Efficacy of Learning Communities at Four North Texas Community Colleges

Patricia M. Dodd

Adjunct Faculty, Collin County Community College, Texas

Jeff M. Allen

Associate Professor, University of North Texas

Nanette Philibert

Teaching Fellow, University of North Texas

Russell Elleven

Assistant Professor, University of North Texas

Mitzi Lewis

Assistant Director of Institutional Research and Planning at Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, Texas

Abstract

This observational study involving intact groups and convenient sampling examined learning communities at four North Texas Community Colleges. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a significant difference in cathectic learning climate, inimical ambiance, academic rigor, affiliation and structure among students in learning communities and freestanding classes. Learning communities are gaining nationwide popularity as instruments of reform in higher education. Recent studies have discussed the benefits of learning communities to student, faculty and institutions. The independent variable was learning community compared to freestanding classes. Follow-up independent t-tests were also conducted to evaluate the differences in the means between the two groups and to explore which dependent variables contributed to the multivariate difference, which resulted in significant differences in inimical ambiance, affiliation and structure. The researchers conclude that learning communities make a difference for some learners, but not necessarily all, and that more research needs to be conducted to find the answers to the questions concerning the efficacy and sustainability of learning communities in higher education.

Introduction

The higher education community continuously stresses the need for academic and curricular reform and increased student retention and achievement (e.g., Eaton, 1991; Griffith & Connor, 1994; MacGregor, Tinto, & Lindblad, 2000; Tussman, 1997). In 1984, The National Institute of Education urged all institutions of higher learning to “create learning communities organized around specific intellectual themes or tasks” (as cited in Gabelnick et al., 1990, p. 5). An increasing number of community college campuses have responded to the need for reform by establishing learning communities in a variety of curricular structures (e.g., Eby, 2001; Gabelinick, MacGregor, Matthews, & Smith,1990; Gamson, 2000; Goodsell-Love, Russo, & Tinto, 1994; Goodsell-Love & Tinto, 1994; Smith, 2001).

The National Learning Communities Dissemination Project, the most comprehensive research conducted on learning communities to this date, was established to promote the development and implementation of learning communities in institutions of higher education throughout the United States. The project lasted from 1996 to 1999 and involved 21 institutions at 30 different campuses across the United States (MacGregor, 1999). The results of the study, with the exception of those from one college, indicated that student achievement was higher among students who participated in the learning communities as compared to those in freestanding classes; the students who participated in the project also expressed satisfaction with the positive learning climate and intellectual challenges that this type of unique classroom setting provides (Minkler, 2000).

The definition of a learning community is broad, ranging from a way of linking students and faculty through the Internet to linking people from different countries. This study, which examines learning communities at the community college level, defines a learning community as

The demographics of higher education is changing from the traditional, full-time student, who enters college after high school, lives on campus, and participates in a variety of communal campus activities to rising numbers of non-traditional, commuter students (Levine, 1998). In response to the needs of this diverse student population, learning communities offer a proverbial “breath of fresh air” to stale college environments that have not seemed to keep up with such tremendous change in student body composition. With the collective efforts of students, faculty, and administrative support, learning communities can provide revitalization of the learning process, providing new grounds for discussion and promoting “deeper learning” (MacGregor et al., 2000, p. 43).

Learning communities accommodate the changing nature of students, provide a sense of community and offer innovative approaches to teaching and learning, particularly collaborative learning. They also promote deeper intellectual interaction by creating a deeper sense of connection between subject matter and ideas and by aiming at higher levels of student engagement (MacGregor et al., 2000).

