; Gardner, 1983; Kezar, 2005; Knowles, 1984: Mezirow,
1997; Moran, 2010; Senge et al, 1999; Taylor, 2008)
11. LITERATURE REVIEW PT. 4
New Culture of Learning & Social Pedagogy
(Bain, 2011; Bass, 2012; Bass & Elmendorf, 2012; Brown & Adler,
2008; Galloway, 2001; McGee, Carmean & Jafari, 2005: Siemens,
2004; Thomas & Brown, 2011)
12. METHODOLOGY (HESSE-BIBER & LEAVY,
2011)
A case study was conducted through the lens of social
pedagogy as set forth by the process model of Bass and
Elmendorf.
Intrinsic case study to promote a holistic understanding
Theory based and exploratory
14. DATA COLLECTION (YIN, 1989; THENGUYIN,
2008)
Connect to Learning Archives
Queensborough and City University of New York websites
Scholarly publications by SWIG faculty (published and
unpublished)
4 semi-structured interviews with faculty participants
15. PARTICIPANTS
Four faculty participants were purposefully sampled
from the leadership team
Semi-structured interviews
Callie- project coordinator, assistant professor of art
history
Romy – former project coordinator, assistant professor
of English
Jane – former project administrator, adjunct faculty in
English and speech communication
Rita – instructor of English
16. QUESTIONS FOR
PARTICIPANTSWhat led you to elect to participate in the student wiki interdisciplinary group?
What activities did you conduct in your classes that reflected your participation in the group?
What changes if any did you observe in student participation and learning? Has this evolved over time?
Can you identify “critical incidences” in student interaction with your pedagogical innovation? Please
describe.
Please describe an example of the assignments you gave as a result of your experience the student wiki
interdisciplinary group.
Please describe an example of a student response to your new assignment. Follow up: Was there evidence
of higher order or interdisciplinary learning from this student? Please describe.
How do you view the faculty development you received in relationship to your own disciplinary perspective?
How do you view your faculty status (e.g., full-time, part-time, adjunct, etc.) as a factor in your
participation in faculty development and high impact practices, including SWIG?
How do you view the institutional support available for interdisciplinary faculty development?
Did participating in the Student Wiki Interdisciplinary Project change the way you conducted your other
classes? If so, how?
What differences did you observe, if any, in student experience between classes in which you implemented
the pedagogical innovation and when you did not? How has this evolved over time?
What aspects of the experience of interdisciplinary faculty development and implementation of pedagogical
innovations were disappointing or frustrating?
What obstacles did you encounter in your pursuit to improve student learning?
17. DATA ANALYSIS
(YIN, 1989; STRAUSS & CORBIN, 1998; CRESWELL, 2008)
Part 1:
A case study data base was created which included websites, scholarly articles and
interviews. Data was categorized by the strands of the Bass-Elmendorf Model
Part 2:
Interviews were further coded:
The constant comparative method, described by Strauss (1987) and Strauss and
Corbin (1998), will be used to analyze data for core identification of themes and
findings.
The constant comparative method, a tool of grounded theory qualitative research
design, will reflect a focus on the views, assumptions, and experiences of the
participants in meaning making, while simultaneously generating theory.
Coding through NVivo software using participants’ words were used to label
categories and emerging themes (Creswell, 2008).
18. RESEARCHER ROLE (THENGUYIN, 2008)
Insider status, although no longer affiliated.
Insider status requires constant reflection and awareness of biases in
an iterative process throughout the research, which supported
caution in interpreting data.
Integrity was ensured through the use of triangulating documentation
and a peer debriefer
Research findings were placed in the context of the topic literature
and in relation to apt learning theories.
19. TRUSTWORTHINESS (LINCOLN & GUBA,
1985; YIN 1989)
The social pedagogy process provided a framework that
supported trustworthiness in interpretation.
Triangulation of various forms of evidence, including
archival, and semi-structured interviews, increased
reliability.
A peer debriefer examined the sample data set which
provided the opportunity to strengthen coding, and led
to greater reliability of data interpretation.
Data analysis provided transparency and evidence of
credibility.
20. LIMITATIONS (CRESWELL, 2008)
As this case study was theory based and exploratory,
generalization may not be asserted.
The complex set of activities’ influence within this study
will not make this case easily replicable.
The site in an urban, open access, diverse environment
led to a series of possibilities that enabled faculty to
undergo interdisciplinary faculty development, which led
to pedagogy innovation.
Exploration of the conditions which created this
teaching-learning community may merit further study.
21. FINDINGS
Theme 1: Institutional Support Evolution
Theme 2: Faculty in a Community of Practice
Theme 3: Students Experiencing Social Pedagogy
I think, with SWIG, the collaboration is not just between
students, findings those connections. But also between
faculty. It’s also collaboration between the faculty and it’s
also about interdisciplinary ideas and conflict. You know,
there are two layers to that, and I think that is very
important. the layer of collaboration. And seeing and
getting involved with what and how the students are
learning. And, of course not everyone, but you know it
makes a difference to a lot of the students. And, for me, it
makes it a community of teachers, That I think is important.
It helps the power of your own thinking about teaching.
Because you learn what other people are doing. How should
we think, how should we approach what we are doing every
day. (Callie)
22. THEME 1: INSTITUTIONAL
SUPPORT EVOLUTION
Origins: 2004-2009
Freshman Academies: 2009-2013
Academies: 2013-2015
New Leadership 2015-2016
We were at several conferences this year, and people
were so impressed by what we were doing, they’re like,
“Well, how do you do that? What kind of support do you
get?” They were like amazed at the support you could get
from the administration, the support of CETL [Center for
Excellence in Teaching and Learning]. (Callie)
23. THEME 2: FACULTY IN A
COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
Faculty Mentorship
Faculty Participating in Multiple High Impact Practices
Faculty Participation and the Question of Time
Authentic Assessment
Faculty Mirroring the Student Experience
Teaching Transformed Beyond SWIG
SWIG opened up my eyes to different ways to teach. When
you go to university you get your PHD in art history, in many
fields, you’re not taught pedagogy. You’re not taught
different ways to present the material. I don’t think
anyone’s making a lot of changes that don’t come from your
own desire to do something a little different inside the
class. So, I think SWIG opened the door for me and my eyes
to that. (Callie)
24. THEME 3: STUDENTS
EXPERIENCING SOCIAL
PEDAGOGY
Student Authority- Represent Knowledge to an Authentic Audience
Audience and Authority – Engaging with Authenticity and Difficulty
Culture and the Self – An Enhanced Sense of Personal and Intellectual
Significance
Resistance Transformed Into Engagement- Connecting the Cognitive
and the Affective
Everyone has spoken about how their finished project changed the way
they see themselves, carry themselves, and see life differently. Today
you have watched all of our hard work and all of our dedication, come
to life! With Kelsey’s experience on her Puerto Rican heritage and Billy’s
experiences growing up on the island of Dominica, which allowed Ian
to give a great performance. I would have never thought that this
project would open so many doors to so many different people. We all
learned a little something about ourselves. If you were to ask me how
this project reflects on me I would have to say one word and that’s
change! This also made me evolve as a student. I am starting to see
how hard work really pays off. I see writing not as something not to be
feared, but something that can inspire, change and yes transform you
and your work into something beautiful. — Oscar (Darcy, et. al, 2010)
26. DISCUSSION (BAILEY ET. AL, 2015; KUH ET.AL.,
2013; SENGE, 1990)
Theme 1: Institutional Support Evolution
I thought [the faculty development offered] was great. I
was part of one of the last groups that had the SWIG
Institute. I was teaching a summer course in the
morning…It was just great to talk to other people in
other departments to see how they were designing their
projects, and what kind of questions they were asking.
What sort of outcomes they were getting along the way
from student work, and how to design, I think is helpful.
I think it’s really helpful to faculty to talk together within
the department about common goals, basically. Whether
it’s a project or some skill they want to see students to
master across departments, and then enforce it. (Rita)
27. DISCUSSION (COX, 2004; FELDMAN & PAULSEN,
1998; FELDMAN & PAULSEN, 1998; FUGATE & AMEY, 2000; LAVE &
WENGER, 1991; MCFRALAND, 2011; GORAL, 2013)
Theme 2: Faculty in a Community of Practice
Actually… what I observe in the students and what I
observe in my own collaboration with the other faculty
members are really enriching, in a sense. Because, you
know, for example, just to create handouts for students,
you know, I usually would start with something, and then
I would pass this to other faculty and say "Hey, is this
clear enough?" Basically I am, I and the other faculty
members, also, are simplifying the process, or we are
going through the process that the students are going
through also. I see that enriching, in a way. And then,
actually, um, not only that, I am also cooperating with a
faculty from the same department, even though we are
not doing the same project. But we are, [getting] to know
each other a little better. (Romy)
28. DISCUSSION(FOOK & COOPER, 2003; TAYLOR, 2008;
BASS & ELMENDORF, 2012; DARCY, ET. AL, 2010, EVANS 2015,
CABINESS ET. AL, 2013; MORAN, 2010)
Theme 3: Students Experiencing Social Pedagogy
I found this learning process to be transformational not
only for me but also for my fellow classmates. This
multi-media activity has been an incredible experience
which has made learning enjoyable for me. The best part
about this was not going through pages and pages of
boring written material but instead sharing my story via
colorful pictures and slides. I also enjoyed listening to
other classmates’ stories, which included music, pictures
and videos of their cultures. I thoroughly enjoyed the
experience. — Mariyam (Darcy, et. al. 2010)
30. THEORY: AN ECOSYSTEM OF
TEACHING AND LEARNING
Institutional Support
Faculty Community of
Practice
Students
Experiencing Social
Pedagogy
(BASS-ELMENDORF
(2012}
31. THEORY: A THRESHOLD
TO AN ACADEMIC IDENTITY
(DARCY ET. AL, 2010; DEWEY, 1934; BASS, 2012)
I remember our student saying, "Just tell us what we have
to learn so far." I said, "You have to learn to think!" She
wasn't very happy with that answer, but, um, you know, I
mean, you have to do that because they are working with
other people, that are coming at you with a different
perspective, and so you have to evaluate what they were
saying and you have to understand what they were
doing…it was kind of unavoidable. You know, they had
to engage at some level as to what the audience would
react to. (Jane)
32. FOR FURTHER STUDY
How can institutions provide adequate time for faculty to
engage in the scholarship of teaching and learning?
How can hiring practices, incentives and promotion
identify and reward innovative faculty leaders?
How can social pedagogy be adapted more readily into
curricula across campuses?
How can institutions encourage a new culture of
learning when constrained by old forms of accountability
and administrative structures?
34. REFERENCES
Angelo, T. A. (2008). Doing faculty development as if we
value learning most: Transformative guidelines from
research and practices. Retrieved April 6, 2011, from
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Detail?entitytyp
e=2&searchtype=2&id=3155861
Bain, K. (2011). What the best college teachers do.
Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Bass, R. (2012). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of
learning in higher education. Educause Review, 47(2).
Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUS
EReviewMagazineVolume47/DisruptingOurselvesTheProb
lemo/247690
35. REFERENCES
Bass, R., & Elmendorf, H. (2012). Social pedagogies.
Retrieved October 25, 2013, from
https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/bassr/social-
pedagogies.
Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open
education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE
Review, 43(1), 16–32.
Cabiness, C., Donovan, L., & Green T. D. (2013). Integrating
wikis in the support and practice of historical analysis skills.
Tech Trends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve
Learning, 57(6), 38-47.
Clarke, M. C., & Rossiter, M. (2008, Fall). Narrative learning
in adulthood. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 2008(119), 61–70.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning,
conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative
rd
36. REFERENCES
Darcy J., Dupre, J., & Cuomo, M. (2010). An ePortfolio virtual learning
community within a traditional classroom space. HETS Journal 1((1),
41-60 Retrieved from:
http://c2l.mcnrc.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/8/2013/06/ePVirtualLe
arning_Darcy_Dupre_Cuomo1.pdf
Darcy, J., & Cuomo, M. (2011, February). Queensborough’s student
wiki interdisciplinary group. Association of American Colleges and
Universities Leap Project Toolkit. Retrieved from
http://leap.aacu.org/toolkit/high-impact-
practices/2011/queensboroughs-student-wiki-interdisciplinary-group
Dawson, D., Mighty, J., & Britnell, J. (2010). Moving from the periphery
to the center of the academy: Faculty developers as leaders of change.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2010(122), 69–79.
doi:10.1002/tl.399
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Perigee Books.
Fichera, V. (2012, January). The freshman academies: A first look.
Presented at the Queensborough Community College Convocation,
Bayside, NY.
Finley, A. & McNair, T. (2013). Assessing underserved students'
engagement in high-impact practices. Washington, DC: American
37. REFERENCES
Evans, P. (2015). Open online spaces of professional
learning: Context, personalization and facilitation. Tech
Trends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning,
59(1), 31-36.
Fook, J., & Cooper, L. (2003). Bachelor of Social Work
Fieldwork Manual. Department of Social Work, School of
Primary Health Care, Monash University.
Freiere, P. (1970, 2000, 2006). Pedagogy of the oppressed
(M. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum International.
Fugate, A. L., & Amey, M. J. (2000, July). Career stages of
community college faculty: A qualitative analysis of their
career paths, roles, and development. Community College
Review, 28(1), 1–22. doi:10.1177/009155210002800101
Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for
higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
38. REFERENCES
Galloway, C. (2001). Vygotsky’s constructionism. In M. Orey
(Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and
technology. Retrieved from
http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epitt/
Gardner, H. (1983; 1993). Frames of mind: The theory of
multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gilgun, J.F. (2010, November) The intellectual roots of
grounded theory. Current issues in qualitative research 1
(9). Pp. 1-7. Retrieved from:
http://www.ssnpstudents.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/gt-.pdf
Gohn, L. A., & Albin, G. R. (Eds.). (2006). Understanding
college student subpopulations: A guide for student affairs
professionals. National Association of Student Personnel
Administration. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/057235/Understanding_College_
Student_Subpopulations_Asian_American_Students_Ch._17_
39. REFERENCES
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for
improving community college success. Review of Educational
Research, 80(3), 437–469. doi:10.3102/0034654310370163
Gonzalez, J. (2011, February 9). Achieving the dream produces
little change at
community colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
from
http://chronicle.com/article/Achieving-the-Dream-
Produces/126304
Goral, T. (2013, October). Robert Zemsky makes case for big
higher ed changes. University Business: Solutions for Higher
Education Management. Retrieved from
http://www.universitybusiness.com/article/robert-zemsky-makes-
case-big-higher-ed-changes
Gumport, P., & Chun, M. (2005). Technology and higher education.
In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), American
higher education in the twenty first century: Social political and
40. REFERENCES
Hart & Associates (2015, November). Bringing equity and quality
learning together: Institutional priorities for tracking and advancing
underserved students’ success. Washington D.C.: American
Association of Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from:
http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015AACUEqui
tyReport.pdf.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. L. (2011). The practice of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). Integrative learning: Mapping
the terrain. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Jackson, D. L., Stebleton, M. J., & Santos Laanan, F. (2013). The
experience of community college faculty involved in a learning
community program. Community College Review, 41(3), 5–17.
doi:10.1177/0091552112473145
41. REFERENCES
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning
environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional
theories and models (pp. 215–240). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kaptelnin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (1997). Activity theory: Basic
concepts and applications. Retrieved from
http://www.sigchi.org/chi97/proceedings/tutorial/bn.ht
m#U6
Kezar, A. (2005). What do we mean by “learning” in the
context of higher education? New Directions for Higher
Education, 2005(131). doi:10.1002/he.186
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices:
What they are, who has access to them, and why they
matter. American Association of Colleges and
Universities. Retrieved from
https://www.aacu.org/leap/hips
42. REFERENCES
Kuh, G. D., O’Donnell, K., and Reed, S. (2013). Ensuring
quality and taking high-impact practices to scale.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Laird, T. N. (2012, June 20). The professor who played with
fire (student success). Plenary session of Association of
American Colleges and Universities Institute on High Impact
Practices and Student Success. Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/
meetings/hips/documents/NelsonLairdProfWhoPlayedWithFi
re.pdf
Laird, T.N., BrckaLorenz, A., Zilvisnskis, J. & Lambert A.
(2014, November). Exploring the effects of a HIP culture on
campus: Measuring the relationship between the importance
faculty place on high-impact practices and student
participation in those practices. Indiana Center for
PostSecondary Research. Presented at ASHE Conference,
Washington D.C. Retrieved from:
http://nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/presentations/2014/ASHE14-
HIPCulturePaperFINAL.pdf.
43. REFERENCES
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:
Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
44. REFERENCES
Making Connections. (2011). Retrieved August 3, 2012,
from http://www.connections-community.org/about-
making-connections
McFarland, B. (2011). Professors as intellectual leaders:
formation, identity and role. Studies in Higher Education,
36(1), 57–73. doi:10.1080/03075070903443734
McGee, P., Carmean, C., & Jafari, A. (2005). Course
management systems for learning: beyond accidental
pedagogy. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-512-2
Mezirow, J. (1997, Summer). Transformative learning:
Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5–12.
doi:10.1002/ace.7401
45. REFERENCES
Micari, M., & Pazos, P. (2012). Connecting to the
professor: Student-faculty relationship in a highly
challenging course. College Teaching, 60(2), 41–47.
doi:10.1080/87567555.2011.627576
Moran, J. (2010). Interdisciplinarity (The new critical
idiom) (2nd Kindle ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mwanza, D., and Engeström, Y. (2003). Pedagogical
adeptness in the design of e-learning environments:
Experiences from the Lab@Future project. Proceedings of
World Conference on eLearning in Corporate,
Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Phoenix,
AZ.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects
students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA:
46. REFERENCES
Perez, A., McShannon, J., & Hynes, P. (2012). Community
college faculty development program and student
achievement. Community College Journal of Research &
Practice, 36(5), 379–385.
Queensborough Community College (QCC). (2015). 2012–
2013 Factbook. Retrieved from
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/oira/factbook.html
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative
researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and
practice of the learning organization. New York:
Doubleday/Currency
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., &
Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges of
sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York,
NY: Doubleday.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the
digital age. Retrieved from
47. REFERENCES
Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative Learning Theory. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 119. doi:10.1002/ace.301
ThenGuyin, T. (2008). Peer debriefing. In L. Given (Ed.), SAGE encyclopedia of
qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the
imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press.
Twombly, S., & Townsend, B. K. (2008). Community college faculty: What we know
and need to know. Community College Review, 36(1), 5–24.
doi:10.1177/0091552108319538
Ullah, H., & Wilson, M. A. (2007). Students’ academic success and its association
to student involvement with learning and relationships with faculty and peers.
