|
Final Report |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adding Value by
Infusing Work Skills into the Core Curriculum A. Introductory Overview: Our project started with the national increasing awareness of the need to infuse workforce skills into the general education curriculum. Readings such as Learning Outcomes for the 21st Century: Report of a Community College Study by Wilson, Miles, Baker and Schoenberger (published by the League for Innovation in the Community College and the Pew Charitable Trusts, February 2000) stressed the need to “incorporate the ‘hard’ skills of literacy, numeracy, and information technology literacy, as well as the ‘soft’ skills of teamwork, communication, problem solving, and the ability to work with diverse groups, and that success in the workforce or in further education depends on acquisition of these skills” (11). The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) report, produced by the U.S. Department of Labor in 2000, detailed “What Work Requires of Schools.” In addition, our college President conducted focus groups with leaders of the business and professional community in our service area, and the conclusions she drew from these re-affirmed and reflected the national research. With this awareness and clear need, Manatee Community College staff applied to FIPSE for this three-year grant. The program started in January, 2001, and ended in December, 2003. Its impact reached from the individual classrooms of not only the teaching team of the grant, but also to a large number of the faculty who adopted the goals of the grant, and to the institution itself which up-dated its general education goals to reflect the workforce skills identified by the FIPSE grant program. l. The Curriculum and Learning Design Team (CLDT)—Faculty reassigned (a.) to identify
the specific workforce skills that could be infused into their courses, the
courses specified in the grant proposal, ENC
1101, Written Communication; HUM 2210 and 2230, Intercultural Humanities; MGF
1107, Liberal Arts Mathematics; BSC 1005, Biology, Basis of Life; ISC 1143,
Environmental Science; SPC 1600, Fundamentals of Speech; AML 2600,
African-American Literature; AMH 1010 and 1020, History of the United States;
PSY 2012, General Psychology. (b.) to bring
field representatives from businesses in our community into their classes as
resources for students, as guest lecturers, and as contacts for students (c.) to provide
documentation of their work and of student learning (d) to participate
in publicizing and disseminating the grant program at the college, in the
community, in professional organizations (local, state, regional, and national) (e) to conduct
focus groups with leaders in business, industry, and the professions to
determine what were considered to be the essential skills required for success
in the 21st century workforce (f) to participate
and provide leadership in faculty development among the team and the college
faculty 2. The Technology Component (a.) A college
committee working to determine the minimum competencies MCC students should
achieve. The committee was chaired by
the Director of Distance Learning and Educational Technology, and the FIPSE
grant project director served on this committee. (b.) A web
designer and manager assigned to create and maintain the FIPSE grant web site. (c.) An on-going program
to teach FIPSE faculty to create and maintain their own web sites so that their
newly created active learning modules could be posted to their web sites, all
part of the FIPSE web site. (d). A
college-wide faculty development program designed to enhance the skills of the
faculty to both use educational technology and to infuse the educational
competencies and active learning activities into their courses. For example, it has become very common, now,
for teachers to assign group projects which result in powerpoint presentations
by teams to their classes to enhance the quality of their presentations. 3. Active Learning For many years, it has been clear that active learning
strategies are more effective teaching delivery styles than traditional lecture/discussion
strategies. While some Manatee
Community College faculty were willing to give up the old methods and try some
of the new ones, most of the faculty had not incorporated active learning into
their lessons at the time the grant started.
The grant program’s commitment to this new methodology was fulfilled
through an extensive program in faculty development, and consequently there has
been a significant increase in the use of active learning by the members of the
faculty team and the entire faculty, in general. 4. Focus Groups (mentioned above) 5. The Advisory Committee was established in the first
year. Serving were students,
administrators from areas of the college other than academic affairs, and
members of the community (such as the CEO of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of the
Sun coast, members of the local chambers of commerce, etc.). Few meetings were held, but an electronic
newsletter was circulated online and in hard copy, and individual and small group
meetings were held to discuss problems and challenges. 6. The Comprehensive Evaluation Plan Components are included below. Those served far exceed the numbers proposed in the grant because
team faculty infused 21st century skills into all of their classes
not just one pilot class per semester.
