July 25, 2010

Larry ShinnPresident of Berea CollegeBerea, KY 40403

Larry,I am pleased to share with you our study team research on the teaching/learning components of the new center. We conducted a rich review of current literature, interviewed faculty and staff across campus, and conducted a virtual exploration of “best-in-class” learning centers in higher education. Our work is fully documented on our Moodle website, which includes information/resources that may be useful to others as this effort moves forward.

During the summer we documented a rich history at Berea in serving our students through several variations of the Learning Center since the early 80s. We also found much that can be leveraged both within the institution and beyond to support the scholarship of teaching and learning within our learning community. Our report draws from this research as we responded to the seven questions you posed to the study team in your email dated July 22. We hope that our efforts will facilitate a deeper conversation on the possibilities for a state-of-the-art center that engages our campus community in creating “pathways for student success.”

We also recognize that innovation will originate in many places. We are seeing innovation in teaching and learning through distance learning, mobile technologies, virtual reality simulation, constructivist teaching methodology, service learning, peer mentoring, and through undergraduate research, to name just a few areas. However, such innovative practices can remain isolated in the system unless pathways are built to support the integration of best practices (emerging and otherwise) across the learning community. Our research reveals that “best-in-class” learning centers focused on these pathways to connect their faculty and students with tools, resources, and best practices grounded in sound learning/cognitive theory and proven to facilitate learning. This direction promotes a rich, integrated experience for our students by drawing from successful learning strategies within and outside campus boundaries.

Our exploration of “best-in-class” learning centers also revealed that the best centers do not operate as the “originator of innovation” but rather support active faculty learning communities within their institutions in order to share innovative teaching methods and explore best practices in the field of teaching and learning. A teaching/learning scholar can provide that kind of support and would also be an advocate across the curriculum for “high-impact” teaching practices. In addition, these centers emphasized peer support in many forms using various classifications of teaching assistants, supplemental instruction, and faculty mentors. An effective center dedicated to the success of our students will likely develop a comprehensive system of support using trained peers and readily accessible resources to support an engaged, innovative, and effective community of teachers and learners.

I want to thank Stephanie Browner, Chad Berry, Rob Smith, and Anne Chase for their contributions over the summer. In addition, we had numerous contributions from faculty and staff throughout our study and our writing of this report. Their input was most valuable.

Sincerely,

John LympanyStudy Team Convener

1

Teaching and Learning Components of the New Center

1. What do we do now that we must not lose? Our study team drew our response to this question from a proposal for 2009-2010 Learning Center Services prepared on April 7, 2009 by Megan Hoffman and Vicky Hayes. The report included recommendations that certain services be continued, redistributed, and discontinued in light of the decision not to immediately fill the vacated Learning Center Coordinator position in the 2009-2010 academic year. Below is a summary of report findings in terms of activities to continue, activities to be discontinued, and activities that needed a temporary home in 2009-2010 along with our comments.

a. Activities of the Learning Center that Should Continue According to the April 7 Report:i. Use of 18-24 Labor Students Per Year

ii. Student Client Visits: Average of 1037 consultations/yriii. Workshops for Classes: Average of 59 workshops/yriv. Continued Collaboration with Disabilities Services Coordinator and Director of Academic

Services: This collaboration is needed to support at-risk students as well as to accommodate special needs for test taking, perform initial evaluations, and support literacy.

v. Tipsheets: For students and facultyvi. General Education Program Support: This includes presentations at August workshop,

collaboration with GSTR210 instructors including participation in January workshop, collaboration with course coordinators, summer writing/speaking seminar, and faculty orientation to Learning Center services.

vii. Program Coordinator’s Participation as an ACES Instructorviii. New Student Orientation and Related Activities

ix. Annual (2-day) Tutor Workshop x. Regular Work with ENG 104 Courses and Students (English as a Second Language)

xi. Carillon: A literary magazine featuring poetry, prose, and photography by studentsxii. Presentations on Compiling Chapbooks and Journal-Making Workshops

xiii. Program Coordinator Participation in Committees and Councils: Including Learning Commons Committee, Draper Council, and Center Director’s Monthly Meetings.

xiv. Other Activities: Including Labor Day Booth and Job Fair Booth, presentations on LC services, writing exam workshops, New Opportunity School for Women resume/mock interview workshops, Hospitality Program in Draper and so forth.

Our study team recommends that most of these services continue as recommended by Megan and Vicky with the possible exception of the publication of the Carillon, presentations on compiling chapbooks, and journal-making workshops. One possibility is that the Carillon could be moved under the oversight of the English faculty.

b. Activities of the Learning Center Recommended for Temporary Transfer to Other Departments According to the April 7 Report

i. New Faculty Orientation with Dean Browner: Includes August half-day workshop, September meeting on legal issues related to college teaching, January new faculty seminar, and monthly lunches with all first and second-year faculty.

ii. Probationary and Professional Review for Faculty: This includes tenure and pre-tenure review and sabbatical preparation.

iii. Friday Colloquium Seriesiv. Fall Faculty Conference

2

v. Campus Learning Communities: Includes peer observation of teaching, professional writing, and support for GST286, a course for instructors and teaching assistants, currently being coordinated by Dave Porter

vi. CIEL Campus Co-Coordinator: With Steve Gowlervii. Teaching GST150: One section annually.

viii. Hosting Visitors from Off-Campus: Miami University’s Teaching Scholars Program annual retreat and University of Kentucky graduate students from graduate class Preparing Future Faculty; visit each semester

ix. Blue Sheet: Faculty/staff development calendarx. Support for Off-Campus Training for LC staff and students

Most of these items above were temporarily transferred to other faculty/staff last year and continued in some shape or fashion. For example, July Hruby coordinated the Friday Colloquium Series. The study team recommends that these activities resume under the new Center with the hiring of staff for the Center.

c. Services Requiring Further Discussion and Feedback According to the April 7 Report:i. The Learning Center Associates Program: Faculty who contribute to Learning Center

Programmingii. Teaching/Learning Luncheons

iii. Faculty Training for Turnitin: Plagiarism detection serviceiv. Writing Projects: Working with faculty and staff on grant proposals, articles, syllabus, and

course design.v. October GRE Preparation Workshops

vi. Graduate School Workshop for Humanities/Social Sciencesvii. Production of Course-Specific Packets: As was done for GSTR310

viii. Work with Gear UP and Financial Aid Outreach Projectsix. Program Coordinator Work with Writing Competency Examx. Arranging Meals Upon Request by Various Groups: GSTR workshops and faculty

development opportunities.

Many of these activities also continued in some shape or fashion last year. Faculty support for Turnitin was transferred to the Instructional Technology office and the Teaching/Learning Luncheons were managed last year by Mario Nakazawa. Work with the writing competency exam however was eliminated along with the Learning Center Associates program. The study team recommends that these services continue upon hiring of new staff for the new Center with the exception of arranging meals upon request by various groups.

Source (for Items a through c): Proposal for 2009-2010 Learning Center Services prepared by Megan Hoffman and Vicky Hayes available on the study team Moodle site.

d. Learning Commons Committee: The Learning Commons committee has faculty and student representation along with representation from Academic Services, Library, IS&S, and the current Learning Center. This group can evolve to become the eyes and ears for the new Director of the Learning Center, giving the Director new venues for working collaboratively to strengthen services and developing integrated approaches to support student learning and faculty development. It is recommended that the linkages between this committee and the new Director remain strong and that the Committee be strengthened with the assistance of the new Director.

3

2. What is it that we don't do now in the Learning Center that we must do? Our team took certain liberties in answering this question. We recognize that resource/staffing levels will impact whether any of the below activities could move forward. Our intention here is to spark interest in some of the possibilities that would promote engaging and effective learning services and faculty development support at the Center.

a. Intentional Identification and Support for “High-Impact” Educational Practices: George Kuh’s work identifies high-impact educational practices based on solid student learning outcomes evidence. The following teaching and learning practices have been widely tested and have been shown to increase rates of student retention and engagement. The new center should play a more active role in promoting and supporting these practices described below as well as other “high-impact” practices in their service to our academic community.

i. First-Year Seminars and Experiences: that emphasizes critical inquiry, frequent writing, information literacy, collaborative learning, and other skills that develop student’s intellectual and practical competencies that will enable them to succeed at Berea.