Changing demographics are paralleled by a transformation in the way colleges view the teaching and learning process, moving away from a sense of competition to a sense of community (e.g., Brown, 2001; Gabelnick et al., 1990; Shapiro & Levine, 1999). In response, faculty are discovering and applying new teaching methodologies to bring students and faculty closer together to achieve greater learning outcomes and build a community of learners. This “rediscovering” of learning has been called cooperative learning by some, and collaborative learning by others (Bruffee, 1995). As reported by Phipps, Phipps, Kask and Higgins (2001), the results of hundreds of studies “indicate that cooperative learning will promote higher achievement, more positive interpersonal relationships, and higher self-esteem than will competitive or individualistic efforts” (p. 14). Research also indicates that effective cooperative learning can increase critical thinking, achievement, retention, and interpersonal relationships among students and faculty, thus promoting a more positive attitude toward learning and improving overall psychological health (Phipps et al., 2001; Tinto, 1993; Weimer, 1994). When combined with effective curricular structures, cooperative and collaborative learning strategies can be a powerful force in the classroom (e.g., Finkel, 2000; Gabelnick et al., 1990; MacGregor et al., 2000; Palmer, 1999; Shapiro & Levine, 1999).

A sense of affiliation and belonging is one of the most critical conditions that can be created in the classroom (e.g., Astin, 1993; Finkel, 2000; MacGregor, Cooper, Smith, & Robinson, 2000; Palmer, 1999; Shepard, 1996; Stevens, 1998; Tinto, 1993). Research indicates that students feel more comfortable interacting in a learning community and more supported by their peers than in freestanding classrooms (Gabelnick et al., 1990; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Tinto, Goodsell-Love, & Russo, 1993). Students in learning communities have "reported greater involvement in a range of academic and social activities and greater developmental gains over the course of a year than students learning in the regular curriculum" (Tinto et al., 1993, p. 27).

Like students, instructors also report a greater sense of affiliation in a more collaborative and less rigidly structured classroom environment (MacGregor et al., 2000). Learning community instructors have reported that students engage in deeper learning when they feel free to explore and express ideas more openly (e.g., MacGregor et al., 2000; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, 2001; Smith & Hunter, 1988). In addition to structuring the learning environment and posing problems for examination, the instructor becomes a facilitator or coach, as opposed to a “sage on stage,” one who strictly adheres to the traditional lecture format (MacGregor et al., 2000).

Along with promoting a sense of affiliation, learning communities encourage active engagement in learning and are rooted in the fundamental goal of fostering intellectual development through critical thinking and analysis, both on individual and group levels (Gabelnick et al., 1990). In an effort to measure whether learning communities make a difference in students’ intellectual and social development, researchers have asked how participation, collaboration, and more integrated ways of learning have affected student learning (Shapiro & Levine, 1999). MacGregor (1987) used the Measure for Intellectual Development (MID), developed by Knefelkamp and Widick, to assess student placement along the Perry Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development. This study revealed that students often chose learning communities over freestanding classes because they sought challenging, collaborative environments that promoted the building of curricular connections and found that 57 to 73 % of learning community students advanced a third or more in their intellectual development (MacGregor, 1987). Despite the promising results, this study raised some questions concerning the potential bias of essay questions used and the problem of self-selection of students into learning community classes (MacGregor, 1987).

Research further indicates that challenging students in rigorous environments, such as learning communities, promotes “deeper learning,” and increases the level of student achievement (e.g., Chesebro et al., 1999; MacGregor et al., 2000; Matthews, 1986; Tinto & Russo). In a review of the Washington Center's compilation of 70 assessment studies of learning communities, MacGregor, Tinto, & Lindblad (2000) reported, "Learning community students generally fare better academically, socially and personally than those in comparison groups," especially average and at-risk students (p. 43). In a longitudinal study conducted by Tinto and Russo (1993b), students in learning community classes achieved more academic success than those enrolled in freestanding classes.

As community colleges are considering implementing more learning community programs into their curricula, ranging from the simple structure of team-taught courses to more complex models, it is increasingly important to examine how they affect student learning. Literature has cited the need for evaluation studies to determine the extent to which learning communities independently enhance student learning and to learn how this is done (Tinto, Goodsell-Love, & Russo, 1993). Additionally, researchers have stressed the need for more learning community assessments and have recognized the paucity of existing data (e.g., Borden & Rooney, 1998; Gabelnick et al., 1990; MacGregor et al., 2000; Moore & Kerlin, 1994; Mullen, 2001; Scholnick, 1996; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, 2001).