For example, Dr. Susan Brown taught four classes of ENC 1101 during the
first semester. Instead of just
enhancing one section, she enhanced all four sections. We all did this because we got more
experience and feedback that way, and, in addition, it made our lesson planning
easier. The outcomes, again, discussed
below, include curriculum change and enhancement, change in college-wide goals,
increased retention and achievement, increased use of active learning, hundreds
of web pages, and dissemination and replication of the program. Much of the above includes unexpected
benefits of the program documented anecdotally. The evaluation plan documents the objectives of the grant. B. Problem: The SCANS report and The League for Innovation in the Community
College, among various other national and local schools and organizations,
documented the need for curriculum revision, or, as we see it at Manatee
Community College (MCC), curriculum enhancement. Clearly, all educational programs should include the teaching and
reinforcement of skills needed for success in the 21st century
workforce. This premise was affirmed by
national organizations such as the Information Technology Association of
America (ITAA) which observed in 2001 that “The New Economy darkened the screen
of many dot.com businesses in 2000.
Many once successful high tech companies found their short-term growth
rates unsustainable for the long haul.
Others watched yesterday’s value-added product of service become today’s
margin busting market commodity.
Despite these and other changes in the marketplace, this report finds
that the demand for IT workers in the New Economy remains strong”(www.itaa.org, 4/27/01). The use of technology
by the faculty, and the reinforcement of specific competencies in the
classroom, became one of the biggest efforts in all FIPSE classes. Then most important in identifying the
problems and subsequent needs, in the fall of 1999, MCC invited business and
community leaders to share their needs and expectations for a 21st
century workforce. The recurring
concerns at the local level mirrored the national theme: each graduate,
regardless of career choice or field of study, must demonstrate and document
proficiency in a broad range of contemporary skills. At this time, the general
education core at MCC was traditional, and the teaching style of most faculty
followed the European model. We were preparing students for transfer to the
university system, not for the world of work, and we were doing it largely
through the lecture/examination method. In fact, two years before the start of
the grant period, the vice-president of academic affairs had broached the idea
of infusing work skills into the writing program, and the English department had
responded angrily, opposing any change to its current curriculum. Team members later apologized good-naturedly
to Dr. Rosen at a president’s management meeting because in less than a
semester, they had become enthusiastic advocates for the grant program. Much of the enthusiasm was simply caught
from our students who were drawn to the relevance of the course to their lives. The grant proposed to infuse 21st century
workforce skills into the general education curriculum starting with seven
specific courses and a select team of faculty.
Therefore, during the course of the three-year grant, the grant team
continued to meet with members of the business and professional
community—directors of human resources, bank presidents, psychologists,
restaurateurs, newspaper publishers, accountants, etc.—and continued to affirm
from those meetings, from work with consultants, and from continued research
what was needed of community college graduates to be successful in the 21st
century workforce. What have we learned about the problem addressed, and how
have we redefined it? We learned that
the problem was recognized consistently nation-wide, just as we saw it, and we
didn’t need to redefine it because we had defined it accurately to begin with. C. Background and
Origins: Steps included l. Writing the Grant 2. Establishing
Partners in Business, Professions and Industry 3. Establishing the
Advisory Committee, Advisors, and Friends of the Grant 4. Implementing the
grant The Origin of the
Grant: Because the grant team was
in the middle of an academic semester when the award came, it was decided that
our project would start in January, 2001, rather than November, 2000. It may have been written in the grant that
the first semester or even the first year would be spent in planning, but this
did not happen. Instead, because the
first year team consisted of five members of the English department who had
worked together for as many as twenty years, and because of their cohesiveness,
and because of their enthusiasm for this project, the grant program was started
on the first day of the first semester.