ii. Common Intellectual Experiences: The older idea of a "core" curriculum has evolved into a variety of modern forms, such as a set of required common courses or a vertically organized general education program that includes advanced integrative studies and/or required participation in a learning community (see below). These programs often combine broad themes-e.g., technology and society, global interdependence-with a variety of curricular and co-curricular options for students.

iii. Learning Communities: Among the four essential outcomes of a 21st century liberal arts education identified by the AAC&U lies an emphasis on integrative learning. One of the key goals for learning communities, then, is to encourage integration of learning across courses and disciplines, and to involve students with "big questions" that matter beyond the classroom. Students take two or more linked courses as a group and work closely with one another and with their professors. Many learning communities explore a common topic and/or common readings through the lenses of different disciplines. Some deliberately link "liberal arts" and "professional courses"; others feature service learning.

iv. Writing-Intensive Courses: These courses emphasize writing at all levels of instruction and across the curriculum, including senior capstones. Students are encouraged to produce and revise various forms of writing for different audiences in different disciplines. The effectiveness of this repeated practice "across the curriculum" has led to parallel efforts in such areas as quantitative reasoning, oral communication, information literacy, and, on some campuses, ethical inquiry.

v. Collaborative Assignments and Projects: Collaborative learning combines two key goals: learning to work and solve problems in the company of others, and sharpening one's own understanding by listening seriously to the insights of others, especially those with different backgrounds and life experiences. Approaches range from study groups within a course, to team-based assignments and writing, to cooperative projects and research.

vi. Undergraduate Research: Many colleges and universities are now providing research experiences for students in all disciplines. Undergraduate research, however, has been most prominently used in science-based disciplines. With strong support from the National Science Foundation and the research community, scientists are reshaping their courses to connect key concepts and questions with students' early and active involvement in systematic investigation and research. The goal is to involve students with actively contested

4

questions, empirical observation, cutting-edge technologies, and the sense of excitement that comes from working to answer important questions.

vii. Diversity/Global Learning: Many colleges and universities now emphasize courses and programs that help students explore cultures, life experiences, and worldviews different from their own. These studies-which may address U.S. diversity, world cultures, or both-often explore "difficult differences" such as racial, ethnic, and gender inequality, or continuing struggles around the globe for human rights, freedom, and power. Frequently, intercultural studies are augmented by experiential learning in the community and/or by study abroad.

viii. Service Learning, Community-Based Learning: In these programs, field-based "experiential learning" with community partners is an instructional strategy-and often a required part of the course. The idea is to give students direct experience with issues they are studying in the curriculum and with ongoing efforts to analyze and solve problems in the community. A key element in these programs is the opportunity students have to both apply what they are learning in real-world settings and reflect in a classroom setting on how their service experiences directly connect to their learning goals and civic development. These programs model the idea that giving something back to the community is an important college outcome, and that working with community partners is good preparation for citizenship, work, and life.

ix. Internships: Internships are another increasingly common form of experiential learning. The idea is to provide students with direct experience in a work setting-usually related to their career interests-and to give them the benefit of supervision and coaching from professionals in the field. If the internship is taken for course credit, students complete a project or paper that is approved by a faculty member.

x. Capstone Courses and Projects: Whether they're called "senior capstones" or some other name, these culminating experiences require students nearing the end of their college years to create a project of some sort that integrates and applies what they've learned. The project might be a research paper, a performance, a portfolio of "best work," or an exhibit of artwork. Capstones are offered both in departmental programs and, increasingly, in general education as well.

b. Faculty Support for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningIn many of the “best in class” centers there are positions that coordinate, educate, and inspire faculty work in learning how students learn and learning to teach in a variety of ways to engage students more fully. This is an individual that could be a colleague and a “teacher of teachers” in order to enrich engaged learning by example, leadership, and mentoring colleagues who also take part in the process as faculty peer mentors. The study team recommends that Berea consider such a position as part of the new Center but with an additional twist. This position should be an advocate across campus for “high-impact” educational practices that are based on solid student learning outcomes evidence. As an advocate of “high-impact” practices, this position creates an additional conduit to improve teaching and learning on campus.

Sources: Most “best in class” Centers studied included at least one position that was dedicated to supporting faculty in the teaching and learning process. See “Best in Class Learning Centers Reviewed” document on our Moodle site under Question 2.

