ERIC Review: Community College Teaching--Toward Collegiality and Community.

This review of the literature focuses on community college faculty and their teaching practices. After summarizing faculty demographic changes since the 1970s, the author describes both obstacles to effective teaching and the innovations that faculty use to overcome them. Although isolation, growing reliance on part-timers, pressure to produce research, underprepared students, and inadequate resources for development continue to challenge community college faculty, they have responded by using innovative methods such as learning communities, collaborative learning, and self-directed learning. The review concludes with descriptions of institution-wide efforts that have transformed teaching and produced innovative curricula.

There is no doubt that teaching occupies a hallowed spot in community colleges. "Community college faculty stand out from many of their professorial colleagues not only because of the size and diversity of their sector of higher education, but also because teaching--far more than research or service--is the heart of their profession" (Huber, 1998, p. 12). The Commission on the Future of Community Colleges asserted the following in 1988, "The community college should be the nation's premier teaching institution. Quality instruction should be the hallmark of the movement" (as cited in DeBard, 1995, p. 34). Cohen and Brawer summarize this point aptly: "First and last, the junior college purports to be a teaching institution.... For the junior college instructor, then, the process of instruction is crucial to identity formation" (1972, p. 13).

Some educational researchers assert, however, that community college teaching is given scant attention in the research literature (Grubb, 1999). O'Banion echoes this concern, stating "The unchallenged assumption was that the community college was the `teaching college,' and the lack of research and publications on the part of its faculty was ironically cited as proof" (cited in Huber, 1998, p. 12). Although it may be true that a great deal more research and reflection on community college instruction are necessary, the recent educational literature does provide a wealth of information on teaching. This ERIC review will outline several trends discernible in the literature, especially the tendency toward more collaborative teaching that directs responsibility for instructional success not just to the community of instructors, but also to cooperative relationships between students and teachers, and among students.

Before considering the practice of teaching, it would be useful to outline a few demographic facts regarding community college faculty. Over the last quarter-century, the professional origins of community college faculty have shifted considerably, with far fewer tracing their roots to high school instruction. In 1973, 53.6% of community college faculty had taught in high schools; this percentage had deceased to 26.3% in 1993 (DeBard, 1995). DeBard notes that graduate school has remained a consistent source for community college faculty, although many of the instructors hired with experience as graduate teaching assistants at four-year colleges do not stay at the community college. The importance of community college faculty for higher education cannot be overestimated: Huber (1998) reports that community college faculty constitute 31% of all United States higher education faculty, teaching 39% of all higher education students and 46% of all first-year students. Cohen and Brawer (1996) note that an increasing number of community college faculty are minorities (14.5% in 1992) and women (44% in 1992). Throughout the century the proportion of faculty who have earned a doctorate has increased greatly, with up to 22% holding this degree according to a 1987 study cited by Cohen and Brawer (1996). The average age in the community college professoriate has increased steadily since the wave of hiring in the 1960s, although this figure seems likely to decrease when these instructors retire and are replaced by younger colleagues (Cohen & Brawer, 1996).

Obstacles to Effective Teaching

The educational literature usefully describes a somewhat discouraging array of obstacles to good teaching in community colleges, including faculty isolation, a growing reliance on part-time faculty who are accorded substantial teaching loads without concomitant institutional support, increasing pressure for community college faculty to undertake research, underprepared students, and inadequate resources for faculty development.

Faculty Isolation. In his qualitative analysis of community college instruction, Grubb (1999) and his associates interviewed and observed 60 community college administrators and 257 instructors. Grubb found that faculty isolation is a key obstacle to effective instruction: "Except in a small number of exemplary institutions, most instructors speak of their lives and work as individual, isolated, lonely. A teacher's job is a series of classes, with the door metaphorically if not physically closed" (1999, p. 49). One instructor described the situation as follows: "From the day I entered this place to right now, you sort of figure out how you're gonna teach yourself" (Grubb, 1999, p. 49). More positively than this statement depicts, as will be detailed below, Grubb found that collaboration tends to lead to effective instruction.

