Over the last two years we have gathered large amounts of data and, while we have only begun to make sense of it all, we have learned much. Several “big ideas” dawned as we reflected on the data gathered. We share these, our discoveries and data, in hopes of building knowledge and a sense of shared practice for improving teaching and learning.
Our inquiry was born out of concern for students’ progress through our developmental course sequence. A large majority of our students are unprepared for college-level work — about 80% of our entering students need preparation in either reading, writing or math. Less than a third of those entering our developmental education sequence progress quickly and successfully to the next level:
Through inquiry, we wanted to find ways of moving at-risk students from the margins of the classroom experience to the center.
Our inquiry initially began with a focus on understanding how developmental learners acquire the academic habits of mind needed to succeed in college. From earlier inquiries, we had discovered differences in students’ cognitive development and academic achievement. Students in less sophisticated, dualistic cognitive positions held that instructors were responsible for their learning. As students progressed they claimed greater ownership of their learning and demonstrated stronger academic habits.
So began our inquiry — with a hunch that students’ meta-cognitive functioning, identity and academic success were related. We wondered:
Early on we discovered that how students thought of themselves as learners — as well as their preconceived notions about a particular subject and how best to learn it — framed their attention, attitudes and behaviors. When students didn’t “need” the skills being taught, either because they believed they had already mastered the skills, knew the material or had no future use for the skills, they applied minimal effort. Likewise when course material was believed to be “too easy,” not relevant, or beyond the student’s “innate” ability.Our study then progressed to looking more closely at successful students. We wondered:
Our first year concluded with evidence that the more successful student had developed mastery because of exercising a greater sense of independence, personal ownership, flexibility and exploration around the subject/skills being taught. These qualities were associated with the student’s reasoning and sense-making strategies. We also had evidence that these strategies could be cultivated over a course of study.
Year 2 or our inquiry moved to putting Year 1 discoveries into practice. The object of our inquiry, then, shifted from students to faculty. We wondered:
