Progress Report: SNU Arts and Culture Learning Community

We completed the first semester of the first iteration of the SNU Arts and Culture Learning Community project.  In this project we took in 40 students most of whom had a strong interest in the arts.  We created a faculty team with expertise in composition, oral communication, computer applications, fine arts and literature and created a curriculum for the students that fulfilled General Education requirements in composition, speech, computing, and either fine arts or literature.  The faculty taught as a team in a pair of strongly integrated courses Rhetoric I and Aesthetics.  These two courses will be followed in the spring by Rhetoric II and Christian Faith and Life.  Students and faculty attended co-curricular enrichment experiences related to the arts together.  In the Spring they will work with students at a local economically challenged elementary school, Millwood Elementary, helping students paint a mural at their school.

The faculty did a great job constructing the curriculum focused intently on student success.  We chose to measure student academic success against respective university-wide general education learning outcomes, retention and student connectedness.  At the end of the first semester we retained 80% of students to the Learning Community and 90% to the university.  Students reported developing close friendships that transcended the class experience.  Faculty reported that end of semester work in the Aesthetics course, though students were still at the mid-point of progress toward the first major outcome communication measurement, was “as good as any end of semester paper in Intro to Lit (a sophomore level course)”.

The overall project was a pilot designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of integrating curricular and co-curricular activities.  Early successes reported by faculty led to inclusion of an item in the university strategic plan indicating a desire to support the expansion of the project beyond a pilot.

Additionally, I observed the following:

The faculty involved in the ACLC have developed into a passionate team.  They’ve embraced their role as guides leading new students into our larger Christ-centered community of scholars.  For the participating students, growing together into this community during their freshman year led by passionate full-time faculty who work together as an integrated team for the good of the community and supporting one another in that endeavor is as good as it gets anywhere.  This is the kind of thing we can do better than anyone else, if we just will.  This is the kind of thing that emerges from our core values and the identity that we share inside our community and with our constituents.  It’s very different from the typical freshman experience in many places where the odds favor of having 3 or more of 5 courses in the first semester taught by contingent faculty or TAs.  That happens too often, even here, due to chronic understaffing in areas that guide students in learning composition, speech, computing, general mathematical, social science, history and the general education religion/philosophy area. Again, we are not unique in struggling to meet those kinds of challenges.  Yet, students in our LC project groups (thematic and Honors) are getting the best we have to offer; we are meeting their expectations; they are learning and staying. We also feel that we are providing the kind of educational experience that our students’ parents expect us to provide their children.  That’s what they believe they are paying for.  Being a part of bringing together these people around these values has made life great as we work together in this great cause.

These faculty have created in me confidence that we can reproduce something similar to that with another team of existing GE faculty.

Adding additional LCs does increase administrative burden. The participating faculty meet every week together for about 2 hours outside of class to ensure that they are providing the best educational experience. That’s extra work; they’ve done it because they believe in the value of what they are doing in the LC. They don’t get paid extra for that or load released. That needs to be addressed. Their willingness to do it arises out of their passion and their commitment. That’s a cost of doing things to the level of quality that we intend to deliver. We sure are fortunate to have these folks.

That said, we need additional assets, envisioned as elements of load contributed by faculty already in the institution, to recruit new students into the next year’s program at the very time when our LC faculty are pouring themselves into transforming this year’s students, to manage evaluation and feedback of curricular and co-curricular activities to ensure that we are always making today’s best better tomorrow, and to actively recruit and incorporate additional faculty into the program, both for the additional LCs and to short circuit burnout and stagnation.   These additional assets are necessary to ensure that we can do two LCs well.  I believe that after we get our feet on the ground, those same assets can utilize their skills to support more than two LCs.  I’m thinking maybe four, but that’s still not clear.

I’m looking forward to gathering an analyzing additional data at the end of this semester comparing the academic success of LC students and that of other freshman students.

Tribal Leadership in Education

Faculty members make up a tribe.  Students make up a tribe.  It may be that the students and faculty in a course make up a tribe.  If you want to know how to make a tribe really work, then it is imperative that you read David Logan, John King, and Hallee Fischer-Wright’s Tribal Leadership.  In brief, the authors say this:

There are five types of tribes that identify themselves by the way they talk about their place in the world, which in turn indicates the way they interact with their world. According to Logan, King, and Fischer-Wright, these tribes are in fact people who live in a worldview that can be upgraded one step at a time toward the goal of a self-actualized community.  They categorize the tribal stages as follows:

  1. Stage 1 tribes believe and say things like “Life sucks.”  People in such tribes are often raging individuals who don’t think resorting to violence to get what they want is a problem.
  2. Stage 2 tribes believe that the world is made up of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”  Members of stage 2 tribes believe that they are among the have-nots and that their life “sucks” but they see all sorts of people around them whose lives don’t.  If you ask them why their life sucks, they claim to be victims of the oppression impressed upon them by the “haves.”
  3. Stage 3 tribes believe and say things like “I’m Great! (and you’re not).”  Members of stage 3 tribes are individuals on the make.  They are working hard to demonstrate to themselves and others that they are competent, in fact they want to be the most competent person in their line of work.  It seems amazing that such folks can live in proximity to one another, but stage 3 tribal members are willing to get along with other stage 3 folks as long as the other has a different (even if subtle) area of expertise.
  4. Stage 4 tribes are made of people who build teams that claim “We are Great! (and they are not).”  Stage 4 tribal members have networks of communication that rely on groups of 3 (triads).  Groups that work in this state are about 30% more productive than Stage 3 tribes.
  5. Stage 5 tribes, the rare few, live in a magical world in which members claim that “Life is Great!” and don’t see others groups as competitors.  They are out to change the world as we know it for the better.