5

c. Faculty Teaching/Learning Grants Administered by the Center: The majority of Learning Centers we studied administered faculty grant programs to support the scholarship of teaching and learning. The Center at Wellesley College provides a guide for faculty to get funding for special classroom activities such as bringing in a speaker, conference attendance, and special supplies. The Center at Miami University of Ohio provides a teaching award and faculty grants to enhance teaching and student learning with recipients selected by committee. The Center at the University of Michigan sponsors competitions for grants to enhance teaching and learning with grant programs targeting instructional development, use of multimedia in teaching, investigating student learning, and improving teaching. The Center at Duke provides technology oriented grants to allow faculty to experiment with instructional technology, redesign courses to include IT, and to share experiences with the campus community. Duke’s Center also provides assistance to faculty in co-authoring grants.

Sources: Wellesley’s Pforzheimer Learning and Teaching Center Faculty Grants List; Miami University of Ohio Center for the Enhancement of Learning Teaching, and University Assessment Grant Opportunities Summary, University of Michigan’s Center for Research on Learning and Teaching Grants for Teaching; Duke’s Center for Instructional Technology Grants and Funding List.

d. BereaCorps: Scenario D describes BereaCorps as an integral part of the “one workforce” model at Berea. Promising young alumni could serve as full-time BereaCorps workers on one-year assignments, allowing for expanded programming in a resource-constrained environment. It is highly recommended that the new Center be assigned three BereaCorps staff and draw from the best of our graduating teaching assistants to fill those positions. These BereaCorps positions would then be responsible for coordinating teaching assistants assigned to content areas, writing, and research assistance, as well as supplemental instruction.

e. Supplemental Instruction (SI): Supplemental Instruction as developed by Dr. Deanna Martin at the University of Missouri-Kansas City uses peer-assisted study sessions to improve student retention and success within targeted historically difficult courses. Students who have successfully completed one of these historically difficult courses would act as a peer mentor helping other students complete these courses. These peer mentors attend class, take notes, and lead out-of-class review sessions. Berea’s TFOSS report recommends implementing Supplemental Instruction in those courses in which at least 20 percent of students enrolled for the course experience serious difficulty, earning a grade of D or lower. Our study team agrees with the TFOSS recommendation.

Sources: TFOSS report; the Painter article, which explains how SI can be successfully implemented in teaching-learning centers; and the Zaritsky/Toce article, which indicates that outcomes achieved have demonstrated that SI can contribute to significant change in student performance and retention. All of these resources are available on our Moodle study team site.

f. Electronic Portfolios: Berea College offers a unique educational experience that stems from a special mission that includes serving underprivileged students primarily from Appalachia. Opportunities for learning go beyond the classroom at Berea to include student labor assignments, internships, service-learning, and more. However, evidence is lacking that students at Berea take advantage of all of these opportunities to develop a personal resume of learning experiences that prepare them for a future beyond Berea. Electronic portfolios are one way for our students to think holistically about their experiences at Berea and to develop/document a personal roadmap for making the most of their Berea experience. In addition, an electronic portfolio developed throughout the 4-year Berea experience provides needed evidence that students are accomplishing capacities as outlined in Berea’s four pairs of learning goals. The e-portfolio can also be used as foundational material to support a capstone experience where the student reflects on various facets of the Berea experience in relation to their personal and future goals.

6

Sources: The e-portfolio templates used at Duke University could be easily modified to provide Berea students an opportunity to share evidence that they are fulfilling Berea’s learning goals. Looking at the links below, you can see how they could be modified for Berea’s unique learning environment. You can view a working example of the template below by clicking here.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis also has resources for Career Planning Portfolios along with links to other Career Center’s using a similar approach.

g. Formal Certification of Teaching Assistants: Raising the capacity of our Teaching Assistants will be an important step in supporting student academic success in the future. At Rollins College, professors nominate students to be content tutors or writing consultants to ensure a strong pool of potential TAs. At Rollins, tutoring is also guided by AAC&U’s LEAP Learning Outcomes. At Miami University of Ohio, peer tutors are certified by the College Reading and Learning Association and complete a training course, EDT 310. It is recommended that Berea implement a more formal certification process for TAs.

