• Introduction
• Definitions and Models
• The Five Models
• Currents and Causes
• Creating Learning Communities at GMU: Institutional Climate
• The Precursors
• Two Early LC Versions: BA/SIC and Core
• The Mason Topics Program
• New Century College: Coordinated Studies Model
• The Upper Levels
• Faculty Challenges: The Need for Faculty Development
• Outcomes and Benefits: Students
• Outcomes and Benefits: Faculty and the Scholarship of Pedagogy
• Conclusion
• Endnotes and References
• Printable Text of Article

© Copyright 2000 by Ashley Williams. The right to make additional exact copies, including this notice, for personal and classroom use, is hereby granted. All other forms of distribution and copying require permission of the author.

Faculty Challenges: The Need for Faculty Development

Experience at George Mason and elsewhere makes clear the necessity of extensive and innovative faculty development in order to create and facilitate dynamic learning communities. The greater the degree of linkage and integration in the structure of the LC, the greater the need for a "marriage" of ideas and roles, particularly in models involving team-teaching. This commitment to partnership and shared authority often presents challenges for faculty socialized into a culture of individual autonomy. Sharing vision and authority requires trust, which in turn requires time and a willingness to learn from colleagues. (See Sharing Authority: Faculty Collaboration in the Classroom, A Roundtable in this publication, October, 1999).

In several LC models (for example, linked courses and coordinated studies), successful collaboration and teaching generally require faculty to examine disciplinary knowledge, their own and others, in new ways. In the most common linked model, FYC faculty need at least a general familiarity with the content and objectives of a linked class (frequently a large lecture class) in order to design effective writing assignments. In some cases, this requirement may place a disproportionate burden on composition faculty who are often adjunct. If, however, the link is truly reciprocal, faculty in the other course must also gain insight into the content and processes of the writing course. One result, Terry Zawacki notes, of such a partnership is an increased commitment to and understanding of the teaching of writing by faculty from linked disciplines (see Zawacki & Williams, forthcoming).

LCs often require faculty to learn new pedagogical strategies such as collaborative pedagogy and greater use of technology. Clearly, the stand-alone workshop approach to faculty development is not sufficient to prepare faculty to teach effectively in LCs. From 1996 -1999, the U.S. Department of Education's Fund for Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) helped fund the National Learning Communities Dissemination Project of the Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education. In the case study of nineteen LC programs which resulted, Geri & Kuehn (1999) observe that most institutions had under-invested in faculty development. In particular, they noted the "huge need for faculty planning time, and in particular a need for faculty members to reflect together, share ideas and address problems" (p. 199). In order to be successful, LC programs need extensive, sustained faculty development opportunities.

The Upper Levels

Outcomes and Benefits: Students