Many meetings were held for agreement on curriculum, procedure, changes,
and calendar, and the progress was remarkable. As a general core of workforce skills, the grant program
adopted the proposed skills of the League for Innovation in the Community
College. On a regular basis, responding
to focus groups and continued research, the team identified the specific skills
within the general core. By the end of
the first semester of the grant, ahead of schedule, the team had established a
web site, obtained a visiting consultant on business communications to address
the English department, and created new performance objectives for the first
targeted course, ENC 1101, Written Communication I, and a number of assignments
and active learning lessons to go along with them. For example, the attendees at the focus groups said they needed
workers who could and would write literate, cogent, and grammatical e-mails,
and so the e-mail became a requirement for the course. Students were given an assignment pre-classwork, and when they wrote crude and inadequate e-mails, teachers
responded. Guidelines were developed,
lessons were given, and the post-classwork e-mails were greatly improved over
the original efforts of the students, demonstrating that significant learning
that had occurred. The director and
staff of the MCC Career Center were invited to participate, and so they
provided models and they attended classes as guest lecturers. Directors of human resources at local
businesses had specified the standards that were being met. Under their guidance, the students developed
career portfolios including samples of their work, i.e., the e-mail, a resume
and cover letter, an interview summary, a career essay (often a multiple-source
paper) and an essay distinguishing between academic and business writing. The
work of the first year team established a pattern followed for three years as
the specified courses in MCC’s general education program were enhanced. D. Project
Description: The
project started in January, 2000, with a faculty curriculum, learning, and
design team (CLDT) aimed at infusing workforce skills into Written
Communication I (ENC 1101) and Humanities.
The project director was a member of the team and a teacher of one of
the targeted classes. The team
immediately began to incorporate new lessons to address the goal of infusing
the eight core skills listed in the Learning Outcomes book and included
in the grant proposal. The 21st century skills are the following: l. Communication
skills (reading, writing, speaking, listening), Numerous other
sources affirmed the adoption of our program. Having already been funded, we didn’t really need the
affirmation, but we kept seeking and finding it anyway. In fact, members of the administration
regularly sent readings to the project director when something came across
their desk. One notable paper came from
Dr. John Rosen, the vice president who conceived of the grant. “Skills Certification and Workforce
Development: Partnering with Industry and Ourselves” by Jeffrey A. Cantor
(League for Innovation in the Community College, Jan. 2002), asserts that
“Learning has indeed become less linear as workers are seeking blocks of skills
at different times during their careers.” Further, Dr. Nancy Johnson, mathematics professor on the team,
discovered www.21stcenturyskills.org
, a “Partnership for 21st Century Skills…a unique alliance of
education, business and government leaders working to fully address the
education needs and challenges of work and life in the 21st
century.” Writing for the Partnership
(a new public-private coalition), Judy Salpeter reports that “a vision of how
schools can best prepare students to succeed in the first decades of the 21st
century is …to focus on six key elements of 21st century
learning.” These key elements reflect
much of the FIPSE 8 core skills including critical thinking, problem solving,
global awareness, working collaboratively with diverse groups, economic
literacy, civic literacy and more. During the first year, the team continued to research current practices in written communication and the possibilities for enhancement in the humanities course. Consultants were hired to do workshops for the English department on the features of business writing (as opposed to academic writing) and how to incorporate these features into freshman composition courses. Other consultants were hired to address the entire faculty on the benefits of using active learning and on the variety of active learning strategies which can be employed in the classroom. The team quickly realized that they could infuse all of the eight core skills into these courses, and so the precedent was set that each course in the program would reinforce the eight core skills regardless of academic discipline. At the same time, the professors of the individual courses would take the lead on the courses in their discipline, and they would identify the skills inherent in their curriculum, re-design their assigned courses, and share with the rest of the team their knowledge base and pedagogy. The web site continued to grow as the web manager and the project director worked to improve the design to make the curriculum and learning modules accessible. “Before and after” documents were filed to demonstrate the change in performance objectives, course descriptions, and syllabi resulting from the implementation of the grant. These would later be adopted by departments as the team brought their work back to their colleagues. Also, throughout the three-year program, the project director kept representative samples of student work so that a “before and after” demonstration of progress could be made. In addition, with the help of the external evaluator, student surveys were given and analyzed. Also, standardized tests were given as part of the evaluation opportunities. The patterns of the program were set in the first year, and
then they were duplicated in the second year with additional team members from
mathematics and natural science, and in the third year with additional team
members from social science and literature.
The faculty identified the specific skills in their area that they
wanted to infuse, such as writing and use of technology, and then they worked
to develop the lessons. Once they ascertained that the lessons were workable,
they posted them to their newly created web sites. The web manager and the project director reviewed the work,
monitored revisions and up-dates, and continually revised the over-all FIPSE
web site at the college so that it could be navigated easily. The Faculty
Development Program: This was a
significant portion of the grant program.
