Faculty Learning Communities Project Evaluation
September 2012
Prepared for the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
By Stan Goto, Maureen Pettitt and Ben Moll
The State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) has provided funding for Faculty Learning
Communities (FLC) in 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. During this time, 68 year-long FLCs have been initiated in
Washington. As part of the assessment, FLC facilitators are required to report at both mid-year and at year end.
While this information has been useful at the individual FLC level, it is the desire of the State Board to conduct a
more comprehensive programmatic evaluation that is simultaneously more global and more richly detailed. The
goal of this evaluation is to analyze FLC processes, structures, and outcomes, with a focus on identifying
characteristics of successful FLCs. Using surveys, report analyses, and case-study methodologies, this study
focuses on two research questions:

What measurable outcomes have resulted from existing FLCs?

What processes and structures lead some FLCs to be successful?
This inquiry is informed by several strands of research on learning communities. In a meta-analysis of research,
Pike (2008) makes four generalizations about the assessment of student learning communities: (A) the effects
of learning communities are indirect; (B) the nature of the learning community influences the outcomes; (C) the
effects of learning communities are influenced by the characteristics of the participants; and (D) the effects of
learning communities varies among institutional types. The current study of Washington FLCs assumes that
these apply to faculty learning communities. Given these assumptions, the researchers decided that it would be
insufficient (and possibly misleading) to simply analyze indicators of FLC outcomes, since the effects are likely to
be indirect. It was determined that the study should consider the qualitative nature of FLCs, including the
characteristics of participants and the institutional contexts. Consequently, this study includes qualitative case
studies, as well as a quantitative analysis of outcomes. This approach is consistent with a growing body of
mixed-methods research on learning communities. According to Commander and Ward, a combined
quantitative/qualitative methodology “allow(s) us to look at the learning community experience much more
comprehensively than we could have if we had relied on only one research method” (2009, p. 26).
The evaluation project was approached in two phases. The first phase of the project was a system-wide analysis
of FLC outcomes using both a survey of FLC contacts/organizers and an analysis of FLC reports submitted to the
SBCTC. Survey respondents (FLCs) were asked to rate the progress of their FLC in meeting each goal and to
describe how they met the goal, what factors helped them meet the goal and/or what barriers kept them from
meeting the goal more fully. The researchers also reviewed the mid-year and year-end reports provided by the
FLCs. This analysis helped to deepen understanding of FLC process and outcomes. By the end of Phase I, the
researchers were able to identify FLCs that were most successful in meeting SBCTC and self-defined goals.
1
Phase II involved a more in-depth analysis of successful FLC programs. Drawing on Phase I findings, the
researchers chose sites representing a range of successful programmatic models. Representatives at each site
were asked to participate in a 60-minute interview with one of the researchers. The interview questions were
focused on developmental processes, rather than final products, although the FLC participant was asked to
provide documents related to goal achievement if available.
Initial Survey of FLCs
Eager to obtain feedback about the outcomes and perceived success of the FLCs, the researchers designed and
distributed a survey to all contacts listed for the FLCs for the three years available. Email invitation describing
the project goals and the importance of FLC participants’ feedback were mailed out to the Faculty Learning
Community contact person listed on the State Board web site during the week of April 17.th A reminder email
was sent out to contacts by State Board staff mid-May. The data were downloaded on May 24th. There were 36
responses to the 68 email survey invitations.
The survey items are presented in Table 1. Question 1 of the survey was for identification purposes only. The
second question was an open-ended question asking respondents to describe the goals of their FLC. The third
question asked respondents to rate how successful the FLC was in reaching the goal on a 3-point scale from
“very successful” to “slightly successful.” Fifty-three percent (53%) reported that the FLC was “very successful”
in meeting their goal. Many respondents noted that the FLC encouraged collaboration, sharing and
conversations around the FLC topic and that those conversations were interesting and engaging for faculty.
Some respondents reported that these conversations often went off-topic, inhibiting goal attainment, or that
group members had a difficult time agreeing on ideas for the FLC. Several respondents reported significant
limitations around time to attend FLC meetings and activities. FLCs that were successful often built on existing
organizational structures/relationships and/or the work completed in previous FLCs. While sixty-one percent
(61%) of the respondents indicated that the FLCs make effective use of technology, technology was noted as a
challenge for several groups.
Table 1: Survey Items
#
Question
1 Name of Faculty Learning Community
2 What was the overall goal of your FLC?
3 How successful was your FLC in achieving your goal?
4 What factors contributed to this level of success in achieving your goal?
5 Our FLC functioned effectively (i.e., organization, communication, meetings, etc.)
6 Our FLC encouraged collaboration across our institution.
7 Our FLC encouraged collaboration across disciplines.
8 Our FLC resulted in collaboration with other institutions.
9 Our FLC built on ideas or projects from previous years.
10 Our FLC provided momentum for future professional development.
2
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The faculty in our FLC supported each other.
FLC members shared FLC-generated knowledge with others at our institution.
FLC members shared FLC-generated knowledge at state-wide events.
FLC members shared FLC-generated knowledge with others nationally.
Our FLC made effective use of technology.
Our FLC included or served people who are under-represented on our campus.
Our FLC tried to improve the ways we work with culturally diverse students, faculty, and/or staff.
Our participation in a FLC has resulted in positive changes in institutional practice.
The results of our FLC were connected to student learning outcomes.
The results of our FLC were strategies/learning resources that were scalable (capable of being
expanded).
21 Changes we have implemented (as a result of our FLC work) have increased students' learning and
engagement.
The response categories for each of the remaining 18 closed-ended questions ranged from 1 “Strongly Agree” to
5 “Strongly Disagree.” Respondents were also offered a “Not Sure/Not Applicable” response category.
Following each of the close-ended questions, respondents were provided a text box for making comments. A
majority of respondents used the comment box to elaborate on their rating for each question. The frequency
distribution for each of these items is presented in Appendix A, and a summary of respondents is presented
below.
A substantial majority of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their FLC functioned effectively (83%)
and that the members supported each other (92%). The majority also indicated that the FLC encouraged
collaboration across the institution (83%) and across disciplines (81%). A smaller percentage (36%) reported
that the FLC resulted in collaboration with other institutions. A little over half reported that the FLC built on
ideas or projects from previous years (53%), but a majority thought that the FLC provided momentum for future
professional development (86%). Seventy-eight percent (78%) reported that members shared FLC-generated
knowledge with others at the institution, while 58% reported having shared this knowledge at statewide events.
A significantly smaller percent (22%) shared FLC-generated knowledge at the national level.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of the respondents reported that the FLC included or served people who were
underrepresented at their campus and half reported that the FCL tried to improve the ways in which they
worked with culturally diverse students, faculty and/or staff. Nearly three-quarters of the respondents (72%)
indicated that the results of their FLC were connected to student learning outcomes, and 64% reported that
changes implemented as a result of their FLC work increased student learning and engagement.
Fifty-six percent 56%) reported that FLC participation resulted in positive changes in institutional practice and
78% felt that the result of their FLC included strategies or resources that were scalable.
3
Analysis of Submitted Reports
The researchers analyzed the mid-year and end-of-year reports for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 Faculty Learning
Communities (FLCs) funded by the SBCTC. The goal of this analysis was to identify high-performing FLCs in order
to investigate what and how specific elements contributed to success and determine replicable attributes that
could raise the level of success for future FLCs. FLCs that provided only a mid-year report (i.e., did not include an
end-of-year report) received low marks for the missing elements. Therefore, these FLCs were, generally, not
considered "successful.”
A framework was created to enable the researchers to gather and rank the data from the analyzed FLC reports
by section:

abstract

description of your early work

community learning and project development

planning assessment strategies

implementing assessment strategies

key resources

what others know about the FLCs work

dissemination

20/20 hindsight

what's next
Each section of the report was given numerical rating with “1” indicating a high level of success/proficiency and
a “5” indicating the lowest level of success/proficiency. The level of success/proficiency for each section was
determined by how well the given section addressed one or more of the following objectives:

FLC functioned effectively (i.e., organization, communication, meetings, etc.)