This study sought to determine if there was a significant difference in the cathectic learning climate, inimical ambiance, academic rigor, affiliation and structure (defined by Winston, Vahala, Nichols, Gillis, Wintrow, and Rome (1994)) among students in both learning communities and in freestanding classes as measured by the College Classroom Environment Scales (CCES). The students varied in prior knowledge, skills, and attitudes and in their experience with collaborative learning. They also varied in level of education, life experience, motivation, and socioeconomic status. Similarly, the instructors varied in their level of experience in team-teaching and their training to teach learning communities. The amount of administrative support involved in this study also varied between the districts, as did the actual campuses themselves in terms of students, instructors, and overall campus climate. The number of students enrolled in the learning community and freestanding classes was not equal. Neither entry-level skills, such as high school grade point averages, nor factors contributing to a student dropping a course were examined. The study was delimited to intact groups, comprised of students enrolled in learning communities and freestanding classes.

Methodology

Two community college districts participated in the study. The Collin County Community College District (CCCCD) has a district-wide enrollment of 12,704 students with 48.5% male and 51.5% female. Approximately 60% of the students attend classes part-time. The student population of the Dallas County Community College District (DCCCD) is over four times the student population of the CCCCD, with a district-wide enrollment of 54,346, 56.8% female and 43.2% male. Richland College (RLC) (part of the DCCCD) had 13,337 students, a larger population than the total number of students in the entire CCCCD in the same year.

The average age of participants on all four campuses ranged between 20-25 years old, which is slightly below the district averages of 26 in the CCCCD and 28 in the DCCCD. The ethnicity of students also varied between the districts (see Table 1).

The sample was taken from students at four community college campuses within the CCCCD and DCCCD. The total number of students who were surveyed was 393 students; 127 of the students surveyed participated in learning communities (LC) and 266 in freestanding classes (FC).

Instrumentation

The College Classroom Environment Scales (CCES) was designed by Winston et al. (1989) to assess the social climate of college classrooms. The CCES consists of 62 Likert scale items on a self-report questionnaire. The item responses were arranged as follows: A = Never or almost never true; B = Seldom true; C = Occasionally true; D = Often true; E = Always or almost always true. The CCES is composed of the following six scales, which can be used independently: Cathectic Learning Climate (CLC), Professorial Concern (PC), Inimical Ambiance (IA), Academic Rigor (AR), Affiliation (AF), and Structure (ST).

Although the survey was administered in its entirety, and data was collected on all six scales, Professorial Concern (PC), consisting of 12 items, was not examined as it was beyond the scope of this study.

Reliability of the CCES was examined before it was chosen for this study by using Cronbach’s alpha to estimate the internal consistency of the scales and test-retest methods to estimate their consistency over time. Winston et al. (1994) calculated coefficient alphas using data from three studies, which are averaged as follows: Cathectic Learning Climate (.91), Inimical Ambiance (.73), Academic Rigor (.74), Affiliation (.73), and Structure (.77). According to Winston et al., the internal consistency of the scales seems to be stable, and the reliability coefficients make it “a sufficiently reliable and valid self-report of students’ perceptions of the classroom social environment for use with groups of students” (p. 17). The reliability of the CCES in this study yielded the following reliability coefficients: Cathectic Learning Climate (.85), Inimical Ambiance (.71), Academic Rigor (.70), Affiliation (.78), and Structure (.78).

Data Collection Procedures

Faculty administered the CCES during the last week of classes to the experimental groups enrolled in learning communities and the control groups enrolled in freestanding classes.

Data Analysis Procedures

This research design is an observational study involving intact groups and convenient sampling. The independent variables in this study were cathectic learning climate, inimical ambiance, academic rigor, affiliation, and structure. The dependent variables were learning community and freestanding classes. Both groups were administered the CCES, an instrument developed by Winston et al. (1989) to measure classroom environment using six scales. The data were analyzed using SPSS 10.1 to test the null hypotheses.

