Title III
Frequenty "Anticipated" Questions FAQs
FAQs | Faculty Opportunities | Student LinC | External Links | Title III Home Page
The following questions and answers may be helpful in better understanding our Title III grant project.
- What is a Title III grant?
- Why did we, here at PSC, apply for a Title III project?
- Who are the key personnel leading our Title III project?
- Why this particular project? Why Learning Communities?
- Are there other colleges using LCs to address retention problems?
- What are the key components of the project?
- What will the project focus on?
- What are the goals for our project? How will PSC benefit?
- What is a Learning Community?
- What is Intrusive Advising?
- What makes for an effective learning community program?
- What is the role of intrusive advising in an effective learning community program?
- What are the opportunities for faculty to be involved in the project?
- What are the different levels of time commitment and compensation among interdisciplinary projects, Linked-only LCs and Coordinated Studies LCs?
- What is the FLC Seminar?
- Is there an application process? What are the deadlines for applying?
- What is the Summer Institute about and exactly when will it occur?
Title III grants, administered by the U.S. Department of Education, are authorized under the Strengthening Institutions Program of Title III, Part A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (as amended). Title III awards are given to those eligible institutions—with high percentage of low-income students and/or high percentage of first-generation college students—that design a research and development project and provide a logical and compelling argument on how they will effectively implement and evaluate the project. Expenditures of funds must be focused on research and development, following a sequence of: piloting, evaluation, modification, and re-piloting. Funds cannot be used for operational purposes; instead, funds must be concretely tied to the project objectives. Prairie State College was one of 53 institutions awarded a five-year grant (of 260 eligible applications).
2. Why did we, here at Prairie State College, apply for a Title III project?
During the Title III grant writing process we completed a college-wide self-analysis that identified strengths and weaknesses at our College. The weaknesses—including low rates of student retention, persistence and graduation—became the target of our three primary project objectives of improving:
- course-level retention rates (grade of “C” or better);
- persistence rates (re-enrollment from semester-to-semester, year-to-year)
- graduation rates (degree and/or certificate completion)
Particular emphasis will be placed on the upper-level Developmental Education curriculum, especially during the first three years of the grant
3. Who are the key personnel leading our Title III project?
Many, many people have been involved with the planning, writing and preliminary work of our Title III project. The following positions are being funded by the grant and Year 1 and Year 2 personnel noted:
- Title III Coordinator Craig Mulling
- Activity Director Craig Mulling
- Learning Communities Coordinator Ed Schwarz
- Faculty Development Coordinator Sally Kelley-Haywood
- Curriculum Coordinators Jason Evans and Patrick Reichard
- Intrusive Advising Coordinator Loretta Kucharczyk
- Administrative Assistant Carole Signore
Others serving on the Title III Steering Committee are: Mike Reinke, Lee Helbert-Gordon, Christy Donovan, Cathy Robinson, and Patty Valenziano. Numerous others will be involved with Steering Committee work on an ad hoc basis. At the heart of the project, of course, will the instructional teams of faculty, counselors, advisors, and support staff.
4. Why this particular project? Why Learning Communities?
Our project, “A Learning Community Approach to Improving Student Success and Retention,” entails the development of a learning communities program and research on what works and what doesn’t work in the implementation of learning communities and intrusive advising. According to academic studies, a prominent variable associated with student retention and persistence rates, especially during the first year of studies, is the degree of academic and social integration among students. The challenge of student integration is greater within non-residential colleges, like Prairie State, that enroll large numbers of first-generation college students.
One promising strategy to facilitating that integration is the restructuring of curriculum via Learning Communities (LCs). Students who enroll in high-quality LCs are consistently retained at higher levels than non-participating students and this holds true across institution type.
Also consistent with the findings of retention studies is the importance of counseling and advising; restructuring of advising models to be more proactive in support of students, such as the Intrusive Advising (IA) approach, will improve college success. Our project is designed to fully employ both LCs and IA, with the primary emphasis in the first years of the project on improving student success within Developmental Education.
5. Are there other colleges using LCs to address retention problems?
Yes, hundreds of community colleges and four-year institutions have developed or are developing LC programs as a means to improve student retention rates and raise levels of students’ academic and social integration. The broader learning communities movement is an undergraduate reform initiative in higher education that has, over the past two decades, gained favorable attention among national leaders in higher education.