With the project director serving on the Faculty Professional
Development Committee, the number of days and sessions given to faculty
development increased college-wide from one per year to two. Individual sessions grew from an occasional
special session to a full-fledged program with the committee becoming a
standing committee with a mission statement and goals and procedures. This committee now offers two professional
conferences a year, and also, it helps to create the agenda for the opening
faculty meeting held at the beginning of the college year by the college
president. Being blessed with a dean
whose commitment to faculty development is more like a passion than a job
description, the project director was able to work with administration and
enthusiastic faculty from around the college to accomplish FIPSE goals. (The committee became known as “the dream
team.” ) During the very first year of the grant program, the faculty
development goals and program of the grant were not distinguishable from the
college program except for recognition for sponsorship by FIPSE and focus on
the eight core skills adopted by the grant program as educational goals for our
students. [See appendix for web pages and complete program.] Active Learning
Strategies: Some MCC faculty were
using some active learning strategies for probably over ten years, but it was
clear that most had not been exposed to active learning techniques and the
impact they have on students.. The
grant writers promised the use of active learning strategies because it has
been known for a long time that by these methods, more student learning
occurs. During the grant period, Dr.
Pappas, our college President, sent a reading to Dr. Rapkin, the project
director, to help support the premises of the faculty development emphasis on
active learning. “How Teaching Matters:
Bringing the Classroom Back Into Discussions of Teacher Quality,” a study
conducted by Harold Wenglinsky for the Educational Testing Service and the
Milken Family Foundation, provides data linking faculty methods to students
success. For example, Wenglinsky
reported in January, 2002, that “Students whose teachers conduct hands-on
learning activities on a weekly basis are 72% of a grade level ahead in
mathematics and 40% ahead in science over students exposed to hands-on
activities on a monthly basis.” This
was just one small example of the research supporting active learning. Dr. Jim Eison from the University of South
Florida was one of several active learning specialists to address the
faculty. Since the specialists modeled
what they taught, the faculty began to change their strategies. Numerous national consultants addressed the
faculty on classroom assessment techniques, techniques of student engagement,
and active learning strategies, and in three years a transformation took
place. A faculty survey testified to
the following strategies now being used: l. task groups Mentor Program within
the CLDT: As specified in the grant proposal, a mentoring program was put
into place during the second year, and it was continued through the third year
as well. Mentors were assigned new
faculty to meet with on a regular basis.
At their meetings, they discussed curriculum, methodology, and web
design. During the yearly evaluation of
the program by the entire team, it was agreed that the mentor program was one
of the strengths of the program. These
meetings, though interdisciplinary, yielded creative ideas of how to infuse the
skills and of how to deliver the curriculum to the students through active
learning strategies. Internal (faculty) consultants were brought into the team
program to teach new faculty how to set up and maintain a web site. Even before the start of the third year,
every member of the grant team had a web site which reflected the goals of the
grant program. Mentor Program within
the total faculty: Because the team
had brought back the FIPSE program to their departments, it was decided that
the mentor program spoken of in the grant proposal focus on assessment, an area
in which a need was identified. Experts
on assessment techniques were brought in to be keynote speakers on two faculty
development days. Faye R-Baker and
Andrew Holm were dynamic and informative.
They modeled what they taught.
They provided materials for use across the academic disciplines. Response was over-whelming. The faculty discovered the classroom
assessment technique and the CAT Mentor Program was started. Seventeen faculty mentored over 60% of the
faculty during the fall semester, 2003, and CATs are now used on a regular
basis as a part of the culture to assess how students learn and to improve the
learning in individual classes. Relationships
established with business community: Advisory Committee and Focus Groups A very significant part of the yearly
calendars were the regular meetings/focus groups with members of the business
community. These meetings provided motivation and rededication by the faculty
team to the grant mission. Sitting in
board rooms and listening to people in the workforce took faculty out of the
world of the academy into “the real world.”