Findings

A multivariate analysis of variance (Hotelling’s ) was performed on five dependent variables: cathectic learning climate (CLC), inimical ambiance (IA), academic rigor (AR), affiliation (AF), and structure (ST). The independent variable was learning community compared to freestanding classes (group). Multivariate analysis was also performed to control for Type I error rate. Using Pillai’s trace, the combined dependent variables were significantly affected by group: F = 12.26, df = 5,387, p < .0001. The effect size, overall, was medium (eta squared = .14), given that academic rigor and cathectic learning have nonsignificant univariate mean differences. Follow-up independent groups t=tests were conducted to evaluate the differences in the means between the two groups and to explore which dependent variables contributed to the multivariate difference (see Table 2).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Discussion of Findings

The results of the study yielded significant differences in inimical ambiance, affiliation, and structure. The hypotheses are discussed as follows:

H1: There is no significant difference in cathectic learning scores, as measured by the CCES, among students in learning communities and students in freestanding classes.

Although the literature (e.g., MacGregor et al., 2000; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, 2001; Smith & Hunter, 1988) indicates that learning communities provide a more stimulating atmosphere for learning than freestanding classes, the results of this study did not indicate a significant difference with LC (M = 3.58) and FR (M = 3.52) and (p = .319).

These findings may be explained by the limitations of this study. The sample size was relatively small, because the study was limited to students enrolled in learning communities and freestanding classes at Central Park Campus, Preston Ridge Campus and Spring Creek Campus of Collin County Community College District (CCCCD), and Richland College (RLC), the largest campus of the Dallas County Community College District (DCCCD). Perhaps the findings in cathectic learning climate would have been more significant if more learning community students were surveyed on other campuses, which would increase sample sizes and improve the ability to generalize the findings.

The students surveyed also varied in prior knowledge, skills, and attitudes and in their experience with collaborative learning. They also varied in level of education, life experience, motivation, and socioeconomic status. An examination of the students’ backgrounds may provide valuable insights into learning styles and types of classroom environments that stimulate them. Similarly, the instructors varied in their level of experience in team-teaching and their training to teach learning communities. Oates and O’ Connor (2001) explained that teaching learning communities emphasizes knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are not necessarily required in the traditional classroom, and “the training for and experience of a learning community can have a powerful impact on how a faculty member teaches any class” (p. 9).

Smith (2001) stressed the need for faculty development and the need to examine student learning more closely, emphasizing the need to find “better ways to put what we know about student learning into our learning community designs” (p. 7). Smith (2001) also warned that

As indicated in the literature (e.g., Gabelnick et al., 1990; MacGregor, 1987; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, 2001), measuring learning is no easy task. Thus, a survey instrument alone may not capture the complex levels of learning that take place in a classroom (i.e., Smith, 2001). Researchers such as Smith (2001) and MacGregor (1987) have suggested using qualitative measures to capture multidimensional learning.

H2: There is no significant difference in inimical ambiance, as measured by the CCES, among students in learning communities and students in freestanding classes.

The results of this study indicated a significant difference between LC (M = 2.20) and FR (M = 1.98) with (p = .002). In contrast to the literature, which suggests that learning communities promote a less competitive and a more positive learning environment (e.g., Gabelnick et al., 1990; Shapiro & Levine, 1999), the results of this study indicate the opposite.

The lack of significant difference in inimical ambiance may be due to the way the statistics were examined. When examined in subgroup comparisons, which controlled for instructor variation, the results more closely matched the literature. Thus, instructor variation may be the key factor in this finding. Some instructors may have more experience teaching learning communities than other instructors. As indicated in the literature (e.g., Gabelnick et al., 1990; Minkler, 2000; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, 2001), more studies need to be conducted to examine instructor differences.