An institutional leader in that movement is the Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education, a consortium of two-year and four-year institutions in the State of Washington with headquarters at The Evergreen State College (Olympia, WA). A PSC team of faculty and administrators attended the Washington Center’s 2003 Summer Institute as part of their National Learning Communities Project (funded in part by The Pew Charitable Trusts). Our team’s discussions at Evergreen, supported by a close reading of the academic literature on learning communities, formed the foundation of our successful grant application.
6. What are the key components of the project?
The three major components of our project are: curricular reform, intrusive advising, and professional development. Curriculum reform is a necessary part of the blending of courses. Intrusive advising, with particular focus on students enrolled in developmental courses, provides a more proactive layer of support for students navigating the obstacles and opportunities of higher education. Finally, professional development supports the effective development and implementation of the other two components. Those three components feed into the learning communities program. Keep in mind that the LC program is a means to an end; our emerging LC program is the strategic means to achieving a higher level of student success.
7. What will the project focus on?
In each year of the grant a different LC model will be the primary focus of Title III project activities. Since the federal government fiscal year begins October 1 st and we were not informed of our grant award until September 2004, we modified our original timeline so that our original Year 1 LC model will be formally piloted in Fall 2005 (first semester of Year 2) and our Year 2 LC model will be piloted in Spring 2006.
- Fall 2005: New ENG099 course (Eng099+Rdg099) and IAdvising
- Spring 2006: ENG099 plus GenEd or Career course and IAdvising (IA)
- Year 3 (2006-2007): Dev. Math (090/095) plus GenEd or Career course and IA
- Year 4 (2007-2008): Career course plus GenEd course (and IA?)
- Year 5 (2008-2009): 2-4 General Education courses (and IA?)
Shortly after we received news about the Title III award, the English Department and Academic Affairs launched an ambitious initiative to integrate the current stand-alone upper-level developmental courses—ENG099 and RDG099—into a single, 6-hour course, which will carry the ENG099 title. Although this decision was not essential to the project’s success, Title III resources will make it possible and the lion’s share of grant time, effort and resources in Spring 2005 will be dedicated to this bold attempt to make a significant difference in our students’ academic success. For purposes of the project objectives, we see this integrated reading/writing course as an important “stepping stone” to the Year 2 LC model to be piloted in Spring 2006 (intensive ENG099 course + GenEd/Career course + Intrusive Advising).
8. What are the goals for our project? How will PSC benefit?
As stated above, the three primary outcomes we will be tracking for purposes of reporting to the Dept. of Education are course-level retention, persistence from semester-to-semester, and graduation or degree/certificate completion. We will compare those students participating in LCs with comparable groups of non-participating students. In addition, we will be assessing levels of student engagement, intellectual development, and course satisfaction.
For interested faculty, we want to provide opportunities to collaborate with colleagues and have meaningful conversations about teaching and learning.
For PSC as an institution, we want a more engaged student body with a deeper connection to their college experience. We want all College employees to see themselves as educators playing important roles in our students’ success. Ideally, we would like to have our College be seen, both inside and outside, as one grand learning community focused on helping students achieve their dreams.
9. What is a Learning Community?
The concept, “learning community,” has been used and understood in many different ways. We are using learning communities to refer to a particular type of curricular reform that involves the blending of two or more courses, by two or more faculty, with co-enrollment of a cohort of students in each of the courses part of the LC.
10. What is Intrusive Advising?
Like learning communities, intrusive advising is part of a reform initiative, one that advocates a proactive role by counselors and advisors in supporting student success. Intrusive advising is a blending of the prescriptive and developmental models of advising and places considerable emphasis on the nurturing of student motivation to be active partners with advisors/counselors in designing an academic plan. It is especially important when working with first-generation college students who often have problems navigating the obstacles inherent to higher education bureaucracies. Intrusive advising involves a range of intervention strategies that lead to informed, responsible decision-making and facilitate the academic and social integration of students.
11. What makes for an effective learning community program?
Merely to link courses together and enroll a common group of students are not what make for high-quality learning communities. The design of our project relies on a close reading of the rapidly growing academic literature on learning communities and an emerging set of best practices.
High-quality LC programs place a strong emphasis on the classroom learning dynamic. Collaborative learning among students, active learning pedagogies, and the intentional fostering of community are all important elements.
Allocating sufficient time for effective faculty planning to integrate curriculum across different courses and disciplines and consider strategies for team teaching are also associated with high-quality programs. Our Faculty Learning Community (FLC) Seminar, involving LC faculty teams in the semester prior to implementation, will be an important vehicle in developing high-quality LCs.
Finally, the best LC programs take assessment seriously, especially as it relates to the improvement of the program. Ongoing assessment and evaluation efforts will be a vital piece of the project’s success.