The Growing Reliance on Part-Timers. An overview of the status of part-time faculty is outside the scope of this article (see Gappa & Leslie, 1993, for an extended discussion of part-timers in higher education as a whole, and Banachowski, 1996, for a recent overview of literature related to part-timers in community colleges). Nevertheless, a brief outline of research related to part-time community college faculty would be useful to contextualize the relationship between part-timers and teaching. Part-time faculty account for an erratically but inexorably growing proportion of community college instructors. They formed approximately one-third of the community college professoriate in the 1960s; this figure grew to 60% in 1986, but then declined to 53% in 1992 (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). As Nagy notes (cited in Banachowski, 1996), the proportion of part-timers might provide a misleading notion of the actual percentage of courses taught by part-time instructors because part-timers usually teach fewer courses than do full-timers.

Gappa and Leslie (1993) contend that part-timers are often employed because institutions believe they are less expensive than full-time faculty. These authors argue, however, that this is a false economy. Part-timers do not contribute to the institution in as many ways as full-timers. For example, they often do not participate in committee service, advising, office hours, and other crucial but extra-classroom activities because they are compensated only for classroom teaching. As a result, more institutional duties fall to full-timers than to part-timers. At the same time, part-timers are not accorded the institutional support offered to full-timers, such as participation in professional development activities that might strengthen their teaching. Grubb's research yields another perspective on the costs of part-time employment for part-timers themselves. In his analysis, "The most immediate effect of using so many part-time teachers is to undermine their own careers" (1999, p. 332). In other words, the practice of teaching part-time has become, for some instructors, a full-time profession with few of the benefits or pay of full-time employment.

Digranes and Digranes found that part-timers tend not to incorporate innovative teaching styles into their instructional practice, perhaps as a result of their relative isolation from other faculty (as cited in Banachowski, 1996). Rifkin explored the tensions between part-timers and full-timers, as well as the complicated nature of part-timers' instructional practices (1998). Her nationwide research involving 1,554 faculty at 127 community colleges found that despite showing lower levels of institutional involvement and scholarship, part-timers expressed higher expectations for their students.

Increasing Pressure to Engage in Research. Several authors have noted an increasing pressure on community college faculty to engage in research. Huber (1998) found that 25.5% of community college faculty engaged in research regularly, with a similar number asserting that research was necessary for effective instruction (half the proportion of all higher education faculty who stated this). Pressure to engage in research might be related to a strong tendency for some community college faculty to emulate their four-year counterparts, including the extent of faculty training. Cohen and Brawer reported in 1984 that the period of preparation for entry into the profession was growing longer, particularly because increasing numbers of faculty possess the doctorate (Cohen & Brawer, 1984). Nevertheless, as Lawrence and associates (1989) found, the possession of a doctorate may have at most an indirect relationship to teaching practice, and so its acquisition is at best an indirect form of preparation for the instructional mission of community college faculty.

Grubb's assertion that research and teaching are antithetical might be disputed by those who argue for an increased research and publishing role for community college faculty. In his investigation into administrators' attitudes toward faculty scholarship, Marshood (1995) relied on the distinction between research (activity intended to lead to a scholarly publication) and scholarship (concentrated study of a particular topic), which might be useful in resolving the tension between those who support increased research and scholarship for community college faculty. Questions of nonteaching professional activity on the part of community college faculty, especially related to research and scholarship, conjure even larger dilemmas of the institutional mission of community colleges--dilemmas that are not likely to be solved by neat dichotomies.

Underprepared Students. Huber (1998) notes that the open-door nature of most community colleges often leads to an instructional challenge in the form of underprepared students. As she notes, "While faculty at all types of colleges and universities say that their students could be better prepared for college work, underpreparation is most marked at community colleges, most of which are open to any who wish to enroll" (p. 19). Huber also asserts that the large majority (over 70%) of community college faculty believe that too many institutional resources are devoted to developmental education.