In addition, the curriculum enhancement program was strengthened. One other benefit noted by the teachers was
the impact these meetings had on their classes. Telling students what we had heard the day before from people
supervising jobs our students hoped to get was very effective. Dissemination: An on-going part of the program was
dissemination. Even though this was not
a dissemination grant, the project director was committed to dissemination
because our program officer in Washington, D.C., Dr. Rosemary Wolfe, had
stressed publicizing the grant and disseminating as much as possible. The project director created a complete
program consisting of newspaper articles, college made press pieces and a
poster (see appendices), presentations by the team to the advisory committee,
the faculty, the president’s management team, the board of trustees, and at
conferences (state, regional and national).
For example, the team members of the English department presented at the
Florida College English Association meeting two times, once to focus on the
grant program and the changes in the humanities courses (increased focus on
diversity and technology), and a second time to focus on changes in delivery
strategies from the lecture/discussion method to active learning. A mathematics
professor presented at a national math conference. Presentations were made three times at NISOD. A presentation was made at a regional SACS
conference. The following is a representative example of a press
release. This went out on or about June
17, 2002, and it resulted in articles about and a picture of the team at PGT
Industries in Nokomis, Florida, and at MCC-Bradenton with Mark Milliron. Area employers can be
assured that Manatee Community College graduates will possess 21st
century skills needed in today’s workplace.
According to Dr. Sarah Pappas, MCC president, “The College faculty
members have infused 21st century skills, validated by area business
leaders, educators, and others, into all of our programs to assure our
graduates are highly competitive and productive when they enter the workforce.” This project is a
result of a $300,000 federal grant which is directed by Professor Angela Rapkin
who is working jointly with faculty, staff, and business leaders to determine
the skills and competencies needed by graduates to succeed. She is assisted by a team of 14 faculty
members who are piloting the concepts with over 1,500 students this year. The students in turn
have worked with over 100 area business, industry, and government
representatives, to learn what will be required of them upon completion of
their degrees. According to Professor
Rapkin, “Students have had their eyes opened to many concepts and opportunities
through their contact with area firms during this process.” The project hopes to
be a model for other community colleges in Florida and nationwide to better
prepare students for tomorrow’s jobs.
For more information…. The Real World
Experience: The grant program which
FIPSE made its award to contained a proposal for “a real world
experience.” In this, it was thought
that students and faculty would go for four days into a business or industry to
observe and shadow, to interact and learn. The team surveyed their students and
studied their own schedules and realized this was not workable. (Faculty were
assigned to four classes including one FIPSE class. Students work 20-40 hours a week, take an average of four courses
a semester, and are responsible for childcare, etc. It was impossible for both
teachers and students alike to change their schedules to four days away from
all of these other responsibilities.) The alternative the team created was
praised by the director of institutional development at MCC and by Dr. Rosemary
Wolfe as well. As a major component of
their career portfolio, students were assigned a field experience. They were to shadow and interview someone
in the career field they were planning to major in. They were to write a report and present their findings to their
classes: what were the skills necessary for success in the specific field they
observed. In addition, when possible,
they were to invite representatives from the field to come into the classroom
to discuss employability skills and content required for success in the
field. Students in the MCC service area
visited medical facilities (including dental and veterinarian), graphic design
studios, banks, accounting firms, law firms, real estate offices, industrial
plants, biology labs, and a variety of other places to interact with directors
of personnel and/or supervisors to learn.
Members of these firms attended our classes and provided the facts about
working in the real world! Since most
of our students already had experience working in the real world, the
interchange was extremely dynamic. E. Evaluation/Project
Results: Guided by Dr. Rosemary Wolfe and Dr. Dora Marcus, the
evaluation of the program was an on-going effort by the team, the project
director, and by the external evaluator, Dr. Marlene Kovaly. Focusing on daily work and the products
produced by the team, the evaluation documentation included: reports to the
faculty by the college president, examples of faculty work, representative
student work, student surveys, faculty surveys, The Academic Profile (a standardized test), The Community College
Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), The Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction
survey, the College Level Academic Skills Test (Florida’s CLAST), and the
on-going analysis of all of these components.