Sources: Rollins College’s use of AAC&U LEAP Learning Outcomes; Miami University of Ohio’s TA certification by the College Reading and Learning Association.

h. Blended LearningAn effective blended learning environment provides the right mix of technologies and personal interaction to create a socially supported and constructive learning experience for our students. The right blending of learning methodologies with technology is dependent on many factors, including the nature of a particular course, the audience, and the desired learning outcomes.

Blended learning can also transform the role of the instructor, since the use of online methods often support self-directed learning with the faculty member acting as a guide and learning facilitator. Constructivist learning pedagogies are often used in the online portions of the course to engage students in their self-navigation of course content in which they experience and construct an understanding of the content that will later enrich classroom discussions and group activity. Hybrid courses that support blended learning may incorporate e-learning (electronic), m-learning (mobile), learning management tools, virtual simulations, virtual reality software, group work, and classroom instruction to develop a mix of experiences that engage students and appeal to different learning styles.

7

In this environment, teachers and learners often work together to improve the quality of the teaching and learning process. The ultimate aim of blended learning is to provide realistic and practical opportunities for learners and teachers to make learning independent and collaborative, useful and sustainable, and ever growing given all of the tools available to support that effort.

Facilities/Resources recommended to support blended learning at Berea include the following:

i. Applied Technologies Faculty Lab:The Applied Technologies Faculty Lab (formally the ITRC) could become a place for faculty to explore software and technologies that can support our curriculum, learning, and classroom instruction. Faculty will be able to use the facility to explore a variety of technologies for course integration including:

Virtual reality environments Web 2.0 applications Blogs and Wikis Web-based video conferencing Curriculum-specific software GPS software Augmented virtual reality environments Freeware Podcasting Courseware Open source software Thin-client/virtual lab technology Use of portal channels Creation and deployment of original digital instructional content Social networking Survey tools to support instructional activities.

This lab would support faculty (or students working directly for faculty) in exploring technology and software for instructional use. Faculty could try out “trial versions” of new software on designated high-end computers, check out mobile technologies, and consider the implications of new technologies for integration into the curriculum. Instructional technology staff that oversee the lab would also be the sponsor for innovative teachers coming to campus to share in their innovative use of technology.

ii. Applied Technologies Student Lab (Library 230): This lab will feature dual-boot computers running high-end applications including CAD software, DVD production software, high-end scanning, and audio/video editing applications. This lab will provide access to high-end leading edge applications including exposure to multiple platforms and emerging software, technologies, and tools. The lab is not intended for browsing the web, writing a report in word, checking email, or other routine applications that can be handled through the EDGE laptop program. The Applied Technologies Student Lab is also a cost effective solution to support high-end needs that may not be easily addressed through EDGE laptops.

iii. Applied Technologies Classroom Lab:Features same computers in the Applied Technologies Student Lab but the facility is set up for classroom use.

8

iv. EDGE Mobile Technologies ProgramEDGE will support mainstream needs including software used across the curriculum including Microsoft Office, Email, Web Browsing and so forth. The EDGE universal program will also evolve to support the convergence of course content (through LMS and e-reader technology), converged messaging (through email, voice, and softphones), content streaming, and the convergence of cloud computing and other portable technologies as these tools and resources become mainstream in supporting teaching and learning.

3. What areas need further investigation? In answering this question, we focused on areas that require further research to ensure the Center is fully effective in supporting student success. With that said, additional investigation in the areas outlined below could take place after the Center is established and therefore do not represent a hindrance in moving forward with Center implementation.

a. Innovation in the Disciplines: Our study group analyzed “best-in-class” learning centers and the services they offer, but we did not have time to explore innovative teaching/learning practices taking place within our own courses and disciplines. To effectively support our faculty, we need a better understanding of the innovation taking place at the course/discipline level, including use of TAs, technology, and other practices that support learning. The new Center will have ready access to current literature and resources on best practices in teaching and learning; however, the Center’s ability to create pathways to these resources starts with a better understanding of where our faculty are today.

Sources: This recommendation draws on Miami University of Ohio’s emphasis on faculty learning communities; Rollins College’s approach of promoting faculty “scholarship of teaching” projects; as well as the University of Michigan’s approach to providing discipline-specific resources to assist faculty in their teaching.

b. Understanding and Responding to Student Learning Styles: Our understanding of learning styles continues to reveal many different approaches to learning in the general population which is even further complicated by the presence of certain learning disabilities in a segment of that population we serve. This complexity in learning styles, combined with ready access to digital resources, has resulted in the need to consider new pedagogical approaches.