It was interesting, however, to note the differences in instructors’ attitudes toward this study. Some instructors were more enthusiastic and receptive to assessing their classes than others. One instructor seemed particularly concerned about having her classes surveyed and critically questioned the nature of the study. After the researchers answered the instructor’s questions via e-mail and a personal conversation, she reluctantly administered the survey to her classes. After examining class comparisons on an individual basis, the researchers noticed that students in both of the instructors’ classes perceived a more hostile environment compared to others. The researchers also questioned whether this instructor was prepared to teach a learning community.

An additional interesting observation was that another instructor decided not to administer the survey to his students after the researchers had given him the surveys, claiming that he did not like the questions. A few students in this instructor’s class related that he did not have a positive classroom environment. Based on the instructor’s negative comments and the reactions of a few of his students, the researchers concluded that this instructor also may have had a more hostile and rigid classroom environment; thus, he may have anticipated the negative student responses on the survey.

After contacting and working with numerous instructors, the researchers’ personal observations were congruent with the literature, which posits that learning community instructors tend to promote an open atmosphere that is conducive to sharing ideas and building a sense of community. However, the instructors who did not reflect a positive attitude toward teaching, learning, and assessment may have been the reason that the findings for inimical ambiance contradicted the literature.

H3: There is no significant difference in academic rigor, as measured by the CCES, among students in learning communities and students in freestanding classes.

This study indicated no statistically significant difference between LC (M = 3.76) and FR (M = 3.67) with (p = .151). However, these results are not consistent with the literature, which indicates that learning communities promote active learning in which the students are intellectually challenged and encouraged to make connections in their learning (e.g., MacGregor, 1987, 1990, 1991; Shapiro & Levine, 1999), which Smith (2001) called “deeper learning” (p. 2).

The lack of significant findings on this variable may also be attributed to the limitations of this study. One of the main limitations of this study was instructor variance. Some instructors had more experience in teaching learning communities than others, and some instructors tended to challenge students and require a higher level of work than others. Academic rigor may also vary according to subject pairings. For example, a course pairing of physical education and psychology may be perceived by the students as less rigorous than an English and history pairing. The difference between LC and FR on this scale may have also been more significant with a larger sample size, especially considering the borderline results.

H4: There is no significant difference in affiliation, as measured by the CCES, among students in learning communities and students in freestanding classes.

The results of this study revealed a statistically significant difference between LC (M = 3.79) and FR (M = 3.59) with (p = .013), which indicates that learning communities students perceive a greater sense of affiliation than freestanding students in their classrooms. These results reflect the literature, which asserts that learning communities encourage students to foster relationships with each other as well as with their instructors (e.g., Gabelnick et al., 1990; MacGregor, 1991; Masterson, 1998; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Tinto et al., 1994). The literature also suggests that in this social context, learning communities provide rich experiences that foster critical thinking and achievement as well as affective dimensions, such as sense of community, self-efficacy, and learner empowerment (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1991; MacGregor et al., 2000).

H5: There is no significant difference in structure, as measured by the CCES, among students in learning communities and students in freestanding classes.

This scale showed a significant statistical difference between means (LC= 3.74, FR= 4.06) with (p = .000). As indicated by the literature (e.g., Gabelnick et al., 1990; Shapiro & Levine, 1999), learning communities seem to have a less rigid structure than freestanding classes, and students tend to favor this type of classroom environment. Their flexible structure enables instructors to choose how “to make meaning of the material” and make connections among disciplines (Gabelnick et al., 1990, p. 55).

Implications for Learning Communities

After examining the results of this study and the related literature, it is becoming increasingly clear that the level of learning community involvement and institutional support varies (e.g., Gabelnick et al., 1990; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, 2001). For learning communities to prosper and make a difference to students, faculty, and the overall institution, everyone needs to be involved; colleges also need to become more connected (e.g., Gabelnick et al., 1990; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, 2001; Smith & Hunter, 1988).