FLC encouraged collaboration across the institution.

FLC encouraged collaboration across disciplines.

FLC resulted in collaboration with other institutions.

FLC built on ideas or projects from previous years

FLC provided momentum for future professional development

Faculty in our FLC supported each other.

FLC members shared FLC-generated knowledge with others at our institution.

FLC members shared FLC-generated knowledge at state-wide events.

FLC members shared FLC-generated knowledge with others nationally.

FLC made effective use of technology.

FLC included or served people who are under-represented at our campus.

FLC tried to improve the ways we work with culturally diverse students, faculty, or staff

Participation in a FLC has resulted in positive changes in institutional practice.

Results of our FLC were connected to student learning outcomes.
4

Results of our FLC were strategies/learning resources that were scalable.

Participation in the FLC has increased student learning and engagement.
If the content of a particular section was not related to any of the aims above and this lack of relation was not a
shortcoming of the FLC, that section was given an “average” rating (3).
The following attributes were found to be the most relevant indicators of success for those FLCs deemed
successful. An "indicator of success" was defined by the researchers as a measurable, evident effect of a
successful FLC. The analysis suggests that successful FLCs:

follow-through on the original goals and/or remain goal-focused as goals shift via context

maintain momentum by continuing into the next academic year

exhibit a high retention level and/or increase the FLC membership

exhibit a shared conceptual and methodological framework

disseminate results beyond and/or within the college, throughout the process of the FLC

exhibit collaboration across multiple disciplines/areas of the college

clearly and collaboratively propose desired outcomes

exhibit collaboration and "buy-in" within the FLC membership

exhibit high levels of organization

exhibit clear, frequent communication among members
The analysis also included evaluative comments for each section of the report. Taken together, the numerical
ratings and the evaluative comments allowed the researchers to identify which FLCs experienced success and in
which areas.
Qualitative Case Studies
The analysis of FLC documents allowed the researchers to identify successful FLCs to be included in the
qualitative case studies. Candidates were identified from the numeric ratings and narrative comments on each
set of FLC reports. In making selections, the researchers considered the extent to which each FLC achieved the
indicators of success (e.g., follow-through on original goals, maintaining momentum).
The intention was not just to select the FLCs that were ranked highest in these categories. In addition, the
researchers wanted to include a representative range of topics, colleges, and administrative configurations.
Initially, nine FLCs were identified with three additional alternates. Organizers from the top nine were invited to
participate in interviews. Several declined or were unavailable. Ultimately, interviews with eight
representatives were conducted.
5
The interview questions were derived from the analysis of documents. That analysis identified eleven
hypotheses concerning factors (e.g., funding, tenure and promotion policies, organizational culture) that might
promote successful outcomes. For each hypothesis, the researchers created one or more interview questions to
probe the role of that factor (see questions attached).
The 60-minute interviews were conducted either by phone or in-person. In most cases, one researcher
interviewed the FLC organizer(s). In one case, the original organizer no longer worked at the college, so an FLC
participant was interviewed. Most of the interviews were audio-recorded.
The researchers then produced a summary transcription for each interview, based on the audio recording or
hand-written notes. After transcription was completed, the researchers conducted an initial review of the data
set, identifying data that supported or refuted our eleven hypotheses. These data were assigned codes related
to the hypotheses. The data were then grouped by code and compared within each FLC and across all eight FLCs.
The researchers then created narratives for each case study highlighting distinguishing characteristics of each
FLC as well as identifying key factors that contributed to each FLC’s success.
The narratives are grouped in pairs based on similar topics: Edmonds and Seattle Central addressed integrative
learning. Bellingham Tech and Tacoma focused on instructional technology. Lake Washington and South Puget
Sound explored multicultural issues. Renton Tech and Peninsula addressed ESL/basic skills issues.
Edmonds Community College / Exploring Intentional Integrative Learning
This faculty learning community was designed to identify best practices in integrative learning in order to
improve student learning communities at Edmonds Community College (ECC). The organizers sought guidance
from Evergreen State College, as well as Seattle Central Community College. An ECC contingent attended the
Washington Center Summer Institute on Learning Communities. In the ensuing academic year, the core group
shared their work with colleagues at their campus, partnering with the college-wide book read program and
presenting an integrative assignment to faculty in various disciplines. The FLC group also presented at the
Washington Assessment, Teaching and Learning Conference.
Distinguishing Characteristics of this FLC
 Extensive and deliberate collaboration between faculty, student services, administration
 Strong research base
 Multiple means of dissemination
In most FLCs, faculty are the principal actors (hence the term faculty learning communities). Typically, if staff
and administrators are involved, they play supporting roles. While the Integrative Learning FLC at Edmonds CC
was propelled mostly by faculty, the organizers were particularly mindful of engaging faculty, student services
personnel, and administrators. This project was designed to be a joint effort, with all parties contributing
expertise. In one instance, a staff member from the Advising Center presented Chickering’s research on student
engagement. “A lot of the faculty had never heard about that,” explained one administrator. Involving staff and
6
administrators is not new in FLCs. The Integrative Learning FLC was exceptional in the extent to which equitable
participation was fostered.
This FLC was also noteworthy in the systematic way that members reviewed research and theory. The organizers
consulted closely with the Washington Center to learn about recent developments in integrative learning. This
work led a core group to attend a summer institute at the Washington Center, giving the group a common
conceptual framework and helping members to build closer working bonds. It was at the summer institute that
group members formulated their action plan for the FLC. Of course, other FLCs in this study also reviewed
relevant literature and consulted outside experts. What set ECC apart was the deep immersion that FLC
members received from the outset. This served to unify their conversations, providing a common conceptual
framework.
Like other FLCs in our review, the Integrative Learning group sought to share their knowledge with colleagues at
their campus and beyond. Thanks to the summer institute, the core members had a head start in acquiring the
subject matter. Consequently, the group was able to concentrate on dissemination through a large portion of
the academic year. The group presented at ECC’s Building Community Day and at the Assessment, Teaching and
Learning Conference. The extent of the dissemination distinguished this FLC from most others, which tended to
share their findings toward the end of the academic year.
Organizational Factors Contributing to Success
 FLC administration
 Connections with college initiatives
 Organizational culture
 Financial support
This FLC was co-chaired by an area dean and a developmental education instructor. At ECC, it is common for a
committee to be co-chaired with a faculty member and an administrator. This configuration typically allows
both chairs to contribute their respective knowledge. In the case of the Integrative Learning FLC, the
administrative partner offered in-depth understanding of college policies and procedures. Additionally, she
brought staff support to help with grant administration, travel, scheduling, and other tasks. This alleviated some
of the administrative burden that normally falls on the shoulders of faculty.
Working together, the organizers identified ways of linking the FLC with college-wide initiatives. In particular,
the group created professional development activities building on a shared text that faculty and staff were
reading as part of a college reads program. Additionally, the organizers planned on linking the FLC work with the
college’s Achieving the Dream initiative. They opened up their professional development work to include new
faculty hired under the ATD initiative. In forming such linkages, the organizers raised the visibility of their work
and made it relevant to the life of the college.
The nature of the Integrative Learning FLC meshed well with the interests of faculty. Through the 1990s, ECC had
what one administrator characterized as a “robust faculty development program that was run by faculty.” Then
the college lost its two professional development coordinator positions, and much of that faculty-driven work
was terminated. Still, there was a desire among faculty to talk with each other about teaching and learning. A
new college administration made this possible once again by supporting faculty-led professional development.
The Integrative Learning FLC addressed the grassroots desire among faculty to work with each other. The
organizers were careful to offer professional development that was directly applicable to classroom practice.
FLC members showed their colleagues how to conduct integrative assignments. One explained, “I think with
7
faculty, in particular, when you provide professional development, they need something they can walk out of
the room and try.”
Funding was an important factor in the success of this FLC. The State Board grant not only supported this group,
but also raised its profile in the eyes of campus administration. The group also received a Title III grant, which
was used to send FLC members to the summer institute at the Washington Center. Additionally, college funds
were used to support part-time faculty in attending professional development activities. This FLC was
exceptionally successful in securing funding, in no small part, because the organizers had the time and expertise
to successfully pursue grants.
Seattle Central Community College / Integrative Assignments and Assessment
This Faculty Learning Community built upon the college’s long history with integrative and interdisciplinary
learning. This FLC, leveraging work done in a 2010-11 FLC, focused on integrative assignments and the
assumptions that integrative learning is essential for students' personal success, self and social responsibility and
civic engagement in a rapidly changing and connected world. During the first FLC, the group spent a significant
amount of time discussing components of integrative learning and conceptualizing a rubric that would assess
student integration in the context of addressing real-world issues relevant to students’ life experiences and
interests--a “living model” of assessment.
This FLC included the initial FLC members and focused on using the newly-developed living model in actual
assessment of assignments and in helping students to better understand integration in the context of their
coursework. Part of the FLC work was continuing to create integrative assignments relevant to students' life
experiences and interests, and to engage students in assessing their own work. The use of technology by faculty
and students was examined to evaluate how interactive assessment tools might capture what “kinds” of
learning take place within integrative assignments.
Distinguishing Characteristics of this FLC