How does this apply to education.  First, listen to your students.  What do they say?  I taught a group of students who had failed their college orientation class (go figure!).  I was stunned by the way they talked about themselves in context of the academic universe.  For the most part they existed in a Stage 2 tribe.  They weren’t succeeding, but it wasn’t their fault…that prof, that staff member, that….  A few of them were willing to make the cultural shift to Stage 3, but most were not…they were on their way out the door.  The only thing holding them to the university was their connection to the athletic program.  Maybe they were a Stage 3 athelete…I don’t know.

Many of my students are at Stage 3.  They are competent students.  They know how to learn, at least learn enough to get the grade they want without too much stress.  Set the bar, show it to them, and they’ll figure out how to jump over it.  Some of them are even highly competitive.  They get their self-esteem from being able to say, “I’m great,” and, while looking around the room, muttering under their breath, “(and your not).”  Faculty, and I’ve been one of them, figure out that some students can be highly motivated by messing with their “I’m great” self-image.  Grade them down a little and they get stressed and work harder.  Notice here the subtle claim by the faculty member…”I’m great, dear student, and, well, your not.”  According the Logan, King and Fischer-Wright, Stage 3 tribal members exist in a symbiotic relationship with Stage 2 tribal members.  In traditional education, the Sage-on-Stage needs those adoring and over-awed students who fawn after him or her…and the teacher’s pet needs the dumb kids.

According to the authors of Tribal Leadership, a few pockets in academia are conducive to Stage 4 tribal development, particularly scientific research groups.  For them, the problems are too big for any one person to solve them, so a team of three or more is necessary to get the job done.  This becomes the basis for the potential development of Stage 4 tribes.  Of course, low on the totem pole grad students in a research group answer to Stage 3 senior grad students, who are themselves caught in between 3 and 4 as they relate to the god-like PI.

Stage 5…Life is Great. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen such a thing in education…maybe Jesus on the cross…maybe Paul’s “to live is Christ to die is gain”… I don’t know.  But those aren’t really examples from education, are they?

The goal of 21st century skills proponents, though they might not know it, is to help students achieve Stage 4 tribal status.  According to Tribal Leadership, that’s not going to be possible until those students not only pass through, but own and discover the inadequacy of stages 2 and 3 tribes. Finding ways to get students from Stage 2 to Stage 3 is imperative to getting them to Stage 4. Is that a too linear way of thinking?  I don’t know.

I think it might be interesting to explore how upgrading tribal cultures among both faculty and students might be the real goal of 21st century education.

More on this later….

Upgrading Educational Culture: Rhee Plans Shake-Up of Teaching Staff, Training – washingtonpost.com

Michelle Rhee highlights a good practice for achieving educational excellence: train teachers to teach.  She’s proposing to do this by 1) providing new teachers with a competent mentor whose task is to help the new teacher become competent, 2) only retaining teachers who demonstrate that in fact they can teach effectively, 3) making decisions based on evidence of results, and 4) supporting teachers with further training that helps them use best practices based on good research to guide teaching practice.

Here are some excerpts from the story in the Washington Post.

“[District of Columbia Education Chancelor Michelle] Rhee plans to move the District away from the regimen of courses and workshops that have defined continuing education for teachers. Borrowing from best practices in surrounding suburban districts, she is building a system of school-based mentors and coaches to help instructors raise the quality of their work. She also wants to import a nationally prominent Massachusetts consulting firm with a reputation for improving teachers’ skills.

“But budget uncertainties, labor tensions and the timetable for the program’s rollout have sparked questions from teachers’ advocates about its effectiveness. At the same time, Rhee has dropped the school system’s direct support for instructors seeking certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, a rigorous one- to three-year teacher development program, citing a lack of evidence that the training improves student achievement.

“Rhee’s five-year plan flatly stated: “There is no comprehensive professional development program for teachers.”

“George Parker, president of the teachers union, said this is especially true for first-year teachers, who sometimes struggle. “Great teachers don’t come into the system pretty much as great teachers,” he said. “They are developed. It’s going to take a teacher around three years to hit a stride.”

“Under Montgomery [County]’s program, operated jointly by the school system and the teachers union, novice instructors are paired with master teachers who visit them in the classroom regularly and monitor their progress. Within the first five years on the job, most enroll in The Skillful Teacher, a program of six day-long sessions devised by Jon Saphier of the Massachusetts-based Research for Better Teaching program.

“Saphier said the program fosters teachers’ belief in their power to lift student achievement despite conditions outside school.

via Rhee Plans Shake-Up of Teaching Staff, Training – washingtonpost.com.

It looks like the Montgomery County school system, and under Rhee maybe D.C.,  is upgrading its tribal culture, as per the model articulated by David Logan, John King and Halee Fischer-Wright in Tribal Leadership (henceforth TL).  whether they know it or not.   To become successful, new teachers, who in their gut feel overwhelmed and incompetent, need to develop the skills necessary to be a competent classroom teacher in a hurry. They learned about some of those habits and practices in college, but they didn’t really learn them, because the were taught them in a largely de-contextualized environment.  Pairing the new teacher with a master teacher helps upgrade them from stage 2 (my life sucks)  to stage 3 (I’m Great) on the TL scale.  The Master Teachers, if they are forming teams to promote system-wide best practices that get results, then these competent teachers are upgrading to TL stage 4 (We Are Great).

I wonder if upgrading the culture of the teachers translates into upgrading the culture of students.  The last sentence about Jon Saphier seems to suggest that maybe it does.  That goes to the expectation of nation-wide education reform…except in unique situations, only competent teachers can help make competent students.

With the emphasis on 21st century skills (teamwork, critical thinking, communication, etc), it will take this kind of teamwork to model for teachers what they want their students to be doing in class.