Change is sometimes difficult. As with any new movement, learning communities face some challenges in the future (Smith, 2001). In the words of Shapiro and Levine (1999), “There is nothing easy about changing campus culture. It has been described, variously, as akin to turning a battleship or, less reverently, herding cats” (p. 196). Smith (2001) outlined the challenges of sustaining learning communities in student learning and faculty development, diversity, institutional change, and purpose. In turn, these difficult challenges provide a framework for exploring future studies.

1. How are learning communities assessed? Institutions often base their decisions on quantitative, or “hard” data, and there is a need for more reliable survey instruments. Matthews (personal communication, April 5, 2002) discussed the need for developing new instruments, admitting, “the state of learning community assessment is not so good; we are still in our infancy about assessment.” In order to conduct this necessary research, statistically reliable and valid instruments need to be developed and piloted to measure learning communities on a variety of levels, including the hypotheses in this study. Although the Measure for Intellectual Development (MID) has been used to measure intellectual development in learning communities (i.e., Avens & Zelley, 1992; MacGregor, 1987), it is a relatively expensive and time-consuming tool, which requires outside graders. More newly developed instruments, such as the pre and post-test instruments developed by Chesebro et al. (1999), may be utilized in future research endeavors.
2. Who needs to be involved in assessment? A critical component of increasing institutional commitment to sustaining learning communities is also a need for assessment with larger sample sizes than this study. The data suffered due to several constraints, including lack of communication and distances between campuses, lack of student, faculty, and in some cases, institutional support. More support and cooperation by the participants, as well as including more colleges that offer learning communities, would have increased the sample size for this study, which probably would have yielded more significant findings. Thus, one suggestion is to involve more campuses in assessment and try to involve stakeholders as early as possible.
3. 3. Is there a difference in learning outcomes among students in learning communities and freestanding classes? In order to answer this question, entry-level skills need to be examined. One of the unanswered questions in this study was whether students who enroll in learning communities have the same entry-level skills as students who enroll in freestanding classes. One method of tracking entry-level skills may be to compare high school grade point averages among learning community and freestanding students. However, because colleges are becoming increasingly diverse, and the enrollments of international students is increasing (DCCCD, 2001), it may be necessary to compare scores on standardized tests, such as the TASP administered in Texas, to compare entry level skills between the two groups.
4. 4. How do students with different backgrounds (age, gender, socioeconomic status, and cultural backgrounds) experience learning communities? As evident in the literature, college campuses are becoming increasingly diverse, and institutions need to examine the impact of their programs on students hailing from different backgrounds (Griffith & Connor, 1994). Women are attending college more than ever, comprising over half of the student population (Griffith & Connor, 1994). Gabelnick et al. (1990) also discuss the appeal of learning communities to women, suggesting that women are especially attracted to “connected knowing” (p. 79). Thus, there is an increasing need to determine how programs, such as learning communities, impact diverse learners.
5. 5. How do students with different needs, such as international and developmental students, experience learning communities? In response to the growing numbers of international students and the need for student remediation, an increasing number of colleges, such as Richland College, have established learning communities for teaching English as a Second Language (ESOL) and for developmental studies (e.g., Gabelnick et al., 1990; Koolsbergen, 2001; Shapiro & Levine, 1999). Because these types of learning communities are relatively new, they provide a multitude of opportunities for future study.
6. 6. What type of instructor teaches in a learning community? How do we train instructors to teach learning communities? Perhaps the most critical area for future research concerns instructor training, motivation, and incentives for teaching learning communities (e.g., Gabelnick et al., 1990; Oates & O’Connor, 2001; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, 2001). Teaching a learning community requires knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are not necessarily utilized in the traditional classroom setting, such as integrating a variety of subjects and utilizing collaborative strategies (Oates & O’ Connor, 2001). Integrating teaching and learning also requires extra time and effort, and effective faculty collaboration and planning is essential for success (e.g., Gabelnick et al., 1990; Oates & O’ Connor, 2001; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, 2001). The question is whether instructors need more professional development to teach learning communities more effectively and to what extent they need it. Other points to consider include instructor pairings as well as motivations for those who elect to teach learning communities and how teaching these classes relates to their overall job satisfaction.
7. 7. How do faculty experience learning communities? Much of the learning community research has focused on student experiences, but there is a need to examine the instructors’ experiences (e.g., Gabelnick et al., 1990; Oates & O’Connor, 2001; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, 2001). Although instructors report an increase in satisfaction for teaching and a renewed sense of purpose, more in-depth research is needed to determine to what extent teaching in a learning community has influenced their personal and professional development (e.g., Gabelnick et al,1990; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, 2001). Additional research may answer some of these questions and provide researchers with more clearly defined methods and strategies to assess the impact and effectiveness of learning communities on students, faculty, and institutions of higher education. This study has shed some light in this area. Learning communities seem to make a difference, but the question remains: Can they be sustained?