Perhaps the most significant factor in this regard is the greatest
result of the project: Manatee
Community College’s general education goals were revised to model the FIPSE
eight core skills, adopted by the Curriculum Development and Review Committee,
voted upon by the faculty, and passed by the president’s council and board of
trustees. The following appears in our application for reaccreditation to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. It was written by Dr. John Rosen, Vice President of Academic Affairs. In addition to the CDR Committee, a team of faculty headed by Dr. Angela Rapkin, Professor of Language and Literature, have been working on a project funded by the Fund for Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE). This 3-year project began in 2000 and focused on infusing the 21st Century skills into the general education curriculum. The faculty team held listening sessions with the business community, researched the literature, and examined best practices, which led to the identification of a set of 21st Century skills that were determined to be essential for every graduate to attain, regardless of profession they may ultimately choose. When cross referenced with the College’s own general education requirements, the CDR committee determined that these 21st Century skills better framed the educational goals of the institution and ultimately adopted them as the institution's general education goals. These are outlined in the 2003-04 College Catalog, p.57. The FIPSE team began the modification of assignments and projects in a select set of general education courses. These courses were chosen due to the high numbers of students that they enroll annually. The changes reinforced each of the FIPSE goals (General Education Requirements) in context of the content of the course. Their accomplishments are highlighted on the College’s FIPSE Web Page: http://www.mccfl.edu/FIPSE/INDEX.htm. This page exemplifies many of the curricular changes that have been developed by the faculty during this initiative. Additionally,
the FIPSE team conducted a College-wide survey of faculty teaching General
Education courses, and determined how each of the various core skill areas were
being assessed at the course level. The results of this survey
demonstrated that these skills were not only introduced in the initial pilot
courses selected by the grant, but have been reinforced throughout the general
education program. A copy of the General
Education Skill Matrix is attached for review. This matrix summarizes the
survey results and identifies courses within each of the college’s general
education distribution areas that address each skill. While the survey responses
did not include every general education course, it did include many courses
that are required of all students seeking an A.A. degree, thereby insuring
exposure, reinforcement and assessment of each and every general education
goal. [The documents referenced by Dr. Rosen appear in appendix 3.] The following is the final report on the comprehensive evaluation plan in the grant proposal. These two courses were used as the models for the enhancement of curriculum in all seven courses. Similar activities were infused, and evaluation methodologies were also replicated. (See appendices for curriculum models, skills packets, and lists of skills infused in all specified courses.) Comprehensive Evaluation Plan Goal #1
Goal #1.1
Goal #2.1
Goal #3
Regarding 3.2: While
this objective has not been completed, a proposal has been submitted, and
alternatives are being considered. The
project director has discussed with the vice president of academic affairs and
subsequently proposed a program called The 21st Century Scholar in
which students will be awarded this designation (and a note on the transcript)
upon achievement of the skills.
Achievement will be demonstrated with a score on the Academic Profile in addition to a
portfolio juried by FIPSE and CAT faculty.
The portfolio will include representative student work: writing a
variety of genres, oral communication including the use of technology,
discipline specific products, and the like.
Also, since students are taking the Academic
Profile, it may be possible that once there is enough data on this
instrument, a score can be recorded on student transcripts with a note that a
certain score indicates achievement in 21st century workforce
skills. This goal has not been
achieved, but work is being done to accomplish it. In Appendix 3, among the evaluation reports there is the
vice president’s report showing our students’s achievement on the Academic Profile. This information has been used to inform
discussions of general education goals as well as faculty professional
development programs. Examples of other
evaluation components: l. Student
Surveys: Among these different
methods of evaluation, the student surveys proved to be extremely
interesting. Each discipline team made
up a set of questions to pose to students in a pre-course survey which would be
followed up in a post-course survey.