College Student Journal, 41(4), 1192–1202.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Designs and methods (Revised
Edition).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Editor's Notes
Thank you, Dr. Korenmann, Dr. Kolich, and Dr. Dickson Deane for all the time and effort you have taken to support my dissertation. Thank you to Dr. Chand, I learned so much from you throughout my years in the program. Thank you to my family and friends faculty and students who are here today. I am truly looking forward to presenting this work to you this afternoon. (and morning for Dr. Dickson Dean in Australia!)
The success and retention data for SWIG was especially promising. However, the impact of SWIG on the faculty and how the development they received through a national development program had changed their teaching and the way they viewed their roles as faculty members was not studied. The success data did not capture the actual activity that led to greater student success either. This dissertation explored the faculty experience for those who participated, as well as the impact of the activity itself on the students and the college community.
These two quotes among many in the paper characterize the pursuit of SWIG in terms of teaching and learning.
The literature on community college faculty observed for this review suggested there is more to learn about faculty themselves, their understanding of learning theories and practices, and their relationship to student success. The reviewed literature on faculty development throughout higher education supported faculty development as crucial in higher education, faculty leadership as called for, and the claim that learning theory and the scholarship of teaching and learning can support a developmental culture of student learning. Therefore, a study of community college faculty views on interdisciplinary social pedagogical development and practice, the complex learning environment that affects activities undertaken by faculty, and the relationship to outcomes on student learning is warranted.
Hart Associates conducted a study on institutional practices for student equity and success (2015). It was noted that although institutions who value high impact practices have equity goals for retention and graduation, there were no goals set for equity in terms of learning outcomes of access to High Impact Practices. Finley and McNair (2013) observed that the underserved students (as are the majority in the participant college for this proposed study) receive the most benefit from high impact practices. Tinto’s (1993) observation that student success required the full integration of students into a social and academic community led to national efforts to improve student retention and persistence. By 2012, Tinto claimed the failure of institutional action was due to the lack of attention to classroom activity in student success efforts across the country. Karp and Bork (2012) identified the lack of student understanding of expectations as a barrier to student success. Gohn and Albin (2006) identified various barriers to success experienced by first-generation, historically underserved, and underprepared students. Kuh’s (2008) research, based on the National Survey of Student Engagement, determined high-impact practices are most effective for these students, who generally comprise the majority of students in community college settings.
Dewey’s reflection cycle (1934) was cited for its construction of the coordinated assignments of SWIG (Darcy & Cuomo, 2010). Taylor (2008) set forth transformative learning theory as that which explains the “learning process of constructing and appropriating new and revised interpretations of the meaning of an experience in the world” (p. 5). Transformative learning, as introduced by Mezirow (1997), is an adult learning theory where frames of reference are revised alongside reflection to achieve a paradigm shift. In transformative learning, the perspective becomes more inclusive, differentiating, permeable, critically reflective, and integrative of experience (1997, p. 6). SWIG interdisciplinary sharing anticipates that students’ current thinking will be transformed by a critical incident. (Fook and Cooper (2003).The work of Clarke and Rossiter (2008) contextualized Knowles’ (1984) andragogy theory by setting forth narrative theory, which by virtue of a life lived through more diverse experiences, the adult learner has a more complex narrative from which to draw upon. Moran (2010) examined the nature of interdisciplinarity and its engagement with disciplinary learning, which has always had a relationship to knowledge and power of a hierarchal nature (2010, p. 2). Interdisciplinarity, however, “provides a democratic and dynamic and co-operative alternative to the old-fashioned, inward-looking, and cliquishnature of disciplines” (Moran, 2010, p. 3).
The Epsilen tool, developed by Dr. Jafari, enabled the pedagogical innovation used by the members of SWIG. McGee, Carmean, and Jafari’s (2005) work descends from the work of Vygotsky’s constructivism and activity theory, through the emerging theory of connectivism (Siemens, 2004).
Due to the emphasis on the role of social interaction in development, Vygotsky’s theories led to the advent of social constructivism (Galloway, 2001). The zone of proximal development, wherein a learner uses more capable peers to advance his or her own personal development, was Vygotsky’s creation (Galloway, 2001). Constructivist
learning theory differs from social constructivism in that social constuctivist theories of Vygotsky and Piaget focused on early learning, whereas constructivist learning theory emerged from Dewey, Montessori, and Kolb (Jonassen, 1999). Siemens (2004) asserted constructivist theory developed before the digital age could not describe the impact of technology. Connectivism, as described by Siemens, is “a learning theory for the digital age” that proposes a similar perspective to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, which is enabled by technology.