Summary

Learning communities are gaining interest in higher education (Gabelnick et al., 1990; J. H. Levine & Tompkins, 1996; MacGregor et al., 2000; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, 2001). Although learning communities show some promising results on a variety of levels, more research needs to be conducted to determine if they really do make a difference in student learning and provide a sense of community to an increasingly diverse and nontraditional student body. In examining the literature and the results of this study, learning communities may be the answer for some students, but not for all.

References

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Avens, C., & Zelley, R. (1992). QUANTA: An interdisciplinary learning community (four studies). Daytona Beach, FL: Daytona Beach Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 349073)

Borden, V., & Rooney, P. M. (1998). Evaluating and assessing learning communities. Metropolitan Universities, 9(1), 73-88.

Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: HarperCollins.

Brown, L. (2001). The challenge of learning communities as a national movement. Peer Review, 3(4), 32-34. Washington, DC: AAC&U.

Bruffee, K. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bruffee, K. (1995, January/February). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning. Change, 12-18. Washington, DC: AAHE.

Chesebro, J. W., Green, R. L., Mino, M., Snider, K. J. G., & Venable, A. M. (1999, June). Measuring learning community effectiveness: Conceptions, an instrument, results. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Higher Education Assessment Conference, Denver, CO.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-324.

Dallas County Community College District (DCCCD). (2001, September). DSC Report.

Eaton, J. S. (1991). The unfinished agenda: Higher education in the 1980's. New York: Macmillan.

Eby, K. (2001). Teaching and learning from an interdisciplinary perspective. Peer Review, 3(4), 28-31. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Finkel, D.L. (2000). Teaching with your mouth shut. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann/ Boynton Cook.

Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R., & Smith. B. L. (1990). Learning communities: Building connections among disciplines, students and faculty. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 41. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Gamson, Z. F. (2000). The origins of contemporary learning communities: Residential colleges, experimental colleges, and living-learning communities. In D. Dezure (Ed.), Learning from change (pp. 113-116). Washington, DC and Sterling, VA: American Association for Higher Education and Stylus Publishing.

Goodsell-Love, A., Russo, P., & Tinto, V. (1994). Building community among new college students. Liberal Education, 79(4), 16-21.

Goodsell-Love, A., & Tinto, V. (1994). Freshman interest groups and the first year experience: Constructing student communities in a large university. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 6(1), 7-28.

Griffith, M., & Connor, A. (1994). Democracy’s open door: The community college in America’s future. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science & Children, 24, 31-32.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. Washington, DC: George Washington University. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports No. 4)

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities. (1997). Returning to our roots: The student experience. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

Koolsbergen, W. (2001). Approaching diversity: Some classroom strategies for learning communities. Peer Review, 3(4), 25-27. Washington, DC: AAC&U.

Levine, A. (1998). When hope and fear collide: A portrait of today’s college students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levine, J. H., & Tompkins, D. (1996). Making learning communities work. AAHE Bulletin, 48(10), 3-6.

