Freshman Learning Communities in Agriculture: Observations and Assessment S. Pogranichniy,* L. Burras, T. A. Polito, and M. H. Wiedenhoeft ABSTRACT Students often encounter difficulties during the transition from high school to college, which, in turn, adversely affect student retention and success in college. In response, some college programs have developed learning communities as a means to foster a greater sense of belonging, improve success among new freshmen, and reduce the cost of student attrition. The objective of this paper is to describe our experiences with freshman learning communities within the Department of Agronomy at Iowa State University during fall 1998, and fall 1999 to spring 2000 terms. Our discussion is based upon comparisons of two learning community groups, one control group during 1998, and the general agronomy student population. Results show our learning communities made some small, albeit significant, impacts. Successes include improved academic performance, increased retention rates, and a positive perception among faculty about the value and usefulness of the learning community. While these findings are valuable, they are somewhat less than the lofty predictions one can read in the literature. Our learning community has experienced some early, limited success, and we plan to continue the program.
E
VEN the most gifted and socially mature first-year students often face a difficult transition from high school to college (Tinto, 1996). Some students are not well prepared, while others struggle to balance newly found social freedom with the demands of more rigorous academic study. In our experience, the difficulties encountered by these students become issues for faculty and staff, because these students are more likely to be poorly motivated, quit attending classes, and/or leave the institution. Universities and colleges are continuously seeking ways to boost retention and enhance student learning, with special emphasis often being placed on firstterm freshmen. According to Tinto (unpublished data, 1994), frontloading of effort is the best course of action, and attempts to reshape the first-year experience have the largest return in both student retention and learning. One such approach is the formation of special learning communities for first-year students. Most first-year learning communities are intended to improve the transition from high school to college, but the composition may vary with institutional and programmatic philosophy. One approach enrolls all students in a learning community in a common suite of courses linked around a single theme. This approach facilitates learning because students find greater coherence between topics as well as increased interaction with faculty and fellow students (Gabelnick et al., 1990). A second approach groups students with similar interests in one residence hall. Typically, learning communities
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011. Received 28 Oct. 2000. *Corresponding author (
[email protected]). Published in J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 30:104–110 (2001). http://www.JNRLSE.org
104 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 30, 2001
also include peer and/or faculty mentors who can provide academic direction and serve as positive role models. Learning communities seek to create community among students at both the social and academic levels (Matthews et al., 1996). At the social level, participation in a learning community helps students feel comfortable with each other, their decision to attend the institution, their courses, and their choice of living arrangements, as well as to make friends and develop a support network. Academically, the learning community experience facilitates communication between students and faculty members (Matthews et al., 1996). This social and academic community supports students during the transition from high school to college. The Department of Agronomy at Iowa State University chose to institute a freshman learning community in the fall semester of 1998. The primary objective of this paper is to describe our experience with learning communities for first-year agronomy students. Few studies are available concerning the application of learning communities in agriculture and natural resource education. While many general, philosophically based articles about learning communities have been published, few discuss empirical results obtained through evaluating real learning communities. This report provides one possible learning community approach while also describing the early results our program achieved. PROGRAM DESIGN, RATIONALE, AND EVALUATION The department established a learning community for 24 first-year agronomy majors at Iowa State University in the fall of 1998. Participation in the learning community was voluntary. During summer orientation, the students were discreetly separated into two groups of 12, based on their placement in first-year composition. All students within each group enrolled in the same sections of a suite of required courses (Table 1). A third (control) group of 12 agronomy freshmen was simultaneously enrolled in similar courses, but did not participate in the learning community. These students were offered the opportunity to participate in the learning community, but either declined or applied after the learning community was full. Students in the control group were placed in classes on an individual basis, just as agronomy students in previous years had been. Furthermore, they did not participate in any of the learning community activities or interact with the learning community support people. The two major agronomy learning community activities were a presemester field trip and a weekly orientation seminar. We developed a special section (Agron 110-LT) of the typical agronomy orientation seminar specifically for learning community students. The learning community seminar differed in that topics were added that addressed the needs of the Abbreviations: SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences; GPA, grade point average.