12. What is the role of intrusive advising in an effective learning community program?
The prominent role of advisors, counselors and librarians is another aspect common to high-quality LC programs. This is especially true for LCs that encompass developmental education, which is our project’s focus in the first three years of the grant.
13. What are the opportunities for faculty to be involved in the project?
For each year of the grant, our first priority is to research the effects of our LC model for that particular year. For example, in Spring 2006 we will be focused on the blending of our soon-to-be reformed ENG 099 course and a General Education or Career course, resulting in a writing-intensive, 9-hour pair of courses. We want that LC model to involve significant faculty team planning and some team teaching via what is referred to as a “Coordinated Studies” type of LC. In Fall 2005, interested LC faculty teams will participate in the FLC Seminar—with 3 hours of release/reassigned time—in preparation for the Spring 2006 LC course. The deepest level of faculty involvement in the Title III project will be this preparation for a Coordinated Studies LC with participation in the FLC Seminar.
Two other avenues for faculty involvement carry with them a more modest level of commitment. One possibility is for a team of faculty to prepare a Linked-only LC, which co-enrolls a common group of students in two or more courses, requires significant pre-semester faculty planning, but does not require participation in the FLC Seminar or team teaching during the semester of the LC. Another possibility is for a faculty team to design an interdisciplinary project involving students from two or more courses, an option that involves some faculty planning but does not carry the other requirements. An example would be a linked assignment between students independently enrolled in two stand-alone courses. We see this last possibility, although perhaps not technically a learning community, as an important “stepping stone” to subsequent involvement with a Linked-only LC or a Coordinated Studies LC.
For current information and applications, see Faculty Opportunities.
14. What are the different levels of time commitment and compensation among interdisciplinary projects, Linked-only LCs and Coordinated Studies LCs?
For interdisciplinary projects (linked assignments): modest time commitment and modest stipend. One significant advantage is that there is no need for co-enrollment of students in a block of courses. A faculty team would need to allow some time to meet with LC Coordinator in planning stages of project and participate in assessment activities.
For Linked-only LCs: deeper time commitment, higher stipend ($500 to plan, $500 when class makes). Unlike linked assignments, students must be co-enrolled in two or more courses (courses must be linked on schedule). Stipend would be tied to planning time for LC faculty team in semester prior to implementation and meetings with LC Coordinator. Some coordination of linked activities during semester of LC is necessary, but there is no requirement of team teaching or being in each other’s classroom. All faculty teams need to participate fully in assessment activities.
For Coordinated Studies LCs: deepest time commitment, significant compensation. During the semester prior to LC, faculty teams required to participate in FLC Seminar (meets twice/month) and dedicate significant time to planning. During the semester of LC implementation, faculty will spend 1-2 hours/week in each other’s classrooms (team teaching) and meet regularly with LC Coordinator. In compensation, faculty teams will receive 3 hours reassigned time in semester prior to LC and 1-2 credit hours during implementation. As with Linked-only LCs, all faculty teams need to participate fully in assessment activities.
The Faculty Learning Community (FLC) Seminar is an important vehicle for developing high-quality LCs and is a required activity for faculty teams doing a Coordinated Studies LC. The Seminar will be co-facilitated by Sally Kelley-Haywood and Ed Schwarz and is scheduled to meet on alternate Thursday afternoons from 2:30-4PM. During the Seminar, participants will be introduced to best practices in learning communities and intrusive advising, share with colleagues their questions and insights about issues related to teaching and learning, and discuss with other LC faculty teams problems encountered and progress made in putting together their Coordinated Studies LC.
16. Is there an application process? What are the deadlines for applying?
Yes, see Ed Schwarz for an application or download an application from Faculty Opportunties. Since different types of involvement require different levels of lead time, the application deadlines will vary depending on what type of project you will be doing. Deadlines are listed on the Faculty Opportunities page.
17. What is the Summer Institute about and exactly when will it occur?
One additional way to be involved in our Title III project is to participate in the Summer Institute. Every summer for the next five years, in the week following graduation (last week of May, prior to summer classes), we will offer a three-day (or more) Summer Institute open to all full-time and adjunct faculty members. The theme of our 2005 Summer Institute will be: “Student Success Through Integrated Reading and Writing.” The Institute will target faculty preparing to teach the new, intensive ENG 099 in Fall 2005 but may also be of interest to those planning to teach the Coordinated Studies LC in Spring 2006, when ENG 099 will be combined with a General Education or Career course. Depending on interest, we may need to limit enrollment. If interested, contact Ed Schwarz for an application.