Collaboration across campus and with other colleges
Student involvement
Assessment in classroom
Attempt to use technology for assessment of learning
The FLC generated interest outside the FLC membership. There were more meeting participants at times; folks
who had heard about the meetings and come to just talk. Student leadership was involved and attended FLC
meetings. This not only generated powerful conversations but changed the conversation completely. For
example, students’ expectations and faculty expectations were very different. There was a mismatch between
what students and faculty believed to be important and helpful in guidance for assignments. These
conversations also resulted in a shift from starting with integration to grounding in the disciplines first, then
integrating.
The FLC group agreed that their goal was “to help students and increase student achievement;
everyone was very committed to this goal and wanted to focus on integrative assignments that
encouraged:
 utilization of multiple modes of inquiry and multiple venues of knowledge,
8


application of theory to practice employing interdisciplinary diverse perspectives, and
contextualization of students’ personal experiences in larger societal and global patterns.
The FLC examined the use of iPads to assess integration. While learning a lot about how that technology might
be used, they were unable to implement it on a large scale, due largely to a lack of faculty and student expertise
and campus Wi-Fi issues. The group did obtain 5 iPads as part of the project. As an alternative to using iPads for
the assessment, the group used an application called Pearl Tree, hoping students could use this app to show
what/how they were integrating. However, there were some technical issues with Pearl Tree and with getting
the students online. Unfortunately, “in the end, it was more trouble than it was worth.”
Organizational Factors Contributing to Success
 Grassroots interest
 Outside connections
 Prior experience
 Administrative support
The FLC had a core group of people from the first FLC who were really involved and had stayed committed.
Most of the FLC 12 participants stayed involved during the entire year. This group included faculty from
different disciplines on campus who were willing to continually show up and work on the project. Based on
previous integrative learning work, the FLC members had concrete ideas they could put into practice as they met
while engaging in this FLC, giving them the opportunity to both implement their ideas and get student feedback.
Additionally, the college as a whole has extensive experience with integrative learning. Student learning
communities have been a fixture at Seattle Central for decades. The organizer and other faculty had engaged
over a long period of time with the Washington Center regarding integrative learning.
Bellingham Technical College / ANGEL Virtual Learning Community
Originally designed to guide BTC faculty in using the Angel LMS, this FLC expanded to include multiple colleges
and technologies. Initially, the group followed a predetermined schedule addressing core system tools of Angel.
During the academic year, members decided to expand the topics to include Elluminate, Tegrity, and other elearning tools. The group expanded the Elluminate-based workshops to include faculty from any Washington
college. Participants who had experience with a given technology volunteered to be presenters. The Elluminate
sessions were recorded, creating a permanent record for anyone who wanted to review the subject matter.
Distinguishing Characteristics of this FLC
 Frequency of meetings
 Scope of participation
 Attendance policy
 Use of technology
Of the FLCs in this study, this BTC group was among the most active. The group initially planned to meet once
per week (which, in itself, was a fairly demanding schedule for an FLC). Eventually, weekly “office hours” were
added. This was a drop-in opportunity for FLC members to ask their colleagues questions about instructional
technology. Additionally, BTC faculty were expected to attend another weekly technology workshop that was
conducted on campus. The purpose of the face-to-face meetings were for smaller groups of BTC faculty to
decide how they would apply principles presented in the larger multi-college meeting. The sheer frequency of
meetings suggests a certain level of enthusiasm and dedication among participants, particularly those at BTC.
9
The number and distribution of participants were also noteworthy. According to one member, the Elluminate
meetings typically had up to 20 attendees from as many as ten colleges. Of course, more FLC participants is not
necessarily better. (In fact, Cox [2004] recommends that group sizes be kept at 12 or less). What is interesting,
here, is that the organizers apparently were successful in conducting the workshops, despite the large number
and widespread distribution of participants. This may have been due to the smaller break-out sessions and office
hours that accompanied the large plenary sessions.
This group’s membership policy differed somewhat from other FLCs. The Miami University model (Cox, 2004)
encourages a yearlong commitment from participants. Consistent attendance presumably builds a cohesive
sense of community. A yearlong commitment was informally expected of BTC-based members, but it was not
enforced with participants from other colleges. “Our learning community was more of a drop-in,” explained one
member. “You come to as many as you could, but sometimes you just can’t make it. But they are all recorded so
if you missed it, you could go back and see the recording.” Essentially, this FLC had a two-track membership
policy, with stricter expectations for core members and more lenient expectations for those on the periphery.
Not surprisingly, this FLC was innovative in its use of instructional technology. While the presenters talked about
e-learning, they attempted to model effective instruction using the technologies (e.g., Elluminate, Angel) that
they were showcasing. This approach is common. The innovative part came with the follow-up meeting, during
which participants were expected to devise ways of applying the e-learning tool that was demonstrated in the
workshop. This went beyond the typical drive-by tour of gadgets that sometimes occurs in technology
workshops.
Organizational Factors Contributing to Success
 Grassroots interest
 Flexible structure
 Employment requirements
Ultimately, the Angel Virtual Learning Community succeeded in its ambitious agenda because participants were
enthusiastic about the subject matter. One member explained, “In some cases for participants, (learning about
instructional technology) was just survival…. Other times, people get into it and realize, ‘Gee, I need a way of
keeping grades or doing tests.’” Some prided themselves on being pioneers in the use of instructional
technology. One participant speculated that professional technical faculty are used to working with equipment
in the classroom and, consequently, they are more likely than academic faculty to feel comfortable using elearning tools in their teaching.
Participants also appreciated the flexibility of the FLC agenda. In most FLCs in this study, the organizer(s)
typically took the lead in selecting content once the group decided on the overall topic. This was initially the
case with the Angel Virtual Learning Community. However, as the academic year progressed, members took a
more active role in determining the content. They decided to change the title and the focus of the FLC to include
a greater variety of instructional technologies. At the end of each meeting, they voted on topics that they
wanted to see in future sessions. Sometimes they revisited subject matter that they felt needed more
exploration. According to one participant, this adherence to member interests kept people engaged.
To some extent, the college’s employment requirements may have influenced participants’ motivation in the
FLC. One member noted: “A few years back we had it in our contract that, if they increase your pay with a
stipend, you have to do all these specific things… In some cases, they might say you have to learn online