Table 1. Summary data on ISU agronomy freshman learning communities. No. of students
No. of faculty mentors
No. of peer mentors
Fall 1998
24
2
Fall 1999
15
and Spring 2000
13
Courses
Other activities
2
Agron 110: Orientation Seminar Agron 114: Fundamentals of Agronomy Agron 206: Intro to Meteorology Engl 104: First-Year Composition I Math 140: College Algebra Biol 201/201L: Principles of Biology I
Weekend field trip, special “learning community” section of Agron 110, two evening meals with mentors
2
2
Agron 110: Orientation Seminar Agron 114: Fundamentals of Agronomy Agron 206: Intro to Meteorology Engl 104: First-Year Composition I Math 140: College Algebra Biol 201/201L: Principles of Biology I
Weekend field trip, special “learning community” section of Agron 110, raking leaves, volleyball, barbecue, three evening meals with mentors, one-on-one meetings with peer mentors
2
2
Agron 154: Fundamentals of Soil Science Engl 105: First-Year Composition II Lib 160: Library Instruction Chem 163/163L: General Chemistry Learning community seminar (no credit) Plus one-two courses selected by student
new first-year students—goal-setting, personality differences and learning styles, time management, study and test-taking skills, involvement in campus organizations, and career exploration via tours of local businesses, research facilities, and farms (Fig. 1). For learning community students, the school year began with a weekend field trip the Saturday and Sunday before classes started (Fig. 2). The group visited agronomy-related businesses and research sites to introduce students to career possibilities in agronomy. The field trip gave students a chance to get to know each other and the learning community support people. On Saturday evening, a team-building facilitator led a workshop for learning community participants. Learning community support people included a staff coordinator, peer mentors, and faculty mentors. Peer mentors were selected to serve as role models and to introduce the learning community students to upper-class students and departmental activities. In 1998, two upper-class students were selected as peer mentors based on their potential as leaders in Fig. 1. Sample learning community orientation seminar syllabus. AGRONOMY 110 LT
motivating the learning community students to get involved in departmental activities. The peer mentors were paid a small stipend for their time. The 1999–2000 peer mentors were chosen from the 1998 learning community participants. Criteria for selection included their ability to be leaders and role models. In each year, one male and one female student served as peer mentors. In 1999–2000, the peer mentors were paid on an hourly basis for the time they spent in learning community activities. Their responsibilities included assisting with the weekly orientation seminar, organizing social activities with the learning community students, meeting with students one-on-one to discuss academic and social concerns, joining the students on field trips, and encouraging the students to get involved in departmental activities. The learning community students also were given the opportunity to interact with faculty mentors. In 1998, the faculty mentors were the instructors of the typical orientation course (Agron 110). In 1999, faculty mentors were chosen based on their interest and abilities in working with new students. One faculty mentor was involved both years, so while the facultymentoring component has evolved, it also has maintained Fig. 2. Sample field trip itinerary.
“Orientation for Agronomy Learning Teams” Instructors: When: Where: Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13
Sherry Pogranichniy, Lee Burras, Mary Wiedenhoeft Tuesdays 2:10 p.m. 2026 Agronomy Hall
Welcome, Introductions Goal Setting Personalities and Learning Styles Tour CSA Farm Study Skills and Time Management Summer Jobs Tour Center for Crops Utilization Research Areas and Specialties in Agronomy Curriculum in Agronomy & Spring Registration Getting Involved Reports Tour Plant Introduction Station Group Presentations Wrap Up and Evaluation
Agronomy Learning Community Field Trip Itinerary Saturday 8:00 a.m. 8:30–10:30 12:00–2:00 3:15–5:00 5:00–7:00 7:00–8:00 8:00–10:30 Sunday 7:00 a.m. 7:45 a.m. 8:00–10:00 10:30–11:45 12:00–12:30 2:00 p.m.
Leave Ames Seed Processing Plant Agricultural Cooperative/ Precision Agriculture (lunch included) Water Quality Project Check in, free time Supper Team building workshop Breakfast Check out Crop Consultant ISU Research and Demonstration Farm Lunch Arrive in Ames
J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 30, 2001 • 105
Table 2. Indications of academic ability and performance for agronomy learning community participants and nonparticipants 1996–2000. Entrance information (means) Group†
ISU mean GPA
HSR‡
ACT-C§
1st term (n)¶
2nd term (n)
79 71 77 78 71
24 24 24 24 23
2.55 (15) 2.78 (24) 2.75 (12) 2.96 (23) 2.63 (25)
2.69 (13) 2.77 (21) 2.22 (10) 2.79 (23) 2.46 (24)
t-test for GPA change
Mean GPA change
Students who met or exceeded predicted GPA††
0.14 -0.01 -0.53 -0.17 -0.17
73 96 67 87 80
%
P(T t)# 1999–2000 LC 1998–1999 LC 1998–1999 non-LC 1997–1998 non-LC 1996–1997 non-LC
0.07, paired 0.17, paired 0.02, paired 0.07, paired 0.06, paired
† LC = learning community; non-LC = nonlearning community. ‡ HSR = high school rank (percentage with 99 being highest). § ACT-C = ACT composite score. ¶ Term refers to Fall (1st) or Spring (2nd); n refers to the number of students participating/majoring in agronomy that term. # One-tailed paired t-tests based upon comparison of GPA of students involved both terms. †† Office of Institutional Research, Iowa State University, Freshman Grade Point Expectancy Table, In Interpretation of Entering Student’s Test Scores.
