Learning communities, a small cohort of students enrolled together in two or more linked courses, have become a popular intervention to help under-prepared students succeed in college. Though learning communities abound in practice, the key structural feature of a learning community—the cohort—may not be fully understood. Authors posit that a cohort needs both a structural and communal component to function well. This study examines qualitative data from a pilot site and four community colleges that participated in a random assignment evaluation. Authors observed differences between learning community and non-learning community experiences in terms of classroom climate and academic support networks for students. Differences can be attributed to both the structural nature of the cohort as well as emergent social group dynamics. As such, the cohorts within learning communities appeared to act as mechanisms for increasing student interaction and interdependence. The authors anticipate that these gains in the student experience will enhance student retention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BalesR. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
BoyesenM., & BruE. (1999). Small school classes, small problems?School Psychology International, 4(20), 338–351.
4.
BurkeP. J. (2003). Interaction in small groups. In DeLamaterJ. (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 363–388). New York: Kluwer-Plenum.
5.
CoffeyA., & AtkinsonP. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
CohenE. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.
7.
CooleyC. H. (1962). Social organization. New York: Schocken.
8.
Drago-SeversonE.HelsingD.KeaganR.PoppN.BroderickM., & PortnowK. (2001, October). The power of a cohort and of collaborative groups. Focus on Basics 5 (Issue B, pp. 15–21). Retrieved October 13, 2009 from http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu/fob/2001/fob_5ib.pdf.
9.
EngstromC., & TintoV. (2008). Access without support is not opportunity. Change, 40(1), 46–50.
10.
FogartyJ.DunlapL.DolanE.HesseM.MasonM., & MottJ. (2003). Learning communities in community colleges. National Learning Communities Project Monograph Series, Olympia, WA: Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education.
11.
GabelnickF.MacGregorJ.MatthewsR. S., & SmithB. L. (1990, Spring). Learning communities: Creating connections among students, faculty, and disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 41, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12.
GubaE. G., & LincolnY. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
HayekJ., & KuhG. (1998, November). The capacity for lifelong learning of college seniors in the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami.
14.
JaffeeD. (2007). Peer cohorts and the unintended consequences of freshman learning communities. College Teaching, 55(2), 65–71.
15.
LawrenceR. L. (1997, May). The interconnecting web: Adult learning cohorts as sites for collaborating learning, feminist pedagogy and experiential ways of knowing. In 38th Annual Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings, Stillwater, OK (pp. 179–184). ERIC Document No. ED409460.
16.
LevineJ. M., & MorelandR. L. (1994) Group processes. In TesserA. (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 419–465). New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
MaherM. A. (2001, April). Professional living situations: Cohorts as communities of living and learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
18.
MaherM. A. (2005). The evolving meaning and influence of cohort membership. Innovative Higher Education, 30(3), 195–211.
19.
MeyerK. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65.
20.
NesbitT. (2001, Winter). Extending the boundaries: Graduate education for nontraditional learners. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 49(1), 2–10.
21.
NorrisC. J., & BarnettB. (1994, October). Cultivating a new leadership paradigm: From cohorts to communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration, Philadelphia, PA.
22.
OstrowE.PaulS. C.DarkV. J., & BehrmanJ. A. (1986). Adjustment of women on campus: Effects of stressful life events, social support, and personal competencies. In HobfollS. E. (Ed.), Stress, social support, and women (pp. 29–45). Washington: Hemisphere.
23.
PascarellaE. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. New York: Agatha Press.
24.
PascarellaE. T., & TerenziniP. T. (1979). Interactive influences on Spady and Tinto's conceptual models of college attrition. Sociology Education, 52(4), 197–210.
25.
PerinD. (1999). Using academic-occupational integration to improve remedial instruction. Community College Journal, 69(5), 26–28.
26.
ReagansR., & ZuckermanE. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12, 502–517.
27.
ReynoldsK. C. (1993, November). Students in cohort programs and intensive schedule classes: Does familiarity breed differences? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Pittsburgh, PA.
28.
ReynoldsK. C., & SitharamanS. (2000, Fall). Business education in cohorts: Does familiarity breed learning?Journal of Business and Training Education, 9, 29–44.
29.
RidgewayC. L. (1983). The dynamics of small groups. New York: St. Martin's Press.
30.
SaltielI. M., & RussoC. S. (2001). Cohort programming and learning: Improving educational experiences for adult learners. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
31.
ScrivenerS.BloomD.LeBlancA.PaxsonC.RouseC. E., & SommoC. (2008). A good start: Two-year effects of a freshmen learning community program at Kings-borough Community College. Retrieved from mdrc website: http://www.mdrc.org/publications/473/overview.html.
32.
SeidelJ., & KelleU. (1995). Different functions of coding in the analysis of textual data. In KelleU. (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods, and practice (pp. 113–128). London, UK: Sage.
33.
SharanS., & SharanY. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group Investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.
34.
ShawM. E. (1976). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
35.
StangorC. (2004). Social groups in action and interaction. New York: Psychology Press.
36.
TintoV. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
TisdellE. J., & StrohschenG. (2002, October). High tech meets high touch: Cohort learning online in graduate higher education. In Proceedings of the Annual Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, 21st, DeKalb, Illinois (pp. 114–119). ERIC Document No. 471123.
38.
TwaleD., & KochanF. (2000). Assessment of an alternative cohort model for part-time students in an educational leadership program. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 188–208.
VisherM. G.SchneiderE.WathingtonH., & ColladoH. (2010). Linking courses to help community colleges succeed: Implementation lessons from the national learning communities demonstration. NCPR Working Paper.
41.
WessonL. H.OlesonS.HolmanD., & CoxD. (1996, March). Cohesion or collusion: Impact of a cohort structure on educational leadership doctoral students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
42.
ZaccaroS. J., & LoweC. A. (1988). Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 128(4), 547–558.