teaching methods.” This individual went on to explain that BTC’s administration made it clear to faculty that
10
proficiency in e-learning methods was a priority. Consequently, it was not uncommon for faculty to specify elearning goals in their professional development plans.
Tacoma Community College / Social Media, Emergence, and the Power of Pull Strategies
The E-Learning Department at TCC designed and facilitated this FLC to promote “thoughtful integration of
technology across the curriculum in service of student learning and success.” The group looked broadly at how
social media and other e-learning tools can be used to promote collaborative learning. The group explored a
variety of readings on adult learning and community. Members presented at the Lilly Conference on College
and University Teaching.
Distinguishing Characteristics of this FLC
 Establishment and spread of FLC ethos
 Grounding in research and theory
 Connectedness with broader professional/academic communities
Unlike some FLCs in our study that had long histories with professional learning communities, TCC was a relative
newcomer to this form of professional development. One administrator observed that the mode of interaction
“was so different than the typical structure that people were used to…They were thinking of the first FLC session
as a committee meeting.” This perception changed, however, during the first year of FLCs at Tacoma. According
to the FLC organizer, faculty became increasingly comfortable with opening up their classrooms and talking with
each other about teaching. Enthusiasm for collaborative interaction spread beyond the FLCs to the e-Learning
Department as a whole. “Now we do everything like faculty learning communities,” explained the organizer.
“We do our consults as faculty/professional learning communities… [that] way of working together is our entire
mode as a department.” This organizational transformation is rather remarkable, especially given the relatively
short timeframe.
The Social Media FLC was also noteworthy in its grounding in research and theory. This group was not the only
FLC in our study to draw extensively on published work, but it was unusual in the depth and direction of its
literature review. Most other FLCs tended to concentrate on reviewing best practices at other institutions. The
readings presented to FLC participants generally did not focus on how to use e-learning tools, per se. Rather,
the readings looked more abstractly at theories of learning and community. The group, for instance, read work
by cultural anthropologist Mizuko Ito, who writes about connected learning and digital media. A major task for
the FLC organizer was to help members understand how various conceptual frameworks might inform everyday
classroom practice.
This FLC’s conceptual grounding was due in no small part to the organizer’s professional ties. She maintained
close connections with educators who study and lead faculty learning communities. In this respect, the Social
Media FLC differed somewhat from most other FLCs in this study. Typically, other FLCs tended to bring in
outside educators to provide expertise to the group. Members of the Social Media FLC likewise consulted with
outside scholars, but this was not simply a one-way exchange. Through the Lilly Conference presentation and
other dissemination work, this FLC made an impression on educators outside of the state. “When TCC faculty
present at Lily, they offer counsel to university scholars,” explained the organizer. “Our participation is breaking
down a lot of preconceptions” about the ability of community colleges to conduct faculty learning communities.
11
Organizational Factors Contributing to Success
 Strategic planning
 Commitment to the FLC process
 Funding and other supports
The Social Media FLC was successful for numerous reasons, not the least of which was careful planning on the
part of the organizer. One key strategy in this early FLC was to bring together people who were “already active
leaders in the community.” The organizer was careful to invite faculty and staff from a variety of areas:
I wanted some people who were new technology adopters and who were very excited about
innovation. I wanted people who had reputations as really good instructors who were
committed but who didn’t like technology. I wanted someone who came from the
developmental end of things…. I wanted the e-learning people absolutely at the table so they
were interacting and hearing faculty concerns.
The intention was to groom individuals in this early FLC for future leadership positions. This particularly
pertained to people who got involved with the Lilly Conference. The organizer explained, “I was very careful to
say that people who wanted to be in leadership next year were the ones I wanted to participate in those
presentations.” Initially, the organizer took the lead in planning and facilitation. Over time, she turned some of
those duties over to co-facilitators. By the end of the Social Media FLC, a number of participants wanted to
continue on as leaders of future FLCs. This group was the start of a peer mentoring tradition in Tacoma FLCs.
This is an intriguing strategy to foster sustainable leadership and growth beyond the immediate FLC. It appears
this administrative approach helped to spread the FLC ethos to other areas of the e-Learning Department.
Another important factor in the success of this FLC was the group’s commitment to the FLC process. From the
outset, members followed Miami University’s procedural model (Cox, 2004). As the organizer put it, “We really
did follow the thirty components. We were very careful to start with a norming session. We compared and
contrasted task forces and committees. We got people to buy in. And then the outcomes grew organically out of
the community.” This provided the group with a coherent and proven structure to build their community. In
keeping with the MU model, members agreed to stay with the group through the academic year. The organizer
acknowledged that the process was not always easy. The group had a “storming” phase during which members
created a poster showing broken eggs. This symbolized the messiness of creating a community. Eventually, the
group gelled. “We do have real community,” explained the organizer. “That wouldn’t happen if we allowed
people to drift in and out.”
The organizer further commented on the importance of funding for Tacoma’s FLCs. She noted that the State
Board grant did more than provide financial support; it also elevated the status of FLCs in the eyes of TCC
administration. The grant came at a time of travel restrictions and other cut-backs. This seed money allowed
FLCs to become established within the institution. In addition, the e-Learning Department provided matching
funds to help pay for conference travel. Other divisions contributed funds for subsequent FLCs. Faculty,
however, did not receive stipends or release time to attend the FLC, nor did they receive Professional Activity
Units.
12
Lake Washington Institute of Technology / Multiculturalism
This Faculty Learning Community was inspired by a related 2009-10 FLC that examined skills needed in today’s
global/multicultural workforce. The core membership of this FLC remained the same as the prior year but
included a number of new members from across campus in both academic and technical programs. The
Multiculturalism FLC focused on the on-going assessment of global student learning outcomes. The group
included a number of faculty, one of whom was also the Assessment Liaison. Consequently, this project helped
move forward the college’s assessment work.
Distinguishing Characteristics of this FLC
 Organized major events
 Developed cultural competency plan
 Implemented ideas in classrooms
A number of outcomes were achieved through this project. The college came away with a cultural competency
plan that faculty plan to implement when dollars are available. Also, the project provided a focused
international service learning experience for a small number of students. More generally, faculty bonded with
peers from other disciplines/areas. Moreover, they took away curriculum ideas they are now implementing in
classrooms.
Organizational Factors Contributing to Success
 Institutional culture
 Outside connections
 Individual incentives
