Community College Teaching: The View from Inside the Classroom

Community College Teaching: The View from Inside the Classroom

ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges
By Rebecca D. Cox
EDO-JC-03-07
August, 2003

Studies from the past three decades have identified a range of challenges that community college faculty face. At the core level of the classroom, many of the pedagogical demands arise from the sheer diversity of community college students--in terms of their preparation, expectations, and aspirations. Classroom-level studies point to a persistent gap between faculty members' expectations of students and the kind of work that their students are prepared to do. Indeed, community college instructors, who are deeply committed to their students and to the work of teaching (Kozeracki, 2002; Outcalt, 2000), have, in a number of studies, described their students as not academically well prepared (Kozeracki, 2002). Research also reveals that some instructional responses to the varying levels of preparation, while well intentioned, can exacerbate the problem (London 1978; Grubb and Associates 1999).

This digest begins with an overview of the pedagogical complexity of teaching, highlights two recent studies on community college teaching, and concludes with the implications of these studies for teaching practice and future examinations of community college teaching.

A growing body of research--conducted primarily at the K-12 level--offers significant insights into the complex processes of teaching and learning. Indeed, Kane, Sandretto and Heath (2002) posit that the "research on university teaching could benefit from closer attention to the research in primary and secondary settings" (p. 203). Such research has examined the nature of effective pedagogical practices and the forms of knowledge underlying those practices. These multiple forms of knowledge include both theoretical conceptions and practical experience, composing an intricate web of pedagogical beliefs that a teacher draws upon and develops in the act of teaching (Shulman, 1987; Grossman et al. 2000). In this formulation, a key distinction exists between subject-matter expertise and a rich pedagogical knowledge of the subject. In the context of college teaching, Laurillard (1993) describes pedagogical expertise as knowledge of "the ways [the subject] can come to be understood, the ways it can be misunderstood, [and] what counts as understanding" (p. 6).

Studies also show that the development of this multi-dimensional web of knowledge is shaped by the instructor's interactions--both past and present--with the subject matter, colleagues, and students. For instance, the teaching knowledge and beliefs of high school teachers are influenced by the dynamics among the specific students in their classrooms, the subject of instruction, and the norms of their department (Stodolsky and Grossman, 2000).

These studies underscore the importance of understanding instruction as a relational process, as an instructor teaches specific subject matter to particular students. In this relational framework, what matters are the classroom-level dynamics among instructor, instructional content, and students. Ultimately, Prosser and Trigwell (1999) posit that each student's learning and learning outcomes are linked to his or her experience of the "learning situation" that arises from these dynamics. In this way, the core of teaching lies in an instructor's ability to "change the context experienced by the students" (p. 7). Studies also show how the experiences of students in the same classroom can vary widely, since each student's experience is shaped by his or her prior experiences, goals and expectations; perceptions of the subject matter; and beliefs about the teacher's instructional approach (see Prosser and Trigwel, 1999). At the community college level, the difficulty of teaching is magnified by the challenge of responding to students who may not have been successful in previous academic experiences.

The studies mentioned above suggest two crucial aspects of effective teaching: the instructional approaches that enhance students' learning experiences and outcomes, and the kinds of pedagogical knowledge that inform those approaches. Two recent studies (Grubb and Associates, 1999; and Hillocks, 1999) offer a preliminary exploration of these pedagogical issues at the community college.

In their study of 247 teachers in 32 colleges, Grubb and Associates (1999) report that the most common format for community college courses is a lecture/discussion hybrid. However, they caution that this categorization fails to explain or illuminate the quality of the instructional dynamics. Indeed, their study shows that instructors can adopt the basic lecture/discussion mode for distinct purposes, with a range of instructional results. Of much greater importance, they contend, are the pedagogical conceptions that guide the use of various instructional methods. They identify three significant components of pedagogical knowledge: the instructor's conceptions about (a) the subject matter, (b) his/her instructional role, and (c) students' knowledge of the subject. Using multiple data sources, including interviews with faculty and classroom observations, the authors describe a variety of conceptions related to literacy practices. Instructors in the study tended to view literacy either as an individual skill or as a social practice. While some instructors claimed sole authority for evaluating texts, others tried to share that evaluative authority, encouraging students to construct their own textual interpretations. Finally, instructors differed in their level of technical explicitness. Underlying the amount of specific detail provided in assignment guidelines were implicit assumptions about what the students already knew, or should know. Grubb and Associates note that certain combinations are much less likely to actively engage students, such as the skills-based, single-authority approach to literacy.