There is also increasing evidence that entering students today actually approach learning differently than their predecessors. Students growing up in a digital world have ready access to mobile devices, the Internet, and maturing distance-education alternatives. This in turn is increasing pressure on colleges to dig deeper to understand and accommodate a new generation of learners that have grown comfortable with digital technology, multi-tasking, and interacting in online communities to accommodate their own needs. The literature indicates that the learning styles brought on by the saturation of new technologies in our culture, will have both positive and negative consequences that must be addressed by today’s faculty. In addition, first-year pedagogies and practices might be distinct from fourth-year practices given that learning is developmental.

9

Sources: This recommendation draws on Duke’s use of learning style inventories; Tom Tapscott’s Video on engaging today’s students; Michael Wesch’s video on a vision of students today; David Glenn’s article “In an age of classroom multitasking” available on our Moodle site; and Westminster’s focus on blended learning.

c. Undergraduate Research: Student research at the undergraduate level is increasingly accepted as what Kuh calls a “high-impact” practice. Kinkead defines undergraduate research broadly to include scientific inquiry, creative activity, and scholarship. An undergraduate research project according to Kinkead might result in a musical composition, a work of art, an agricultural field experiment, or an analysis of historical documents. Dotterer describes undergraduate research as a collaborative investigative model that includes faculty mentoring and is performed jointly by students and teachers. Undergraduate research is collective and collaborative work that provides opportunities for students to apply concepts, draw on what is known, probe what is not known, and contribute to original work. The role the Center could play in supporting undergraduate research throughout the curriculum should be investigated further. There may be ways to enrich our current “Collaborative Undergraduate Research Program” and create efficiencies through expanded participation and support from Center staff. One such level of support might include a professional reader/reviewer of undergraduate research.

Sources: Kinkead article “Learning Through Inquiry: An Overview of Undergraduate Research”; Dotterer article “ Student-Faculty Collaborations, Undergraduate Research, and Collaboration as an Administrative Model”; Lancy article “What One Faculty Member Does to Promote Undergraduate Research”; Kreber article “The Scope of Possibilities in Interpreting and Promoting Research-Based Teaching”; Lei article “Undergraduate Research Assistantship: A Comparison of Benefits and Costs From Faculty and Students’ Perspectives.” All articles are available on our Moodle site.

4. What has begun to emerge as a possible overarching conceptual and integrating philosophy for the Center?

Pathways for Student SuccessThe Center creates the pathways and bridges needed to support student success at Berea. This involves nurturing a culture and community centered on student success and grounded in service. These pathways for success are supported by Center staff that are dedicated to three pillars of support. Pillar one involves learning assistance to students through individual and group support as well as supplemental instruction, all provided by trained and certified peer tutors. Pillar two involves applied learning, which involves support for undergraduate research, internships, constructivist/inquiry-based learning and career planning supported in part by alumni and friends. Pillar three involves the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as well as the applications of that scholarship for the benefit of our students. The Center would provide resources/support to faculty to promote effective teaching/learning practices and faculty would take an active role in collaborating on the scholarship of teaching and learning as peer mentors. With student success at the core, center staff should guide students in developing personal plans to actively engage their education at Berea, provide resources for engagement, connect students to expertise across campus in areas like service-learning, regional engagement, and international education, and ensure our students are prepared overall to take on new endeavors post graduation. Therefore, learning support at the Center is more than academic, career, and internship counseling, as the work involves connecting students to the people and resources across the campus and the curriculum that can support their particular learning needs.

10

Center supports students engaged

in learning

Center supports Faculty engaged in student learning and promotes high-impact educational practices across the curriculum.

Pathways for Student Success Student Planning Preparation

Engagement

Sources: Scenario D report available on the myBerea portal, along with various articles in the literature review that covered learning assistance, applied learning, and the scholarship of teaching and learning available on our Moodle site.

