Learning by Example Cultivating Academic Affairs and Student

Learning by Example: Cultivating Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Collaboration Presentation by: David Clurman - University of Maryland, Baltimore County Michael Puma - Loyola University Maryland October 27, 2011 S

Overview S Introductions S Literature Review S History & Present Status S Theory & Research S Our Experiences S Successes & Pitfalls S Assumptions that We Make About Each Other S Exploring Partnerships & Collaboration S Questions & Answers D

Learning Objectives Participants will: S Explore theoretical and historical foundations of residential life/ academic affairs collaborations S Consider the role institutional type, history and culture plays in the development and implementation of collaboration S Learn how student affairs/academic affairs collaborations have been implemented at two different types of institutions S Discuss the challenges of creating and maintaining collaboration S 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 S Carnegie Class: Doctoral/Research-Extensive Institution S Fall 2010 Enrollment: S 10, 210 Undergraduates S 2, 678 Graduates S Residential Population: 3, 875 (1, 116 first-year) S 2011 -2012 Tuition w/ Room & Board: $19, 488* D

About Loyola S Private, Jesuit, Catholic Institution S Located in Baltimore, MD S Undergraduate Enrollment – 3, 800 students S Over 98% of first year students live on campus S 2011 -2012 Tuition w/ Room & Board: $54, 960 S “Learn, Lead & Serve in a Diverse and Changing World” • Source: 2009 Loyola Undergraduate Catalog M

Historical Overview S Middle Ages S Residential Colleges of Oxford & Cambridge S Roots of L/L Programs (Thelin, 2004) S Early America S Harvard and Yale S Expansion of residential college, separation of administration and college life S Modern Era S 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) ENVIRONMENTS INPUTS OUTCOMES 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 S S S S 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 S Tinto’s Integration Theory (1993) S Integration into academic and social realms S Shared learning and knowing (1997) S Pascarella & Terenzini Engagement (2005) S Interactions with faculty S Interactions with peers S Living on campus D

What Makes Collaboration Successful? % 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% Strategy 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

“Hierarchy of Needs” LLP Best Practices Building Blocks (Inkelas, 2010) Collaboration is Essential! INFRASTRUCTURE Funding Intentional integration Study groups K-12 outreach Visiting work settings Career workshops CO-CURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT “ICING” Source: Inkelas, K. (2010), Lessons Learned about One High-Impact Practice, Presented February 15, 2010 at the 29 th Annual Conference on the First-year Experience, Denver, CO. Courses for credit Faculty advising Academic departments Academically Socially supportive climate Residence Life Collaboration 14 Dedicated residence hall space D

What Happens When Building Blocks Are Missing? Intentional integration Study groups K-12 outreach Visiting work settings Career workshops Courses for credit Funding Faculty advising Academic departments Academically Socially supportive climate Residence Life Collaboration 15 Dedicated residence hall space

What Happens When Building Blocks Are Missing? Intentional integration Study groups K-12 outreach Visiting work settings Career workshops Courses for credit Funding Faculty advising Academic departments Academically Socially supportive climate Residence Life Collaboration 16 Dedicated residence hall space

The “Third Space” of Partnership: New, Unpredictable and Emergent A deeply held belief or worldview that is shared among group members Organizational features that establish the parameters of what behaviors are possible, permissible, and rewarded Cultural Models Relationships 3 rd Space Structures & Technologies Routines & Practices Key aspect of cultural life that ties individuals to other, people, groups and organization s Regular, patterned behaviors that eventually become habitual M

3 Types of Partnerships Limited Coordinated Collaborative Nature of Problem Technical, routine Mix of technical and adaptive Novel and lacking wellknown solutions Time Required Short term Intermediate or Long term Number of Partners Required A few or several Several Motivations Primarily Self Interests Combination Enlightened Self Interest (self and broader collective) Capacity and Resources Limited Medium Substantial Autonomy High Medium Low Cultural Tensions Likely to be slight Likely to be moderate Likely to be severe Governance Top-down Shared/ Consensus-Based Source: Hora, M. T. & Millar, S. B. (2011). A guide to building education partnerships. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. M

Loyola University Loyola Living. Learning Theme Clusters (6 -7 total for first-year class) S Creating a Living Learning Programs – S The “corporate merger” analogy S The “Marriage of Equals” analogy Fall Seminar Course including CORE Advising followed by Spring Seminar Course Faculty/Studen t Development Administrator/ Student Leader Led “Voices Curriculum” Living-Learning Aim/Goals (Consistent with Undergraduate Educational Aims, Student Development Learning Outcomes and College Values Residence Hall Community Programming & Co-Curricular Campus Programs M

Loyola University Living. Learning Program Timeline 1996 -2006……. Fall 2007……. Spring 2008… Fall 2008…… Task 2008 -2010…. Four Separate First Year Programs Operate (all have livinglearning or themed housing options) Groundwork for new Strategic Plan Living-Living Strategic Plan Work Group Begins Meeting Work group makes recommendations Strategic Plan endorsed by Board of Trustees and Loyola Conference; Academic Senate charges a Living-Learning Force Task Force convenes, submits interim report in May 2009; receives no formal feedback until March 2010 Senate votes and approves main aspects of Fall 2010 program January 2011……. Living-Learning Student Development and Academic Co. Directors Named M