Of primary concern for the authors is the frequent disjunction between instructors' approaches to teaching and their instructional goals. In other words, instructors may enact teaching practices that are at odds with their intended goals, without being aware of the inconsistencies between those objectives and the underlying assumptions of their pedagogical practices. This finding highlights the importance of understanding teacher knowledge in action, and underscores the need to investigate what happens in the classroom as well as how various participants perceive what happens there. Ultimately, however, the study does not address the connection between instructional approaches and student learning--a limitation which the authors readily acknowledge.

Hillocks' (1999) study of 19 English instructors at one college delineates aspects of teaching knowledge that echo those identified by Grubb and Associates. In addition, Hillocks finds a strong link between instructors' pedagogical practices and their attitudes about students' abilities. He reports that instructors who are "optimistic" about their students' learning capacities also use class time in significantly different ways than those who are "non-optimistic". For instance, while "optimistic" teachers addressed syntax and mechanical errors in the context of students' own written work, less "optimistic" teachers favored decontextualized grammar exercises.

Hillocks notes that this latter approach to grammar instruction reflects a long-standing and pervasive theory of teaching composition. Furthermore, instructors who are wedded to traditional composition theory are likely to employ these kinds of instructional strategies, despite research attesting to their ineffectiveness. Absent a huge shift in their theoretical understanding of composition, these instructors maintain the traditional practices, which, in turn, strengthen their pessimism about students' abilities. Ultimately, Hillocks concludes that fostering pedagogical change is quite difficult, because it requires a substantial shift in the complex web of conceptual knowledge. In fact, over the two-year period, he found no substantial changes--either in instructors' teaching conceptions or their actual practices.

Together, these two studies make several significant contributions to the body of knowledge about community college teaching. First, they highlight the role of pedagogical knowledge in guiding teaching practices. By incorporating classroom observations, both studies illustrate how these forms of knowledge are enacted in practice. In addition, they identify key aspects of effective literacy pedagogy (particularly in English composition), providing a foundation for improving community college writing instruction. Second, the studies represent teaching as a complex, intellectual process, in contrast to the typical portrayals of college teaching as a set of teaching techniques. In this respect, they reiterate Ramsden's contention (1992) that various teaching techniques "are actually rather easily acquired; it is understanding how to use them that takes constant practice and reflection" (p. 8).

This perspective on teaching represents learning to teach as an ongoing process of development. It also contains critical lessons for facilitating faculty learning and for fostering student learning. These studies therefore constitute the initial stage in a highly promising research direction. By attending to the relational processes of teaching, this research path offers the possibility of understanding the conditions and contexts of effective instruction in community college classrooms, and improving the learning environment for students and for faculty.

Grossman, P. et al. (2000). Transitions into Teaching: Learning to Teach Writing in Teacher Education and Beyond. Report for the National Research Center on English Language and Learning (CELA-RR-13006). (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED439430).

Grubb, W. N. and Associates. (1999). Honored yet invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York: Routledge. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED435430).

Hillocks, G. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kane, R., S. Sandretto, and C. Heath. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research 72(2) 177-228.

Kozeracki, C. A. (2002). Faculty attitudes about students. In C. L. Outcalt (ed.), Community college faculty: Characteristics, practices and challenges. New Directions for Community Colleges, p. 47-55. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED467454).

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.

London, H. B. (1978). The culture of a community college. New York: Praeger.

Outcalt, C. L. (2000). ERIC Review: Community college teaching--Toward collegiality and community. Community College Review 28(2), p. 57-70.

Prosser, M. and K. Trigwell. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Philadelphia: Open University Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED434542).

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. New York: Routledge.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1) 1-22.

Stodolsky, S. and Grossman, P.L. (2000). Changing students, changing teaching. Teachers College Record 102(1) 125-172.

This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED-99-CO-0010. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.

University of California, Los Angeles
3051 Moore Hall
P.O. Box 951521
Los Angeles, CA 90095
Updated August 19, 2003