The greater college community recognized that the purposes of the FLC aligned with the college’s strategic
direction. As one organizer put it, “students and employers in our community are vested in our FLC, as our goal
is to prepare students for the global workforce.” The FLC was clearly tied in with existing college-level work,
including the ongoing assessment of global student learning.
Additionally, the FLC worked closely with key constituencies, both on and off-campus. Organizers collaborated
with the international programs office to launch a short-term study abroad program in Korea. The FLC group
also connected with local educational institutions and other entities that do short-term service learning-related
experiences with the goal of building a model program for the college and others institutions.
As an added incentive, the Vice President supported the project by adding the FLC to the list of the committees
that counted for the two required committees as part of workload.
South Puget Sound / Comparative Multicultural Courses
The purpose of this Faculty Learning Community was to bring together faculty who teach multicultural courses
in the Washington community and technical college system (CTC). The FLC was founded on four guiding
questions:
1. How do we currently define multicultural understanding throughout our college system, as a learning
outcome?
2. How do we teach and practice multicultural understanding in the classroom?
13
3. What do we consider best practices?
4. How do we assess our work and student learning outcomes?
The original goals were to (a) share experiences about teaching multicultural understanding, (b) promote
professional development, and (c) examine anti-racist pedagogy. During the year, however, activities expanded
beyond the original purpose to include a diversity assessment rubric, an ATL conference presentation, the
recognition of national standards, seeking collaboration with the Multicultural Student Services Directors
Council (MSSDC), and plans for continuing the FLC beyond this year. A listserv was created which now includes
over fifty members representing fourteen colleges.
Distinguishing Characteristics of this FLC
 Collaboration within and beyond institution
 Multiple venues for dissemination
 Plan for follow-up work
Members of this FLC represented multiple colleges (South Puget Sound, Shoreline, Green River, Pierce) as well
as multiple disciplines and institutional units. The group made substantial progress even though participants
were separated by distance and disparate professional perspectives. One of the biggest challenges for the group
was that “most faculty who come to this do not have formal training in the discipline. Some have never even
taken a diversity course.”
FLC members presented their work on their respective campuses and beyond. The group did a presentation at
the Pacific Northwest Assessment, Teaching and Learning Conference. Additionally, they planned to do
workshops at other state and national conferences. The goal was to promote AACU National standards and to
promote critical multicultural education across the curriculum.
Organizational Factors Contributing to Success
 Establishing common ground
 Using distance technology
Organizers and participants in this FLC recognized that they were dealing with potentially contentious subject
matter. Consequently, they took steps to build a “safe space” to discuss issues, pedagogy, and professional
development in the field. Part of the FLC agenda was to help legitimize the field and encourage the notion there
is real work in this field, more than well-meaning instructors trying to help people.
Because participants were based at multiple colleges, the group decided to employ distance technology to
conduct their meetings. Elluminate was used for synchronous interactions, and Dropbox was used to share
articles, documents, and other curricular resources. One participant wrote, “I really appreciated having a guest
speaker via Elluminate, and was thrilled I could ‘attend’ the meeting with other colleagues interested in this
work.”
Renton Technical College / Making I-BEST Better
This Faculty Learning Community focused on the I-BEST teaching model where ABE/ESL faculty are paired with
academic/vocational instructors. The I-BEST model has been shown to be extremely effective in helping basic
skills students be successful learners. However, experience with these innovative programs has shown that
14
faculty need support to launch and sustain a successful class. In some cases, this may actually involve
“relearning” how to teach. This FLC provided an opportunity for instructors to collaborate and explore resources
to improve their work. This community support and personal development was designed to make the learning
process for faculty less stressful and more exciting. Particular emphasis was placed on team teaching and
contextualized earning (i.e., how to integrate basic skills with academic/vocational learning in a seamless
manner). These two topics emerged from the related 2009-2010 FLC as the issues that I-BEST instructors felt
were most crucial and wanted to explore further.
Distinguishing Characteristics of this FLC
 Grassroots interest
 Innovative use of technology
 Multiple means of dissemination
 Momentum for future professional development
Participants felt a real need for and commitment to the focus of the FLC. The FLC provided something that could
not be obtained in any other way. There was a fair bit of flexibility about how their time together would be
spent. The group could go off the “topic of the day” if there was an important issue to be discussed.
With regard to technology, initial discussions about the pros and cons of meeting in person versus meeting
online favored face-to-face; however, the group moved from in-person to more online as the project continued.
This was a slow transition to allow time for folks who were skeptical about electronic meetings to see their
value. The group also made use of WIGGIO-- a free, online toolkit designed to make it easy to work in groups.
The meeting and document sharing functions had limited use, but it created a closed site that was really used as
a listserv. If someone posted on the site, all the group members were notified about a posting. It was easy to
use.
There was significant sharing of the work done in the FLC at conferences within the state and informally with
faculty/administrators from other states that came to visit RTC about their I-BEST program. The commitment of
this group is evidenced by the fact that the FLC work continued into the following year (2010-11) with funding
from the SBCTC.
Organizational Factors Contributing to Success
 Opportunity for collaboration
 Systematic facilitation
 Administrative support
This project was an opportunity for faculty to work across disciplines and colleges. For RTC faculty, in particular,
the FLC provided a collaborative venue that didn’t exist elsewhere on campus. Essentially, the FLC filled a
professional development gap by creating a space for interdisciplinary conversations about best practices in IBEST. One organizer wrote, “The principal success of the group is simply bringing together I-BEST faculty from
multiple colleges and providing a conduit for sharing and discussion.”
The organizers followed a carefully planned set of procedures in facilitating this FLC. The group spent several
meetings defining the goals of the FLC and creating a mission statement. The organizers were also mindful of
the need to foster a sense of community among participants. This was difficult due to some transient
attendance and physical separation across seven colleges.
15
Most administrators across the colleges supported the FLC work and were flexible about faculty participation in
the FLC because they saw this as a valuable professional development opportunity in a time of severe budget
cuts.
Peninsula College / Identifying and Implementing Retention and Success Strategies for ESL
Nursing and Pre-Nursing
The purpose of this FLC was to identify retention and success strategies for non-native English speaking
students. This work came in response to persistently high attrition rates among English language learners in