MacGregor, J. (1987). Intellectual development of students in learning community programs 1986-87. Washington Center Occasional Paper No. 1. Olympia, WA: The Evergreen State College.

MacGregor, J. (1990). Collaborative learning: Shared inquiry as a process of reform. In M. Svinicki, (Ed.), The changing face of college teaching: New directions for teaching and learning, 42 (pp. 19-30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

MacGregor, J. (1991). What differences do learning communities make? Washington Center News, 6, 4-9.

MacGregor, J. (Comp). (1999). Strengthening learning communities: Case studies from the National Learning Communities Dissemination Project (FIPSE). Olympia, WA: The Evergreen State College, The Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education.

MacGregor, J., Cooper, J. L., Smith, K. A., & Robinson, P. (2000a, Spring). Strategies for energizing large classes: From small groups to learning communities. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 81. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

MacGregor, J., Tinto, V., & Lindblad, J. H. (2000b, June). Assessment of innovative efforts: Lessons from the learning community movement. In L. Suskie (Ed.), Assessment to promote deeper learning: Insight from AAHE's 2000 and 1999 assessment conferences (pp. 41-48). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Masterson, J. T. (1998, April). Learning communities, the wizard, and the Holy Grail. AAHE Bulletin.

Matthews, R. S. (1986). Learning communities in the community college. Community, Technical, and Junior College Journal, 57(2), 44-47.

Minkler, J. E. (2000). The efficacy of learning communities at two community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(5), 1722. (UMI No. 9973549)

Moore, D. M. & Kerlin, S. P. (1994). Research report: Examining the effectiveness of coordinated studies: 1990-1994. Seattle, WA: North Seattle Community College.

Mullen, D. (2001). The challenge of learning communities as a national movement. Peer Review, 3(4), 21-24. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Oates, K., & O’Connor, J. (2001). Developing the faculty we need. Peer Review, 3(4), 9-13. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Palmer, P. (1999). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teachers' life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S., & Higgins, S. (2001). University students’ perceptions of cooperative learning: Implications for administrators and instructors. The Journal of Experiential Education, 24(1), 14-21.

Scholnick, E. K. (1996). A two-year longitudinal study of science and math students in the college park scholars program. Unpublished report. University of Maryland, College Park.

Shapiro, N. S, & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shepard, S. S. (1996). The search for community: The view from the front porch. The Forum, 1(5), 1-4.

Smith, B. L. (2001). The challenge of learning communities as a national movement. Peer Review, 3(4), 4-8. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Smith, B. L., & Hunter, R. (1988). Learning communities: A paradigm for educational revitalization. Community College Review, 15 (4), 45-51.

Stevens, J. (1998). Making connections. Peer Review, 1(1), 1-4. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Szelenyi, K. (2001, February). Minority student retention and academic achievement in community colleges. Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ED451859)

Tech-Prep Staff. (2001). Global EDGE Tech-Prep Consortium.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V., Goodsell-Love, A.G., & Russo, P. (1993). Building community. Liberal Education, 79(4), 16-21.

Tinto, V., Goodsell-Love, A. G., & Russo, P. (1994). Building learning communities for new college students. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, The National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Tinto, V., & Russo, P. (1993a). Constructing community in difficult places. Community College Review.

Tinto, V. & Russo, P. (1993b). A longitudinal study of the coordinated studies program at Seattle Central Community College. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, The National Center for Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Tussman, J. (1997). The beleaguered college: Essays on educational reform. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Government Studies Press.

Weimer, M. (1994). Learning together makes a difference. The Teaching Professor, 8(6), 5.

Winston, R. B., Jr., Vahala, M. E., Nichols, E. C., & Gillis, M. E. (1989). College Classroom Environment Scales [version 2]. Unpublished instrument.

Winston, R.B., Jr., Vahala, M. E., Nichols, E. C., Gillis, M. E., Wintrow, M., & Rome, K. D. (1994). A measure of college classroom climate: The college classroom environment scales. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 11-35.