Thomas and Brown (2011) observed a “new culture of learning” in which traditional education is unable to keep up with our rapidly changing world. New media forms make peer-to-peer learning easier and more natural, while amplifying peer-to-peer learning through the use of emerging technologies that shape the collective nature of participation (Thomas & Brown, 2011; Brown & Adler, 2008
A case study was conducted through the lens of social pedagogy as set forth by the process model of Bass and Elmendorf. and will be. case study is not a research methodology, but a “decision about what is to be studied” (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011, p. 255). It is both a way to proceed in research and the product of research (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). Hesse-Biber and Leavy also observed that case study research is performed with social justice in mind.
Three general case study types have been identified: (a) intrinsic: to promote a holistic understanding; (b) instrumental: to generalize on a larger topic; and (c) multiple: to investigate large phenomena from which the cases are drawn (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). The proposed study will be intrinsic, thus promoting a holistic understanding.
Case studies can be theory-based, problem-based, descriptive, or exploratory (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). This was a theory based and exploratory case study in that it analyze the faculty group’s work through the lens of the Social Pedagogy Model and explored the impact on the internal and lived experiences of the participants.
The Bass=Elmendorf model served as the conceptual framework. Its emphasis on peer to peer learning reflect its recent ascent from connectiviism (Seimens) back through social constructivism (Vygotsky) and association with Dewey, Kolb. And Montessory. It acknowledges learning as an authentic and social activity.
The data collection process upheld Yin’s 1989 3 principles of data collection. 1. use of multiple sources of evidence, leading to convergent lines of inquiry, 2 to create a case study data base to compose the case study report. 3. to use a 2nd researcher, or what Thengyin calls a peer debirefer to review the database maintaining a chain of evidence to to verify the evidence according to the study protocol.
With the exception of question 4, which asks faculty to identify 'critical incidences' (fook and cooper) the questions do not mention parituclar learning theories. Rather, they were an attempt to elicit descriptions of the activities which had the potential to be mapped to Bass/Elmendorf's framework. Each of the questions were designed to explore some aspect of the research questions: How did the institution’s position on student success influence faculty’s ability to implement innovations?
What were the lived experiences of faculty who participated in the SWIG?
What were the elements of SWIG which led to positive student outcomes?
Yin (1989) describes a strategy for data analysis, which relies on a theoretical proposition. This helps orient and focus the analysis for a case study designed on such a proposition. The process primarily reflected a deductive approach in that the inquiry began with the theory that SWIG was a social pedagogy in the mode of Bass-Elmendorf (2012). The research tested this hypothesis, and through observation of the data, confirmed the hypothesis. Deductive codes of both the interviews and archival evidence reflecting the Bass-Elmendorf model (2012) in a database in Microsoft Excel confirmed the proposition that SWIG contains the elements of social pedagogy. Further categories were uncovered during the process that were beyond the Bass-Elmendorf model, particularly related to implementation, institutional position, and faculty experiences. Categorization of interviews using Nvivo software uncovered more information and triangulated findings. This led to theory generation beyond the proposition that SWIG met the Bass-Elmendorf model.
Lincoln and Guba describe an assertion of trustworthiness, rather than reliability and validity to best describe the various processes undergone in the quest for ethical research. The research site gave approval to conduct research on the site in April 2016 (Appendix B) after reviewing the Institutional Research Board proposal (Appendix C) which described the site-specific nature of the study. The Benedictine University Institutional Review Board approved the proposal in April 2016 (Appendix D). I had previously undergone National Institute of Health training in ethical research (Appendix E). I contacted five faculty members from the site, comprising the leadership team of SWIG, with a request for their participation via email. Four faculty members agreed to participate, and signed the informed consent form (Appendix F). At each interview, I asked each of the faculty participants if there were any questions or concerns regarding the protocol and the interview. I gave a copy of interview transcriptions to each of the faculty participants and offered the opportunity to redact any statements in their interview, as well as to verify the information. Yin (1989) asserts the value of identification of a research site in case study research, while maintaining pseudonyms for participants.
The faculty interviews and document analysis pointed to some distinct historical periods in the evolution of the practice and institutional support. Overall, the institution provided a great deal of support in terms of its position on high impact practices, faculty development opportunities and its observation of SWIG as a successful initiative. However, faculty participants had an awareness that SWIG had been a grassroots initiative and administrative oversight at times did not align with SWIG’s unique and complex activities. Furthermore, faculty did not see faculty development as useful after a certain point.
Faculty participants all engaged in a community of practice in the leadership role they took with SWIG, and their mentorship of each other and their SWIG partners. Faculty observed that they experienced social pedagogy in the same way that their students did, and that interdisciplinary collaboration challenged and energized their teaching. These faculty members also engaged in multiple high impact practices, combining SWIG with the Common Read and service learning initiatives on campus. Faculty struggled with time constraints as they took on extra work to participate in the initiative, and through trial and error, improved their ability to work with the pedagogy, although they would welcome better assessment tools and practices. Faculty also found that their teaching transformed beyond the partnerships and assignments they have formed with SWIG, and as one participant coined it-- “SWIGify” all their classrooms.