nursing and pre-nursing. Peninsula’s nursing faculty collaborated with ESL faculty and allied disciplines. The core
group consulted with language specialists who were working on similar challenges. They also reviewed the
literature to identify best practices in language support and assessment. Ultimately, the group implemented a
“conversation partners” support program for ESL students. Also, they adopted the American Speechsounds
software package.
Distinguishing Characteristics of this FLC
 Focus on a specific instructional challenge
 Highly applied review of literature and best practices
 Implementation of new practices
The ESL Nursing group differed in focus from most FLCs in our review. While others tended to address topics
that were broadly relevant across subject areas, the Retention and Success group focused on a specific
instructional challenge with a particular student population in a particular program. This made the mission
abundantly clear to participants and helped the group make substantial progress through the year.
Driven by a highly focused purpose, this group conducted a similarly focused review of literature and best
practices. Members did not delve much into abstract theory of language learning; rather they concentrated on
identifying programs and supports that are proven to work well with ESL nursing students. While theoryoriented reviews might be appropriate in other situations, the highly applied nature of this FLC’s review was
appropriate for the group’s highly applied purposes.
The ESL Nursing FLC was one of the few in our study that formally institutionalized new practices. Other FLCs
tended to suggest ways of improving teaching and learning. In general, faculty in other FLCs were encouraged to
try out new techniques. In most cases, however, it was not clear whether these trials led to permanent changes.
The ESL Nursing group moved beyond experimentation to formally implement new practices and policies
supporting ESL students in nursing. To some extent, this was possible because the Nursing Program had done
preliminary work in this area. “It’s been a problem that we’ve been working on for a number of years,”
explained one organizer. “When we saw that funding was available, we were able to really pull together what
we had previously planned.” Still, this FLC’s progress was exceptional. During the year, the group considered
different forms of assessment, remediation coursework, pre-nursing assignments, and tutoring (speaking,
listening, and writing) before choosing a particular set of interventions.
Organizational Factors Contributing to Success
 Outside expertise
 Organizational culture
 College initiative
16
For the ESL Nursing group, receiving guidance from outside consultants was critical. As one organizer put it, “I
think the non-ESL instructors (i.e., pre-nursing, science, English) were as worried about the problem as we were.
Getting the experts in helped us develop solutions.” Another observed, “I think the biggest thing was having the
connections. There’s now a framework and context. When we were in our own little world, we went around in
circles.” The State Board grant enabled the ESL consultants to spend an extended amount of time advising the
Nursing Program.
The existing culture of collaboration at Peninsula made it relative easy for the ESL Nursing group to work
together as an interdisciplinary team. “We’re a small college and a small department so there is a lot of
communication and collaboration between faculty anyway,” said one organizer. “The pre-nursing faculty and
ESL instructors were already interested in ESL trends in nursing. Nursing faculty talked informally with them [ESL
instructors] before the FLC.” Additionally, Peninsula faculty were used to working together in other areas: “We
have professional development that goes across disciplines. Also, we serve together on committees through our
shared governance system.” These points of contact helped to build familiarity and trust among faculty from
different areas. With this foundation already established, members of the ESL Nursing group had no problem
getting right down to business.
It also helped that the work of this FLC aligned with the president’s vision for the college. One organizer pointed
out that the previous administration implemented the “Guiding Principles” across the campus. Consequently,
faculty understand that “there’s a culture of cooperation, and teaching and learning is the central goal of what
we do.” Additionally, the college was pursing their Global Initiative, which was a key component of the
campus’s strategic priorities. The Global Initiative promoted services for international students. One FLC
organizer observed that the goal of supporting ESL nursing students was in keeping with the college’s goal to
better serve non-native English speakers. This alignment helped the ESL Nursing group to justify their work in
the eyes of the greater campus community.
Patterns across Successful FLCs
In this section, the researchers provide a cross-case comparison to identify common organizational factors that
influence FLC success. Because the data were provided primarily by FLC organizers rather than participants, our
discussion of participant perspectives is speculative.
1. Funding and Administrative Support
Almost all of the case-study FLCs cited funding as a component of their success. While organizers acknowledged
that grants and college monies did not cover all expenses, they generally felt that some financial support was
better than no support. Typically, FLCs used funds to pay for consultants, special events, supplies, or materials.
Funding generally did not compensate organizers or provide them release time. In some cases, professional
development monies were available from the college’s external grants to support non-tenure track participants.
For some FLCs, the value of the grant money went beyond the dollar amount. Some interviewees (e.g., Tacoma,
Edmonds) cited the prestige of receiving external funding, which helped to legitimize the FLC work in the eyes of
college administration.
17
Non-monetary support was also valuable. At some colleges, organizers had staff support to help with FLC
administration. Additionally, colleges or departments provided equipment or meeting space.
2. Organizational Culture and Traditions
FLCs tended to thrive at colleges that already had traditions of faculty collaboration and scholarly inquiry. This
was definitely the case with sites such as Seattle Central, where faculty had decades of experience with
integrative learning. Faculty and staff were used to working across disciplinary and organizational boundaries in
promoting student learning communities. It was not much of stretch for them to work together in faculty
learning communities. Having already established a foundation of safety, trust, openness, etc. (see Cox, 2004),
these FLCs were able to concentrate on the core content.
Even if FLCs were not commonplace at a given college, they sometimes thrived where there were compatible
traditions of professional development. Bellingham and Edmonds, for instance, sponsored college-wide
development days, where faculty worked together across areas. Faculty at these colleges were accustomed to
talking to peers about their teaching.
Prior history with collaboration was not an iron-clad predictor of FLC success, however. Some FLCs excelled even
though their institutions were relatively new to such collaboration. Tacoma is an intriguing example. When the
Social Media FLC began, faculty and staff were unaccustomed to the flattened hierarchy. However, they became
accustomed to this mode of interaction, which spread to other areas of the e-Learning Department.
3. Outside Expertise
Most of our case study FLCs turned to outside advisors to help them move toward their objectives. Some
sought guidance from experts at other colleges and universities. Others worked with professional organizations
or community groups. These advisors shared conceptual knowledge or best practices. In the case of Peninsula
College, for instance, educators at peer colleges provided models of ESL support. FLC members valued the direct
applicability of the information they received. In other cases, the contributions of outside experts were more