Loyola University S The Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change (Kotter, 1996) S Is there a sense of urgency? S Is there a guiding coalition? S Do you have a vision and strategy? S Have you communicated a change S S 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 S Founded in 1999 to encourage the building of student –faculty relationships S Program Goals are: S To promote informal faculty-student interaction in the residence halls/apartments S To provide academic, professional, and personal role models for students S To educate faculty regarding student life on campus and in the residence halls S 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) S Primary responsibility is relationship building with residents in the community and staff with whom they work Second Ten Weeks (November – February) S Primary responsibility is putting forth academically supportive programming S Assist students who are reported to have a C or less in their classes Third Ten Weeks (March – May) S Primary responsibility is educational programming and a closure activity D

UMBC Living-Learning Communities S Begun in 2000, UMBC has housed 10 LLCs – 9 are currently active S UMBC was recognized in 2008 as one of the top four institutions with LLCs S We struggle with understanding why students in LLCs have greater outcomes S True partnership with academics D

Successes at Loyola S Approved program will transform systems and structures within academic affairs, student development and other partner offices S Program is tied to 16 new tenure-track faculty hires, the current strategic plan, and the future capital campaign; there is long-term commitment S Program is tied into other initiatives including a revamped Honors program and new opportunities for engaged scholarship M

Successes at UMBC S Both students and faculty have gained insights into their counterparts S Students in LLCs have demonstrated positive outcomes S Students in LLCs have been retained at higher rates D

Pitfalls S Publicity and marketing of programs to students S Recruitment of faculty S Funding S Making connections with students S Lack of preparation from higher education programs about faculty culture and collaboration S Communication D

Have You Ever Heard a Conversation Like This?

If Innovation Starts at Home, We Need to Know Who Is In the House… S What are some common stereotypes of faculty? S How did we come to know those stereotypes? S How do we judge the validity of those stereotypes? S What impact do these stereotypes have?

Faculty and Student Affairs Traditional Cultural Characteristics, Norms, Attitudes STUDENT AFFAIRS FACULTY S Emphasis on student personal growth S Emphasis on student critical thinking, acquisition of knowledge S Value subjective, relational, dimensions of knowing and learning S Value objective, rational, independent ways of knowing S Believe intellectual/academic activities in classroom are superior to activities occurring outside the classroom S Believe in shared purpose of faculty and student affairs to education whole student Adapted from the Handbook for Student Affairs Administration

Faculty and Student Affairs Traditional Cultural Characteristics, Norms, Attitudes STUDENT AFFAIRS FACULTY S Characterized by hierarchical structures, centralized decisionmaking, defined authority – loyalty is to one’s department & institution S Characterized by structures that emphasize collegiality through shared governance, peer leadership – loyalty is to academic discipline S Values defined goals, task completion and productivity S S Individuals tend to be interpersonally adept, extraverted, problem-solvers Values ambiguity, autonomy, flexibility, nonconformity, creativity, and innovation S 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 S FACULTY 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 S Thinking and reflecting, futurefocused – predictable and order S Engage in solitary, autonomous, independent work S 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 S FACULTY 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 S Sees faculty as expert or authority S Experts in their academic discipline, teaching, research, writing skills S 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 S Know your program goals so that you can communicate concrete expectations and identify outcomes S Know who you are asking (tenure/no tenure, full-time/part- time, specific disciplines) S Know that there is top-down institutional support. Is collaboration rewarded? By whom? S Ask about historical factors and cultural dynamics specific to your campus S Faculty/Partner buy-in is a must S Explore what motivations exist for the partnerships D

During Partnerships S Frequent communication and mutual understanding S Acknowledge tension points S Play to strengths of participants S Remember that it is about the student experience S Practice patience S Know your resources S Step out of conventional roles or stereotypical roles S Need to have staff that will interact with faculty S Effort should be equitable D

After Partnerships S Share honest feedback S Assess student experience and student learning S Reward positive collaborations – for both the faculty member and the student affairs administrator S Cast a wide net – invite others to share in successful and innovative programs because it: S Models collaboration S Avoids burnout S Share success stories with campus leadership S Plan for sustaining momentum – share success with alumni, institutional advancement and enrollment management D

Collaboration on Your Campus S What are the barriers to collaboration? S Who are the champions of collaboration? S Who comprises your faculty? S Tenure track appointments S Full-time vs. Part-time S Demographics (gender, ethnicity, age) S Do you see connections between your faculty composition and barriers to collaboration? S How can you overcome these barriers? S What role does upper-level administration play? M

Current Considerations S How can residence life proactively support learning communities? How can this be a unified and sustained goal? S What opportunities are there for student leadership in learning communities? S What existing campus structures can be modified to enhance student learning (and LLCs) in the residence halls? S How can you assess the LLCs and how do we share successes? M

Considerations for the Future S Is it dependent on institutions to demonstrate the value and worth of the program by providing concrete assessment evidence? S Will budget cuts force programs to lose components or fail altogether? S Will the teaching and participation in these programs be valued by the institution in tenure and promotion decisions? S 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. edu mpuma@loyola. edu