The third theme confirmed the proposition that SWIG was a social pedagogy aligning with the Bass-Elmendorf model Descriptions of the student experience, and student quotes in document analysis mapped to all strands of the Bass-Elmendorf model. Subthemes reflect the SWIG activities described in interviews and documents in reference to Bass-Elmendorf strands while further specifically describing the phenomena.
Callie tells a story of a student's journey from passive resistance transformed into student authority and leadership. The student discussion that resulted then took the lesson well beyond the expected outcomes of the class with a sense of deep intellectual significance (Bass & Elmendorf, 2012). The assignment was a collaborative project with graphic design and English students partnering on the creation of short graphic novels based on some aspect of history and current events, chosen by the students:This kid, this one student who sat in the corner of the room, long hair all in his eyes, not paying attention, you know. He was just kind of like in and out. When it came to this project, he hooked on to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. And he was teaching himself Japanese, because he was interested in Japanese Manga and he was an amazing drawer (sic). So…he chose the bombing of Pearl Harbor...he could pick any moment within that event. And so he drew Japanese bombers coming in and hitting the boats. And the boats were amazingly drawn. And he put in Japanese characters and, when he presented it to the class, he spoke in Japanese, which was fascinating and interesting for the students. And then he continued with a panel about Roosevelt and what happened in the aftermath in some other panels. The final image was, and it was with text only and a photograph and it was a photograph of, relating to internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. It was a sign beside a store, a couple in front of their store, with a big sign that said, "Go home Japs!" And then he worked some text around it. And so this kid, that was truly disengaged, suddenly came to life when he had to share this project with the class. He was so excited and everyone was so impressed with his drawings, and his writing, it wasn’t just me, it made him very proud of his work. Which is so exciting. But another thing that happened from it, was the discussion that ensued afterward. About how Japanese-Americans were treated during World War II to how Muslims and Mexican immigrants and others were being talked about in this political state. And the attitudes of how we were all feeling. And of all of my classes, it was just a fascinating discussion that made what they were doing very, very relevant to their world today. So I was very excited about that. (Callie)
Queensborough Community College is an exemplar of an institution that has used high impact practices as a means to improve student retention and graduation according to (Bailey et. al, 2015; Kuh, et. al, 2013). The ingredients for this supportive environment can be understood by a set of circumstances which originated in 1968 when the community college became part of the City University of New York, and faculty at the community college were held to the same research standards as their counterparts at the university sites. The emphasis on pedagogical research as a supportive means to both improve student learning and promote relevant faculty scholarship cultivated faculty members who sought out faculty development opportunities. Upon the initiation of the Freshman Academies, the institution itself sought to learn what classroom delivery systems were most effective. With the identification of SWIG’s success, support for the initiative increased and extended beyond the original grant funding (participant interviews).
The ability of Queensborough to respond positively to needed change suggests that it is a learning organization as defined by Senge (1990
The literature notes the value of a supportive teaching culture in terms of motivation, informative feedback, and fostering of interdisciplinary curricula (Cox, 2004; Feldman & Paulsen, 1998; Feldman & Paulsen, 1999; Fugate & Amey, 2000). SWIG encourages faculty communities of practices, as defined by Lave and Wenger through the leadership team, and the SWIG faculty partnerships and triads. The limitation of examining four faculty participant leaders also provided reports from the faculty most immersed in the project. The faculty participants moved beyond McFarland’s (2011) notion of faculty leaders in their conscious assumption of the role. They have, to a greater or lesser degree, taken on leadership qualities noted by McFarland, such as mentor, advocate, and ambassador in their community of practice, and in relation to the institution. Callie embodies McFarland’s identification of a new managerialism for faculty. Callie, as the overall coordinator of the project, found herself working in a new way with administration to satisfy expected administrative outcomes. Moreover, these faculty participants were drivers of change (Goral, 2013) in an institution that had the will to support their efforts
Using Bass-Elmendorf’s model in relation to the Fook and Cooper (2003) tenet of ‘critical incidence’ in learning, Taylor’s (2008) model of discomfort before discovery, and the case study’s observation of student transformation from resistance to engagement linked to “connecting the cognitive and the affective” (Bass & Elmendorf 2012). Likewise, focus on “culture and the self” (Darcy, Dupre, & Cuomo, 2010) brought forward student testimony describing an integrated sense of personal and intellectual significance. Faculty participants spoke frequently in terms of authority and audience when discussing engaging with authenticity and difficulty.Evans (2015) asserts that the distributed labor that occurs in technology-enabled personal learning spaces, as were formed through sharing on the wiki spaces in SWIG, means that “learning and social identity is framed by social, participative and on-going performances of what is legitimate and illegitimate professional learning and practice” (p. 35). Faculty participants unanimously noted that peer learning and authentic audiences changed students approach to their assignments in SWIG. Cabiness et. al. (2013) also note the self-regulatory, collaborative, and cooperative behavior elicited from using wikis in student collaboration, leading to higher order thinking, thereby promoting the ability to better demonstrate disciplinary skills. The democratization of and cooperation in learning as noted by (Moran, 2010) in interdisciplinary approaches lead to the new authority students found in their writing and projects as noted by faculty participants and student testimony.