Inadequate Resources for Professional Development. Unfortunately, many professional development programs seem ill-designed to assist community college faculty in improving their teaching. In general, studies on the topic have determined that professional development activities are nominally available to community college faculty (although not all options are offered to part-time instructors), but that faculty face barriers in gaining access to them. A 1987 report by Berman and Weiler on the status and effectiveness of faculty development programs in California's system of higher education found that these programs were impaired by poor planning, limited access, and insufficient size, and that these programs did not have a significant impact on teaching. A 1988 study of community college faculty professional development programs in Illinois found that these programs were available on a formal basis in approximately two-thirds of the responding districts, and informally in nearly all districts. Many of the most resource-intensive types of activities, such as conference travel and sabbaticals, were available only to full-time instructors (Illinois Community College Board, 1988).

Seppanen's 1990 study of faculty attitudes toward professional development within Washington State's community colleges found that the single most desired type of activity was training in working with and understanding the needs of students. This study also found that faculty reported insufficient time to take advantage of such activities. More recently, Murray (1999) used a random national sample to survey more than 100 community college chief academic officers regarding their campus professional development programs. He found "a glaring lack of commitment on the part of the leadership for faculty development" (p. 58). Further, Murray noted that professional development programs continue to be hampered by several other factors, including insufficient organization, a lack of transferability between institutions, and the use of a mix-and-match approach rather than a comprehensive, effective strategy.

Grubb's findings regarding the inadequacy of professional development programs echo those of other researchers. Even when these programs are available, they tend to be, in Grubb's words, "formulaic, contrived, and often not focused on teaching" (1999, p. 285). Grubb found that instructors desired professional development activities that were integrated into their professional lives rather than mere one-session affairs. Furthermore, they wanted activities that held at least an implicit focus on building and sustaining collegiality between themselves and their peers.

Overcoming Obstacles

Fortunately for community college faculty and their students, the education literature is replete with examples of successful developments in the realm of instruction. Many of these successful strategies call on instructors to learn to work more closely with one another, and to devolve at least some instructional authority to one another (often via team-teaching approaches) and to their students. As Huber states, "Indeed, at many campuses, a climate of innovation in teaching is already well underway. As one community college professor wrote, `This is a very exciting time at my college. Collaborative learning and teaching is the focus, and it is changing my views about the education process" (Huber, 1998, p. 13). Grubb's findings echo Huber's: "We were struck by our finding that the most innovative practices seem to emerge from collective efforts, not from individual instructors" (1999, p. 199). The next portion of this review will describe a few of these innovations, including learning communities, collaborative learning, other nonhierarchical and interdisciplinary approaches, and self-directed learning.

Learning Communities. Rasmussen and Skinner (1997) provide a comprehensive overview of learning communities, which serves as a useful guide for those interested in implementing learning communities on their own campuses. According to Rasmussen and Skinner, learning communities can take a number of forms, from two linked courses in separate divisions to truly integrated academic environments in which departmental divides become invisible. For example, a course in communication, such as composition or reading, can be combined with a content course, such as biology. Whatever its structure, the experience of a learning community can revitalize teaching as it "fosters a greater sense of community among learners [and] promotes greater retention and achievement for students" (Rasmussen & Skinner, 1997, p. 12). Instructors can benefit from the greater collaboration with colleagues demanded by learning communities, but this form of instruction brings challenges as well, including a sense of loss of autonomy for instructors, and greater scheduling complexity for administrators.

Collaborative Learning. Whereas learning communities call for the integration of courses and disciplines, collaborative learning involves the creation of micro-communities within classrooms. Foote (1997) describes five components of collaborative learning: "clear, positive interdependence among students," "regular group self-evaluation," "interpersonal behaviors that promote each member's learning and success," "individual accountability and personal responsibility," and "frequent use of appropriate interpersonal and small group social skills" (1997, p. 1). Foote provides examples of collaborative learning projects in five different courses that have had success with this technique.