The responses were scored by the college computer services, and the
results were analyzed by the external consultant, Dr. Marlene Kovaly. One example is reported here for
exemplification. Her report for the Spring, 2003, student surveys said, These analyses serve
to evaluate the following: a.) Objective 2.1 (of
the comprehensive evaluation plan of the grant): To increase the use of interactive instructional strategies by
50% in targeted courses through faculty development programs by December, 2003. b.) To integrate into
targeted courses the Work Study Skills of Communication and Technology. The FIPSE Grant
Student Survey was administered twice, at the beginning and at the end, during
spring term, 2003. The targeted
discipline was mathematics. The Survey consisted
of 20 items using a Likert-scale of 5 responses: (a) Strongly Agree, (b)
Agree, (C> Not Sure, (d) Disagree, and (e) Strongly Disagree. TECHNOLOGY Three items on the
student survey reflected the student’s use/understanding of technology. Item 9. I can use the
computer to send and receive e-mails. 18. I know when it is appropriate to use a
technological tool, such as a calculator or computer, to perform mathematical
operations. Analysis A two proportion hypothesis
test was conducted on these items to analyze the differences in responses
between the pre-post assessment. The
responses (a) Strongly Agree, and (b) Agree were analyzed. Results There was a
statistically significant difference in the proportion of students who
responded (a) Strongly Agree, or (b) Agree on the post survey. (p<.05*) 2. Feedback from administrators during the three years was
continually positive. For example,
academic dean Darlene Wedler-Johnson wrote in an e-mail to Dr. Susan Brown
(team member in ENC 1101) after visiting a class, “I commend you for
what you are doing with your students.
It is evident that your active learning approach is highly
effective. Your students are not only
eager to learn but also to demonstrate what they have learned….I am especially
impressed with how you have woven the FIPSE skills into your assignments. Your assignment on the environment and
business topic is working well to produce favorable outcomes in teamwork, oral
communication, written communication, IT, research, and critical thinking. For your information, I arrived to class
before you got there and had the opportunity to talk individually to about
seven of your students. They are all
excited about the class and what they are learning. I am amazed that some students had few or virtually no skills in
some of these FIPSE areas but now, because of your class, they are so much
further advanced. Thanks also for
taking me through your classroom IT structures and organizations. This was very useful. Your class can stand as a model for other
postsecondary institutions to replicate.
Congratulations” (May 5, 2003). For the grant, Dr. Brown made presentations to a variety of
professional organizations as well as to the faculty and the Board of Trustees. 3. Feedback from the faculty team for the three years was
enthusiastic and positive. Faculty
reported that the grant changed forever the way they would teach. The college President remarked about how
obviously cohesive the group was, and how their motivation was behind the
success of the program. F. Summary,
Conclusions and Lessons Learned:
Our second project officer from the FIPSE Office, Lavona Grow, recommended that our external evaluator interview the
faculty team and summarize her findings.
Ms. Grow recommended that Dr. Kovaly ask the following questions: Reflecting on the
FIPSE grant program, please respond to the following: l. As a result of implementing this program in your courses,
what are some student outcomes that you observed? In addition, she asked that I determine the specific
increase in the use of active learning methods by this faculty team. Faculty responses to these questions, summarized from interviews conducted on Sept. 12, 2003, follow: l. Students are better listeners. They are motivated because they are being prepared for the workforce. This is relevant to their lives. Students think faster and more quickly. They write faster—journal entries, for example, from 60 minutes to 20 minutes—because they are more confident. Students have appreciated the opportunity to explore careers, to research, to shadow, to interview field representatives. In all classes, teamwork skills and employability skills were reinforced. Students’s ability to read and write and to debate has
increased significantly in biology.
More are participating in their labs.
The CATS give them ownership in their classes. Humanities students claim to be having more fun. Speech students are involved in more
contemporary and community issues. In
environmental science, students have improved in communication, information
management, use of technology, and critical thinking. The Wenglinsky report
asserts that “Students whose teachers emphasize higher order thinking skills,
outperform other students by 40% of a grade level.” Jane Pfeilsticker, “I talk less and listen more.” Luci Frith, “The medium is the message.” John Waters, “I see the value of involving the community.” Nancy Johnson, “This program creates a community of learners in the classroom…I turned a whole chapter over to them!” From participating in
the program, students have gotten internships and jobs. Students are engaged. 2. Learned how not to provoke student anxiety in the computer lab. 3. This program could be strengthened by having 3
co-directors. This program was strong
because of its administrative support.
More re-assigned time for the team. More electronic classrooms and more
teachers on the team. 4. Advice: Choose your best faculty for the design
team. Hold more meetings. The rewards (student response and success)
made the program work. The project
director made it work. Have everyone
start the program in the first year.