Thomas and Brown (2011) use a metaphor of a petri dish to describe the new culture of learning in technology-enabled collectives:
A culture is what a scientist grows in a petri dish in a lab under controlled conditions, with very limited foreknowledge of what will result. One of the basic principles of this kind of cultivation is that you don’t interfere with the process, because it is the process itself that is interesting. In fact, the entire point of the experiment is to allow the culture to reproduce in an uninhibited, completely organic way, within the constraints of medium and environment—and then see what happens.
Unlike the traditional sense of culture, which strives for stability and adapts to changes in its environment only when forced, this emerging culture responds to its surroundings organically. It does not adapt. Rather it thrives on change, integrating it into its process as one of its environmental variables and creating further change. In other words, it forms a symbiotic relationship with the environment. This is the type of culture that exists in the new culture of learning (p. 356).
A symbiotic reproduction of knowledge occurred across the institution, faculty and students within the petri dish SWIG.
The interdependence of institutional support, a faculty community of practice, and students experiencing social pedagogy suggests a new ecosystem model for institutions attempting to support social pedagogy effectively. This model enfolds the Bass Elmendorf model (2012) and acknowledges the requirements of institutional support and a faculty community of practice in order for social pedagogy to be engaged.
Darcy et al. (2010) notes a welcoming environment and a transition from personal to academic experience in the practice of SWIG. Faculty participants spoke about the challenges students experienced when faced with difficulty, particularly at the beginning of the semester, which led to some attrition in classes. The sub theme of resistance to engagement, observed in this study, suggests that students in open access institutions must cross a metaphorical threshold in order to engage in habits of mind (Dewey, 1934), flexibility with knowledge (Bass, 2012), and higher order thinking required of them to succeed. SWIG, in its engagement with authenticity and difficulty, flexibility of knowledge and connecting the cognitive to the affective (Bass, 2012) provides an opportunity for students to enter into higher order activities and thinking.
Further study could focus more pointedly on any one of the three areas that led the research questions of this study. Studies on institutional position, allocation of resources and incentivizing faculty development specifically on technology-enabled pedagogy both qualitatively and quantitatively would yield information for policy and practice for campuses. Research connecting faculty communities of practice directly to student learning outcomes could uncover the effectiveness of the practice and promote appropriate support. Research focusing on individual strands of social pedagogy would pinpoint the most effective aspects of the pedagogy and promote effective curriculum design. It could then ameliorate some of the difficulties with implementation that some faculty participants observed, and which limited participation (participant interviews). Moreover, continued studies, which observe the eco-system of institutional support, faculty practice and student success would provide national models for institution to emulate.
SWIG is at once a classroom social pedagogy and an opportunity for faculty to create a community of practice, mirroring the student experience. This case study of SWIG explored, through the lens of social pedagogy, institutional position and support, the lived experiences of faculty members and the elements of the practice that led to student success. What was uncovered was a specific culture of learning enabled by technology, faculty willing to engage as leaders in the scholarship of teaching and learning, and an institution able to provide resources to support the effort. The ecosystem requires both institutional support and a faculty community of practice to allow students to experience social pedagogy. The study confirmed the Bass Elmendorf (2012) model of social pedagogy and enfolded it into a model of an ecosystem of teaching and learning (figure 2).
SWIG emerges as the most innovative and effective among the high impact practices supported at Queensborough Community College. Students who participate are welcomed into a community of learners where they become authors and teachers, crossing a threshold from a personal identity to an academic one. Engaging with authenticity and difficulty does not bar the way into the academic community, but opens a door into it. Students are aware of the transformational power of the practice (Byas & Cercone, 2016) and continue to succeed in subsequent semesters (Fichera, 2012)
Implications for policy and practice include understanding and supporting a new culture of learning, which requires space and time for experimentation, and recognition that when engaging with elements of social pedagogy, college students have the potential to cross a threshold into a full academic identity. Moreover, the connection of the cognitive to the affective experience for students suggests that this becomes an academic undertaking, not the sole domain of student affairs professionals.
Social pedagogy and the new culture of learning hold promising practices for integrative and authentic student learning. Institutional support and a faculty community of practice are necessary for social pedagogy learning to occur. Thank you very much for the opportunity to share this research with you. I look forward to your questions.