abstract. Tacoma CC, for example, looked at theories of connected learning. In such instances, participants
valued having a common vocabulary or new lens to view the subject matter.
4. Grassroots Interest
FLCS in our case studies were generally propelled by participant demand. For the most part, the impetus for
working together over an extended period of time did not come from an administrator or an outside mandate.
Rather, faculty (and staff) recognized needs and committed to collaboratively addressing them. Such grassroots
enthusiasm was needed to keep FLCs going through at least an academic year. In some cases (e.g., Peninsula
College), an individual or a department championed a cause and rallied peers to join in. In general, such
faculty/staff-driven efforts tended to maintain momentum when administration was on-board, providing
support.
18
5. Investment in the Learning Community
It appears that members in some of the case study FLCs came to value the existence of the learning community
for its own sake. In other words, people felt a stake in the “care and feeding” of the FLC, as one member put it.
This was particularly true at colleges like Tacoma and Seattle Central, where participants saw ongoing faculty
collaboration as an end in itself. Participants in these FLCs tended to spend more time working on relationships
to foster long-term collaborative structures.
This was not true across all successful FLCs, however. While participants at all sites valued collaboration, some
FLCs were more focused on achieving their organizational/instructional objectives. The FLC was regarded as
more of a vehicle for achieving these objectives as opposed to an end in itself. This was the case with the Angel
Virtual Learning Community at BTC. Participants from the various colleges enjoyed collaborating during the FLC,
but they did not feel particularly compelled to maintain the extended community beyond the FLC.
Whether they saw the FLC as a temporary vehicle or an end in itself, participants generally valued the
opportunity to come together as academic professionals to talk about teaching and learning. This appears to be
a powerful appeal of FLCs.
6. Individual Incentives
Organizing or participating in FLCs offered some perks. Some participants enjoyed the opportunity to attend a
conference or retreat, and some part-time faculty received a small stipend. Some organizers counted FLC
administration as service work, and some professional/technical faculty incorporated FLC participation into their
professional development plans. While individuals valued these incentives, they were not primarily motivated by
them. One organizer pointed out that FLC organizers, in general, tend to be senior faculty who are already
tenured, so there are no external incentives to leading an FLC. The general consensus was that FLC organizers
and participants tend to be intrinsically motivated.
Recommendations for Future FLC Organizers and Administrators
Planning for long-term, developmental change
The dynamics of FLCs are complex. Typically, participants are required to interact across disciplinary bounds and
job titles, oftentimes breaking down traditional hierarchies and partitions. While some colleges in this study
were highly familiar with these dynamics, others were not. For those who are relatively new to the ethos of
faculty learning communities, it may take some time for participants to develop sufficient levels of
understanding, trust, and openness for a FLC to function effectively. In general, the organizers of successful FLCs
in this study had a good understanding of how their colleagues work together. Organizers who are new to FLC
facilitation might benefit from consulting with veteran FLC organizers to get a sense of what is needed to foster
the types of collaborative professional relationships that are conducive to FLC success. Additionally, FLC
organizers might allocate some time to building trust, openness, or other foundations if these are not already
19
established at one’s college. This is likely to require a long-term view of organizational improvement,
approaching change in a series of development steps.
Orienting participants to value and sustain the learning community
With some exceptions, FLCs in this study viewed their group as something more than a means to achieve an end.
Participants tended to see value in maintaining the group for its own sake. One interviewee pointed out that
adjunct faculty and others participated even though there were no extrinsic incentives; presumably, they
participated because they believed in the goals and they valued the collegiality. This is not to say, however, that
the subject matter and the opportunity for collaboration are sufficient to sustain an FLC. The groups that
maintained momentum tended to be those in which organizers and participants actively engaged in the “care
and feeding” of the FLC. This was particularly true among FLCs that persisted over multiple years. In some cases,
organizers actively groomed new leadership and encouraged participants to think of themselves as a
community. This sort of deliberate guidance might be effective in future FLCs, particularly if organizers want the
collaboration to continue beyond the designated timeframe.
Drawing on outside expertise
Many FLCs in this study sought guidance from colleagues and authorities at other institutions. Quite often, the
outside consultants provided useful models or concepts that FLC members applied on their own campuses. In
the best circumstances, outsiders brought fresh perspectives that energized FLC members. The perceived value
of the outside consultants depended, not only on the content that they provided, but also on the FLC members’
receptivity to outside help. The use of outside expertise tended to be most successful when FLC organizers and
participants mutually recognized the need for outside perspectives and, consequently, took the initiative to seek
that input. In considering whether to use outside consultants, future FLC organizers might involve members
early on to solicit their ideas and to promote “buy-in.”
Linking with existing initiatives and activities
In this study, FLCs sometimes aligned their work with broader campus events. In some instances, groups created
linkages with college-wide initiatives, which helped to broaden the relevance and visibility of the FLC. This made
it easier for organizers to justify their work to their respective administrations. Additionally, organizers were
generally cognizant of how the FLC meshed with other forms of professional development on campus. Some, for
instance, considered the extent to which faculty were used to collaborating with each other in traditional
professional development activities. Prospective FLC organizers might, likewise, consider how their FLC will
complement existing professional development work, as well as college-wide initiatives.
Using individual incentives
Findings from this study suggest that the presence or absence of individual incentives (e.g., stipends, release
time) did not have a major impact on FLC participation. However, it would be inaccurate to suggest that offering
incentives serves no purpose. Some colleges, for instance, offer small stipends to encourage adjunct faculty to
participate in FLCs and other professional development activities. FLC organizers pointed out that the stipend
sends a clear message to faculty that these activities are valued by the college. Other colleges count FLC
20
administration as service to the college. This may be an appropriate non-monetary means to encourage the
development of FLCs.
Recommendations for SBCTC
Guidance and resources
Several FLC organizers stated that they wished they had done a better job of planning and conducting
assessments of the FLC work and/or gathering evidence of their success. It would be helpful if some guidance
were available on developing an assessment plan, always subject to change, and collecting evidence that
demonstrates success. As one participant noted, “In retrospect, it would have been nice to have more evidence
regarding FLC outcomes. I wished we had done some surveys or other data collection along the way.”
One participant suggested that a “checklist” for the FLC would be extremely valuable. The checklist should