5. How can we embed the core goals and principles for such a Center within our scenario of engaged and transformative learning? Scenario D calls on the new Center to facilitate exploration of students’ personal and vocational interests, promote applied learning experiences that may include internships in partnership with alumni and friends, and promote the scholarship of teaching and learning overall. The three pillars described earlier cover that ground and include a little broadening of the Scenario D framework to include support for supplemental instruction and undergraduate research as well.

a. Learning Assistance: Involves academic assistance to students through trained and certified TA’s delivering individual or group content-specific, writing, and communication support across the curriculum as well as supplemental instruction for particularly difficult courses.

b. Applied Learning: Scenario D calls on the Center to coordinate advising done by faculty, labor supervisors, and peer student mentors, aimed at helping students focus on their personal and vocational interests and how their interests/aspirations can shape their curricular choices as well as their selection of experiential opportunities that broaden their personal life goals and vocational development. Applied learning would entail internship and career planning support assisted by alumni and friends along with support for undergraduate research and constructivist/inquiry-based learning across the curriculum to provide rich opportunities for our students to apply what they are

11

Learning AssistanceLearning assistance through

trained/certified TAs delivering individual or group assistance and supplemental instruction

Scholarship of Teaching & Learning

Promote effective teaching and learning practices supported by

faculty peer mentors

Applied LearningSupport undergraduate research, internships, constructivist/inquiry-based learning & career planning supported by alumni and friends

Students are encouraged to think about their calling, directions, & plan for their time at Berea …

Students graduate with a resume of knowledge, experiences, & successes to embark on new endeavors …

learning and to construct new understanding built on the application of knowledge through active engagement.

c. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Involves Center support to faculty and students in order to promote effective teaching and learning practices with the assistance of faculty peer mentors. Scenario D specifically calls on the Center to serve as a resource for both students and faculty on the scholarship of engagement and learning. The goal here is to provide additional capacity for faculty assistance in order to promote teaching methodology that is grounded in sound learning /cognitive theory and supports stated learning outcomes for the discipline.

6. Given a coherent Center philosophy, what are the implications for its (a) location, (b) oversight, (c) role of the Director, and (d) other considerations?

a. Location: Several locations may be suitable for the new Center. Possible options include Hutchins Library to create greater synergies with Library staff, expanding the Learning Center site in Draper to keep a strong connection with General Education studies or possibly the Alumni building where there are large spaces and meeting rooms and where student traffic is extensive due to food services being located in that building.

b. Oversight: The new Center should report to the Academic VP and Dean of the Faculty or designated Associate Dean due to the focus on student learning and the scholarship of teaching and learning.

c. Role of Director: The Director will need to entice faculty and students to make substantial contributions on behalf of the mission of the Center through work as teaching assistants and faculty mentors. This is one reason that the new Center should have funding to support faculty teaching-and-learning grants as well as access to funds for stipends to entice faculty to contribute and share expertise or to bring in external expertise on campus for faculty development. Student engagement at the Center would occur through labor assignments and possibly through various course-embedded approaches. Focusing on teaching/learning support at the center, the study team did not evaluate whether the new Director should be a new hire or be appointed from among current faculty.

7. What process should we use going forward to accomplish the content and integrative tasks that remain? It is recommended that Academic VP and Dean of the Faculty, or her designate, coordinate the implementation of the new Center by bringing together a committee of faculty, staff, and students. The work of the study groups should lay a foundation of research and advice that can frame additional conversations with faculty and students and may be useful in making final decisions regarding staffing, structure, services offered, and so forth.

12

Appendix A: Literature Review

(2010). Best Practices and Models in Learning Assistance. ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(6), 87-104. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

(2010). Current Challenges and Controversies for Learning Assistance. ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(6), 7-22. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

(2010). The Current Nature and Scope of Learning Assistance. ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(6), 55-85. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

(2010). The Future of the Field. ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(6), 105-117. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Austin, A., Connolly, M., & Colbeck, C. (2008). Strategies for preparing integrated faculty: The center for the integration of research, teaching, and learning. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2008(113), 69-81.

doi:10.1002/tl.309.

Bassis, M. (2010). Changing the Equation. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/views/2010/03/25/bassis

deWinstanley, P., & Bjork, R. (2002). Successful Lecturing: Presenting Information in Ways That Engage Effective Processing. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (89), 19. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database

Dotterer, R. (2002). Student-Faculty Collaborations, Undergraduate Research, and Collaboration as an Administrative Model. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (90), 81. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Engstrom, C. (2008). Curricular learning communities and unprepared students: How faculty can provide a foundation for success. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2008(115), 5-19. doi:10.1002/tl.322.

