The Role of the Learning Community in the Development of Discipline Knowledge and Generic Graduate Outcomes

Abstract

In this paper we describe a study of learning outcomes at a research-intensive Australian university. Three graduate outcome variables (discipline knowledge and skills, communication and problem solving, and ethical and social sensitivity) are analysed separately using OLS regression and comparisons are made of the patterns of unique contributions from four independent variables (the CEQ Good Teaching and Learning Communities Scales, and two new, independent, scales for measuring Teaching and Program Quality). Further comparisons of these patterns are made across the Schools of the university. Results support the view that teaching and program quality are not the only important determinants of students' learning outcomes. It is concluded that, whilst it continues to be appropriate for universities to be concerned with the quality of their teaching and programs, the interactive, social and collaborative aspects of students' learning experiences, captured in the notion of the Learning Community, are also very important determinants of graduate outcomes, and so should be included in the focus of attempts at enhancing the quality of student learning.

Double degrees: double the trouble or twice the return?

“…You make new friends, but it is hard to make close friends and achieve continuity. (Arts -Commerce) Together with a lack of institutional support, this failure to develop peer connections may exclude double degree students from a 'learning community', with implications for their performance and persistence (Gablenick et al 1990, Smith andBath, 2006).…”

“…!…An introduction to first year double degree students from those who are already doing it would have been very helpful! (ArtsCreative Arts) 'Learning communities' have the potential to improve performance, outcomes, satisfaction and persistence in higher education (Gablenick 1990;Tinto 1997;Smith and Bath 2006). As well as improving conventional educational outcomes, a strategy to develop learning communities could make important contributions to the development of integration and transdisciplinary skills (Dodge 2004).…”

Why do they study there? Diary research into students’ learning space choices in higher education

“…In the past two decades, developments such as the increasing use of information and communication technology (ICT) in higher education (Prensky, 2001;Collis & Van der Wende, 2002), new social constructivist learning approaches (Foster, 2008;Marais, 2011) and the phenomenon of learning communities (Smith & Bath, 2006), have led to new ideas about the university in the third millennium. These developments have resulted in many experiments with new physical learning environments such as Social Learning Spaces (SLS) (Matthews et al, 2011), technology-rich experimental learning and teaching environments (Salter et al, 2013), Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) environments (Fisher & Newton, 2014) and Active Learning Classrooms (ALC) (Park & Choi, 2014).…”

Peer mentoring – is a virtual form of support a viable alternative?

“…These two communities (of practice and of learning) converge when the learning experience combines with socio-cultural development of students, as in the case of support mechanisms such as peer mentoring that aid the enculturation process. Smith and Bath (2006) suggest that as peer interactions, including the social, are essential determinants of graduate outcome, the notion of a learning community should be reinforced within any innovations for supporting student learning. Essentially, peer mentoring, which literature indicates is a sound principle, is designed to initiate CoPs amongst student cohorts.…”