include all the due dates for reports, etc. and perhaps some resources for organizers about meeting planning,
leading small groups or completing reports. The edited collection Building Faculty Learning Communities (Cox
and Richlin, Eds., 2004) would be a good resource to share with new FLC organizers.
Grant funding
FLC organizers were sometimes challenged to make time for the additional FLC duties given their existing
workloads. Some struggled with delegating effectively. One interviewee stated that he “took on too much
responsibility” and put a lot of pressure on himself. Another interviewee stated she wanted team members to
participate in FLC leadership by engaging in goal setting, determining organizational structure, and similar
activities. It was several months before the group approached this sort of leadership-sharing. Even at that, the
responsibility for doing the reports, creating materials for the poster session, organizing meetings (both online
and on-ground) fell on the organizer who accomplished these tasks with little or no support. It may make some
sense to allow a small portion of the grant funding--perhaps 5% or 10%--for some administrative support.
Additionally, there was a sense that perhaps the funding should be variable. Some folks thought they grew or
down-sized projects to fit the funding. A variable funding model might help colleges think about planning more
thoughtfully for multi-year projects with different activities.
Dissemination
At least one interviewee questioned how useful the FLC reports were other than for the SBCTC staff, and
another noted that it wasn’t until the poster sessions in spring that colleges knew much if anything about what
their colleagues were doing. One suggested that it might be beneficial to hold an Elluminate session or two
during the year so colleges could share. This might also be a way for veteran FLC organizers to share their
experience with newcomers.
21
References
Commander, N.E. & Ward, T. (2009). Assessment matters: The strength of mixed research methods for the
assessment of learning communities. About Campus, 14(3), 25-28.
Cox, M. D. (Spring, 2004). Introduction to Faculty Learning Communities. In Cox, M. D., and Richlin, L. (Eds.),
Building Faculty Learning Communities: New Directions for Teaching and Learning , 97 (5-23).
Pike, G.R. (2008). Learning about learning communities: Consider the variables. About Campus, 13(5), 30-32.
22
Appendix A: Frequency Distribution for Survey Questions
Note: If a response category does not appear in the table for a specific question, there were no responses in that
category to report.
3. How successful was your FLC in achieving your goal?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Moderately successful
13
36.1
36.1
36.1
Slightly successful
4
11.1
11.1
47.2
Very successful
19
52.8
52.8
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
5. Our FLC functioned effectively (i.e., organization, communication, meetings, etc.)
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
18
50.0
50.0
50.0
Agree
12
33.3
33.3
83.3
Neutral
3
8.3
8.3
91.7
Disagree
2
5.6
5.6
97.2
Strongly Disagree
1
2.8
2.8
100.0
6. Our FLC encouraged collaboration across our institution.
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
20
55.6
55.6
55.6
Agree
10
27.8
27.8
83.3
Neutral
3
8.3
8.3
91.7
Strongly Disagree
1
2.8
2.8
94.4
Not sure/Not Applicable
2
5.6
5.6
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
23
7. Our FLC encouraged collaboration across disciplines.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
22
61.1
61.1
61.1
Agree
7
19.4
19.4
80.6
Neutral
1
2.8
2.8
83.3
Strongly Disagree
1
2.8
2.8
86.1
Not sure/Not Applicable
5
13.9
13.9
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
8. Our FLC resulted in collaboration with other institutions.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
No Response
2
5.6
5.6
5.6
Strongly Agree
10
27.8
27.8
33.3
Agree
3
8.3
8.3
41.7
Neutral
5
13.9
13.9
55.6
Disagree
2
5.6
5.6
61.1
Strongly Disagree
5
13.9
13.9
75.0
Not sure/Not Applicable
9
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
9. Our FLC built on ideas or projects from previous years.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
14
38.9
38.9
38.9
Agree
5
13.9
13.9
52.8
Neutral
8
22.2
22.2
75.0
Disagree
2
5.6
5.6
80.6
Strongly Disagree
3
8.3
8.3
88.9
Not sure/Not Applicable
4
11.1
11.1
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
24
10. Our FLC provided momentum for future professional development.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
21
58.3
58.3
58.3
Agree
10
27.8
27.8
86.1
Neutral
2
5.6
5.6
91.7
Not Sure/Not Applicable
3
8.3
8.3
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
11. The faculty in our FLC supported each other.
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
27
75.0
75.0
75.0
Agree
6
16.7
16.7
91.7
Neutral
1
2.8
2.8
94.4
Disagree
2
5.6
5.6
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
12. FLC members shared FLC-generated knowledge with others at our institution.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
17
47.2
47.2
47.2
Agree
11
30.6
30.6
77.8
Neutral
3
8.3
8.3
86.1
Disagree
2
5.6
5.6
91.7
Strongly Disagree
2
5.6
5.6
97.2
Not Sure/Not Applicable
1
2.8
2.8
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
25
13. FLC members shared FLC-generated knowledge at state-wide events.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
16
44.4
44.4
44.4
Agree
5
13.9
13.9
58.3
Neutral
5
13.9
13.9
72.2
Disagree
2
5.6
5.6
77.8
Strongly Disagree
6
16.7
16.7
94.4
Not Sure/Not Applicable
2
5.6
5.6
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
14. FLC members shared FLC-generated knowledge wither others nationally.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
4
11.1
11.1
11.1
Agree
4
11.1
11.1
22.2
Neutral
2
5.6
5.6
27.8
Disagree
4
11.1
11.1
38.9
Strongly Disagree
10
27.8
27.8
66.7
Not Sure/Not Applicable
12
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
16
44.4
44.4
44.4
Agree
6
16.7
16.7
61.1
Neutral
8
22.2
22.2
83.3
Disagree
3
8.3
8.3
91.7
Strongly Disagree
1
2.8
2.8
94.4
Not Sure/Not Applicable
2
5.6
5.6
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
15. Our FLC made effective use of technology.
26
16. Our FLC included or served people who are under-represented on our campus.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
No Response
1
2.8
2.8
2.8
Strongly Agree
8
22.2
22.2
25.0
Agree
9
25.0
25.0
50.0
Neutral
7
19.4
19.4
69.4
Disagree
1
2.8
2.8
72.2
Strongly Disagree
2
5.6
5.6
77.8
Not Sure/Not Applicable
8
22.2
22.2
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
17. Our FLC tried to improve the ways we work with culturally diverse students,
faculty, and/or staff.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
No Response
1
2.8
2.8
2.8
Strongly Agree
9
25.0
25.0
27.8
Agree
9
25.0
25.0
52.8
Neutral
4
11.1
11.1
63.9
Disagree
1
2.8
2.8
66.7
Strongly Disagree
2
5.6
5.6
72.2
Not Sure/Not Applicable
10
27.8
27.8
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
18. Our participation in a FLC has resulted in positive changes in institutional
practice.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
13
36.1
36.1
36.1
Agree
7
19.4
19.4
55.6
Neutral
8
22.2
22.2
77.8
Disagree
3
8.3
8.3
86.1
Not Sure/Not Applicable
5
13.9
13.9
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
27
19. The results of our FLC were connected to student learning outcomes.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
16
44.4
44.4
44.4
Agree
10
27.8
27.8
72.2
Neutral
5
13.9
13.9
86.1
Not Sure/Not Applicable
5
13.9
13.9
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
20. The results of our FLC were strategies/learning resources that were scalable
(capable of being expanded).
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
21
58.3
58.3
58.3
Agree
7
19.4
19.4
77.8
Neutral
4
11.1
11.1
88.9
Strongly Disagree
1
2.8
2.8
91.7
Not Sure/Not Applicable
3
8.3
8.3
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
21. Changes we have implemented (as a result of our FLC work) have increased
students' learning and engagement.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
17
47.2
47.2
47.2
Agree
6
16.7
16.7
63.9
Neutral
5
13.9
13.9
77.8
Strongly Disagree
1
2.8
2.8
80.6
Not Sure/Not Applicable
7
19.4
19.4
100.0
Total
36
100.0
100.0
28