Farrell, E. (2007). Some Colleges Provide Success Coaches for Students. Education Digest, 73(3), 44-47. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Getzel, E. (2008). Addressing the Persistence and Retention of Students with Disabilities in Higher Education: Incorporating Key Strategies and Supports on Campus. Exceptionality, 16(4), 207-219. doi:10.1080/09362830802412216.

Glenn, D. (2009). Wary of Budget Knife, Teaching Centers Seek to Sharpen Their Role. Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(2), A16. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Harris, M., & Cullen, R. (2008). Learner-centered Leadership: An Agenda for Action. Innovative Higher Education, 33(1), 21-28. doi:10.1007/s10755-007-9059-3.

Hiser, K. (2008). Taking Faculty Development Online. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 25(14), 29. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

13

Hornum, B., & Asprakis, A. (2007). "The Times They Are A-Changing: Faculty Support Mechanisms in a Shifting Academic Landscape. Peer Review, 9(4), 20-22. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Katz, R. (2010). Scholars, Scholarship, and the Scholarly Enterprise in the Digital Age. Educause Review, 45(2), 44-56. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Kennan, M. (2009). Transformative learning support models in higher education: educating the whole student. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 40(3), 237-238. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Kinkead, J. (2003). Learning Through Inquiry: An Overview of Undergraduate Research. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (93), 5. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Kinzy, D., & Minter, D. (2008). The Dynamics of Teacher Development. Pedagogy, 8(3), 481-494. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Kreber, C. (2006). Promoting inquiry-based learning about teaching through educational development units. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (107), 79-88. doi:10.1002/tl.246.

Kreber, C. (2006). Introduction: The scope of possibility in interpreting and promoting research-based teaching. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (107), 7-12. doi:10.1002/tl.239.

Kuh, G. (2008). High Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 9-22. ISBN 978-0-9796181-4-7

Laird, T., Chen, D., & Kuh, G. (2008). Classroom practices at institutions with higher-than-expected persistence rates: What student engagement data tell us. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2008(115), 85-99. doi:10.1002/tl.327.

Lancy, D. (2003). What One Faculty Member Does to Promote Undergraduate Research. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (93), 87. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Lane, D. (2008). Teaching skills for facilitating team-based learning. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2008(116), 55-68. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Lang, J. (2007). Support Your Local Teaching Center. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(47), 61. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Lei, S., & Chuang, N. (2009). UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIP: A COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS FROM FACULTY AND STUDENTS' PERSPECTIVES. Education, 130(2), 232-240. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Magolda, M. (2000). Teaching to Promote Holistic Learning and Development. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (82), 88. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database

Matlin, M. (2002). Cognitive Psychology and College-Level Pedagogy: Two Siblings That Rarely Communicate. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (89), 87. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Painter, S., Bailey, R., Gilbert, M., & Prior, J. (2006). New Directions for Supplemental Instruction. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (106), 73-84. doi:10.1002./tl.235.

Porter, D., Bagnoli, J., Blythe, J., Hudson, D., & Sergel, D. (2007). Student Success in the Campus Community:

14

Chapter 13: Organizing Student Services For Learning. Jossey-Bass: A Wiley Imprint.

Skill, T., & Young, B. (2002). Embracing the Hybrid Model: Working at the Intersections of Virtual and Physical Learning Spaces. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (92), 23. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Schönwetter, D., Dawson, D., & Britnell, J. (2009). Program Assessments: Success Strategies for Three Canadian Teaching Centers. Innovative Higher Education, 33(4), 239-255. doi:10.1007/s10755-008-9081-0.

Spanier, Graham B. 2001. "The Transformation of Teaching." New Directions for Teaching & Learning no. 85: 109. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 29, 2010).

Vaughan, N. (2004). Technology in support of faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (97), 101-109. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Weimer, M. (2001). Learning More from the Wisdom of Practice. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (86), 45. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Zahorski, K. (2002). Nurturing Scholarship Through Holistic Faculty Development: A Synergistic Approach. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (90), 29. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Zaritsky, J., & Toce, A. (2006). Supplemental Instruction at a Community College: The Four Pillars. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (106), 23-31. doi:10.1002/tl.230.

15