Try partnering rather than mentoring. Changes in use of active learning strategies: Isera Tyson—from 40%
to 100%-- “something active in every class.” Mary Katherine Wainwright—from 50% to 75%-- “more conscious of the opportunities to involve students now.” Dale Melton—(year 3 faculty)—Always did active learning, but has large classes (50-55 students). Went from 20% to a “significant increase.” Nancy Johnson—from 10-20% before FIPSE to 50% now. Felix Rizk—from 15% active learning to 60% as a result of the FIPSE program. Susan Brown—from 0% before to 50-60% now. Jane Jones—in ENC 1101 from 70% to 80% use of active learning, and in Humanities class, went from 30% to 40-50%. Angela Rapkin—from 35% active learning to 60% To summarize, the FIPSE grant program was a huge success. At the time of this writing, the acronym, as a word, “FIPSE” has become part of the college vocabulary, meaning eight cores skills reinforced across the curriculum to prepare our students for the 21st century workforce. The word is used in a variety of forms, for example, as a verb, “to FIPSE-ize” a course or assignment, which means, to infuse 21st century skills into that course or assignment. Further, a “FIPSE” presence is apparent on all campuses not only through posters and other printed material, but through specific curriculum, active learning strategies, and specific workshops conducted by the team and by additional faculty attached to the team through programs sponsored by the grant. Among the recommendations we would make from lessons learned, are the following: (1.) Adhere to the original grant program. Although we made at least one significant change to our program, during the three years, we read and re-read our original document, the calendar, and the budget in order to be sure we were fulfilling our promise to FIPSE and all of our goals. (2.) Attend the project director’s meeting held yearly by FIPSE. We attended two of the three, missing the one which took place two months after 9/11/2001. These meetings were tremendously valuable. (3.) Use co-directors instead of one project director. (4.) Work closely with people in charge of different
departments dealing with money. (5.) Use your advisory committee or favorite administrators
or experienced friends for guidance or just as a sounding board consistently
throughout the grant period. (6.) Communicate regularly with your project officer in
Washington, D.C., having him/her visit your college, if possible, during the
grant period. (7.) Become very familiar with EDGAR. (8.) Become very familiar with all of the resources offered
by the FIPSE web site. (9.) Publicize the program regularly within the college,
gaining and keeping friends of the program who will lend support when needed. (10.) Disseminate.
Even though ours was not a dissemination grant, as stated above, we took
the instructions to publicize and disseminate seriously, and so we fulfilled
our commitment to this goal. The
benefits came back to us, and to the college, in many different ways. We expect this to be on-going. For example, this report is due on April 1,
2004, and in June, 2004, the project director will address the Council on
Instructional Affairs in the State of Florida.
This council consists of the academic administrators at the State’s
community colleges. Why things turned out
the way they did: l. We believed in the mission of the project, and the more we
studied, the more we believed. Our
enthusiasm was contagious. Further, our
administration believed in our mission, and when our president spoke and still
speaks in the community, as she so often does, she is happy to tell her
audience about the FIPSE focus. And her
audience loves to hear it because everyone wants a literate workforce; everyone
wants workers who can compute and think for themselves. 2. We received incredible institutional support. The idea of having a FIPSE grant was so
exciting and such a morale booster that everyone was interested in what we were
doing, and in what ideas had gotten the grant.
A big program can’t be successful without complete institutional
support. 3. We received incredible community support. The project director was the right person
for the job. She was a former dean of
academic affairs, had taught on both campuses, loved working with faculty, and
had vast experience as a popular speaker in the community. In addition, she had run her husband’s
campaign for political office, so she knew many people in the college’s service
area and was able to use that while arranging focus groups and interviews. This was an advantage because support and
participation from the community was critical to the success of the program. 4. Manatee Community College is loved by the community it
serves. That has been set in place by
the college administrators who work (and have always worked) very hard to stay
connected at a significant level: the community feels a part of the organization. Members serve on advisory boards and
participate in fund-raising activities.
When we went to the community, we used our personal contacts and the
friendships made by the college administration. Nobody ever said “no” to us.
This amazing response helped us to create meaningful focus groups which
informed, taught, and motivated the faculty team. 5. We picked the right people to work on the grant. These were our best, most educated, most talented faculty, and they were the stars.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