Other Nonhierarchical and Interdisciplinary Approaches. Using a constructivist pedagogy based on Bartholomae and Petrosky's Facts, Artifacts and Counterfacts (1986), Cunningham (1995) reports success in transforming Salt Lake City's required course in Business English. Through her reading-and-writing approach, Cunningham sought to move classroom authority, as well as responsibility for learning, to her students. For example, rather than basing the course on a traditional textbook and its accompanying exercises, she asked students to choose their own course texts, suggesting that they use real-world examples from their intended occupational field, and to designate the intended audience for their writing. In addition, Cunningham's students became one another's critics and coaches, creating a community of learners with responsibility to one another.

Cunningham reports that her reading-and-writing approach was highly effective and led to substantial gains in students' writing abilities (1995). Her nonhierarchical approach had other consequences as well, especially for instructor and student classroom roles: "To move students into a place of authority and activity requires more than allowing them to choose some of their reading and writing tasks. It also requires changes in the way teachers work with students--in fact, a fundamental change in the relationship between students and teacher" (p. 12). She cautions that some instructors might feel threatened by the possibility that students will form pedagogical relationships with one another, bypassing the instructor. Cunningham advises instructors who find the transition from authority to facilitator difficult to remember that student learning is most successful when students themselves take responsibility for their own learning.

Rogers and Stemkoski (1995) recount a successful interdisciplinary effort that used the nonhierarchical pedagogical principles mentioned by Cunningham to bring together accounting and engineering students. These students formed teams to design and plan the construction of a $1,000,000 waterslide park in Oregon. Although the students' efforts were never meant to move beyond the theoretical realm, their plans were treated throughout the project with as much seriousness and respect as if they had been meant to be actually implemented. The instructors who led this effort relate that this collaboration had academic, personal development, and professional goals. One goal was for students to improve their communicative, cognitive, organizational and analytical skills; another was to learn to work in teams.

Rogers and Stemkoski deliberately avoided assuming an authoritarian role in overseeing the collaborative project. Rather, they outlined the tasks to be accomplished, assisted in the formation of the engineering and accounting teams, and then relinquished as much authority as possible to their students. Just as in the example provided by Cunningham, not all went smoothly in the project. Students encountered difficulties in team formation and function, and in assuming responsibility for elements of the project. In addition, students needed to learn through practice what constituted appropriate business attire, etiquette, and other behaviors. Nevertheless, through the course of the project, students learned to take responsibility for themselves and for their teams. Frequent meetings in which students challenged one another to accomplish team goals, as well as more individualized reflective techniques such as journal-keeping, created opportunities for students to both assume and share authority for the success of the project.

Self-Directed Learning. The movement away from instructor-dominated teaching evident in Cunningham and Rogers and Stemkoski is carried to what may be its ultimate form in Closson (1996), who reviews literature related to the phenomenon of self-directed learning (SDL). Closson defines SDL as "a process in which learners take primary responsibility for aspects of their own education" (1996, p. 5). According to Closson, the increasingly diverse student population in community colleges (especially the growing presence of adult learners) makes SDL increasingly appropriate as a way of meeting some students' educational needs. SDL is not simply self-study of materials designated by an instructor. Rather, in its full form, SDL includes the design of an educational plan, the determination of appropriate resources, the study itself, and finally evaluation of one's own progress. Because research has found the environment (including the presence of peers and the availability of resources) to be significant in determining the success of SDL, the use of learning contracts at community colleges might be beneficial for students engaged in this effort. Learning contracts can assist in creating optimal circumstances for SDL, especially when they provide for an ongoing check-in and guidance role for the instructor. Closson provides several examples of community colleges that have implemented SDL programs successfully, usually through emphasizing skills in "learning how to learn."

The reconceptualization of instruction required for SDL poses significant barriers to implementing this technique. For example, community colleges desiring to implement SDL would need to convince both students and the public that the learning involved is worthwhile and legitimate. More important for this discussion of teaching, the role of the instructor is transformed in SDL. Rather than providing content via traditional pedagogy, the instructor instead becomes a facilitator who assists students in determining what they will teach themselves and how they will measure their progress. Closson notes that the literature has shown that SDL is of benefit only in some situations; many students prefer to be "taught, not facilitated" (Closson, 1996, p. 9, emphasis in original).

Institution-Wide Efforts. Some pedagogical reforms have moved beyond single courses or programs to transform entire institutions. Wolverton (1996) describes Miami-Dade Community College's institution-wide effort to reform instruction by emphasizing the changing learning needs of its diverse student population. Wolverton interviewed over 200 faculty, administrators and staff (individually or in groups) to create a comprehensive case study of Miami-Dade's Teaching/Learning Project.

The Teaching/Learning Project dates from 1986, when Miami-Dade committed itself to improving teaching effectiveness and learning via faculty professional development. At a retreat convened by Miami-Dade's president, over 100 faculty deliberated on the institution's core values, eventually identifying "diversity and quality learning" (Wolverton, 1996, p. 36). With these values in mind, the faculty identified 29 student behaviors related to academic achievement, then designed a faculty development program to support these behaviors. The program features three training components: (a) courses on teaching, learning and classroom practice offered at three of Miami-Dade's campuses through the University of Miami; (b) orientation and mentoring for new faculty; and (c) Teaching/ Learning Centers that offer training in instructional techniques and minigrants for new pedagogical practices.

Participation in the Teaching/Learning Program is closely linked with faculty advancement via the creation and review of teaching portfolios, which are meant to document improvements in instructional performance. Wolverton reports that the program has had a strong effect on faculty effectiveness. As one participant reported, "We now have indicators, standards that establish teaching as a priority" (Wolverton, 1996, p. 42). Whereas each component provides the direct benefit of its particular content, each also yields an indirect benefit: greater faculty collaboration, particularly concerning issues of instruction. In addition, the college as a whole has benefited from the program. Adjunct faculty and support staff can take advantage of similar programs meant to enhance their ability to support the institutions' teaching mission, and have begun to share more authority for fulfilling this mission (for example, by participating in the budgeting process). As Wolverton concludes, "When faculty, staff and administrators engage in their own learning, as demonstrated at Miami-Dade in its Teaching/Learning Project, they improve the learning experience of their students. They also model, in a powerful way, the value of learning" (1996, p. 47).

The University of Kansas, Kansas City Community College, and Johnson County Community College created a new course titled "Teaching in the Community College" (Williams, 1995). Taught by University of Kansas instructors, this course is taken by a broad mix of community college instructors, including full- and part-timers, with all levels of professional backgrounds and career goals. In addition to the direct benefits gained from the course content (which has included teaching techniques, handling disciplinary issues, and course organization), participants report that taking part in a class as students, rather than instructors, has been highly useful in reevaluating and revising their instructional styles. This program, as well as the one at Miami-Dade, seems to address at least some of the concerns noted by contemporary critics of professional development programs for faculty.

Moving Beyond Instructional Reform to Curricular Innovation. Altieri and Cygnar (1997) describe an innovative program at Michigan's Washtenaw Community College (WCC). Its general education core curriculum is, in some ways, an institution-wide extension of learning communities and collaborative learning models. It seeks to integrate the learning experience for all WCC students by providing a set of "common learnings" (Altieri & Cygnar, 1997, p. 4) across both academic and vocational programs.

After an extensive planning process that involved a comprehensive review of both academic programs and courses, WCC faculty developed their common core over two years as part of their efforts to respond not only to accreditation pressures, but to their own desire to strengthen WCC's general education requirements while providing flexibility for faculty, students, and administration. Rejecting the conventional approach of simply expanding the number of required general education courses, the faculty instead identified 24 core learning elements that would be emphasized across the college's curriculum. These learning elements were divided into four skills categories and four content categories. Examples of the former include communication and critical thinking; examples of the latter include technology and natural sciences. A focus on the development of these knowledge areas and competencies within courses has allowed faculty to span the typical divide between academic and vocational education. Altieri and Cygnar relate the example of a culinary arts program that includes both mathematical and writing skills development in its culinary arts classes and requires separate writing and mathematics courses.

WCC's program benefits not only instructors, who adopt a cross-curricular perspective and knowledge base, but students as well, who gain a broader perspective on their chosen fields, as well as more depth within their disciplines. According to Altieri and Cygnar, the most important benefit of the program has been greater communication and cooperation institution-wide. In addition, the institution as a whole has benefited from a streamlined curriculum: Over 100 redundant courses were removed from the catalogue. Moreover, Altieri and Cygnar report that WCC faculty seek to create stronger articulation agreements between their program and other institutions.

Conclusion: Reason for Optimism

As this review has demonstrated, community college faculty are beginning to rise to the challenges posed by faculty isolation, the reliance on undersupported part-timers, the growing pressure to publish, a less-prepared student body, and often ineffective professional development programs. By drawing upon one another's resources and by sharing responsibility for instructional success with their students through such innovations as learning communities and collaborative learning, some instructors have reestablished the notions of both collegiality and community in their community colleges.

References

Altieri, G., & Cygnar, P. M. (1997). A new model for general education in associate's degree programs: Developing and teaching a core across the curriculum. Community College Review, 25(2), 3-19.

Banachowski, G. (1996). Perspectives and perceptions: The use of part-time faculty in community colleges. Community College Review, 24(2), 49-62.

Bartholomae, D., & Petrosky, A. (1986). Facts, artifacts and counterfacts. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Berman, P., & Weiler, D. (1987). Exploring faculty development in California higher education. Volume I, executive summary and conclusions (Report 88-18). Berkeley, CA: Berman, Weiler Associates.

Closson, R. B. (1996). The learning society: How shall community colleges respond? Community College Review, 24(1), 3-18.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1972). Confronting identity: The community college instructor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1984). The collegiate function of community colleges: Fostering higher learning through curriculum and student transfer. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college. (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cunningham, L. M. (1995, March). Involving students in learning through a reading/writing approach. In P. T. Safman (Ed.), Focus (Vol. 12, pp. 12-16). Salt Lake City: University of Utah. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 384 405)

DeBard, R. (1995). Preferred education and experience of community college English faculty: Twenty years later. Community College Review, 23(1), 33-50.

Foote, E. (1997). Collaborative Learning in Community Colleges. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 411 023)

Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: improving the status of part-timers in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grubb, N. W. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York: Routledge.

Huber, M. T. (1998). Community college faculty attitudes and trends, 1997. (No. R309A60001; NCPI-4-03). Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.

Lawrence, J. H., & Associates. (1989, November). Faculty in community colleges: Differences between the doctorally and non-doctorally prepared. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Atlanta, GA.

Marshood, N. (1995). Community college administrators and faculty scholarship: A pilot study. Community College Review, 23(1), 51-62.

Murray, J.P. (1999). Faculty development in a national sample of community colleges. Community College Review, 27(3), 47-64.

Rasmussen, G., & Skinner, E. (1997). Learning communities: Getting started. Tempe, AZ: Maricopa County Community College District, Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction, GateWay Community College.

Rifkin, T. (1998). Differences between the professional attitudes of full- and part-time faculty. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 417 783)

Rogers, R. L., & Stemkoski, M. J. (1995, March). Reality-based learning and interdisciplinary teams: An interactive approach integrating accounting and engineering technology. In P. T. Safman (Ed.), Focus (Vol. 12, pp. 23-34). Salt Lake City: University of Utah. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 384 405)

Seppanen, L. (1990). Washington Community College faculty development survey results: A summary of the results of survey of all full-time faculty (Operations Report No. 90-3). Olympia, WA: Washington State Board for Community College Education.

Williams, J. (1995). Teaching in the community college. Overland Park, Kansas: Johnson County Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 387179)

Wolverton, M. (1996). Quality undergraduate education: Miami-Dade Community College's Teaching/Learning Project. Community College Review, 24(2), 35-48.

Charles L. Outcalt is a Ph.D. student in the Higher Education and Organizational Change Division of the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. [e-mail]