some continuity. Faculty mentors interacted with students in the weekly orientation seminar, in planned social activities, in field trips, and one-on-one as students sought the mentors’ advice. In fall 1999, the agronomy learning community was expanded in two ways in response to the suggestions of the first year participants and because of experiences in an upperlevel, linked-course learning community in the department. The first change expanded the learning community to an entire academic year. The second change linked the introductory agronomy courses and English composition courses. Because of the low number of first-year agronomy students, there was no corresponding nonlearning community (control) group in 1999–2000. Support for learning community activities came from an Iowa State University Miller Faculty Fellowship grant in fall 1998, and from an Iowa State University Learning Community Initiative grant in 1999–2000. Funds supported all activities and peer mentor salaries. The intended outcomes for the agronomy learning community were for students to: • Experience higher academic achievement • Have greater satisfaction with their academic experience • Increase their collaborative interactions with other students, faculty, and staff • Show a greater retention rate • Better understand their career options • Achieve their first-term academic goals • Improve their communication skills We assessed these outcomes using a time-series design (Ary et al., 1990). This involved evaluating pre- and postsemester surveys, interviews and conversations with students, data gathered on grade point averages, and data on student retention in the department and at the university. The pre- and postsurveys were developed by the Assessment Subcommittee of the Learning Communities Advisory Committee at Iowa State University, and have been used campus-wide in an attempt to evaluate the success of learning communities. The pretest consisted of 64 questions divided into the following five sections: finding resources and information on campus, academic awareness, academic expectations, skills and abilities, and a section containing open-ended questions. The first two sections used a six-point, Likert-type scale (Ary et al., 1990), while the third and fourth sections used a five-point scale. The posttest consisted of 47 questions in four sections. 106 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 30, 2001
The fourth section from the pretest (skills and abilities) was not repeated, and the number of open-ended questions was reduced. The pretest was given on the Tuesday of the first week of classes in the fall; the posttest was given near the end of the fall semester to determine whether any differences existed. Pre- and posttest responses were compared using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The Learning Community Assessment Team at Iowa State University performed the data analysis. DISCUSSION AND RESULTS Academic Achievement According to Tinto (1996), one benefit of learning communities is new students spend more time learning together, which enhances the quality of their learning and enriches their knowledge and understanding. By scheduling new students into the same sections of their required first semester courses, we provided the framework for students to learn together by sharing class notes, attending help sessions, and studying together. Our goal was for this interaction to enhance their learning and their academic achievement. Academic achievement was assessed in two ways: (i) by comparing grade point averages (GPAs) of students in the learning community with the nonlearning community control group in 1998, as well as comparing learning community students in 1998 and 1999–2000 with first-year agronomy students in the 2 yr before the learning community was established (Table 2); and (ii) by determining if students met their university GPA prediction (Office of Institutional Research, 1999) for the first semester based on their high school rank and ACT composite score (Table 2). In fall 1998, learning community students earned an average GPA of 2.78, and nonlearning community students earned an average GPA of 2.75 (Table 2). Statistically, there was no difference between the two groups. In spring 1999, it appears that the learning community GPA (2.77) was higher than the nonlearning community GPA (2.22) (P = 0.07). In both learning community groups, the second semester average GPA increased or remained the same (was not statistically different) compared with their first semester average (Table 2). Conversely, nonlearning community students’ average GPA declined from first to second semester. Furthermore, the GPA increase occurred in 1999–2000 when the learning community was extended to a full academic year.
Table 3. Indicators of student satisfaction (from Academic Environment Surveys 1 and 2). 1999–2000 LC (n = 15)
I feel that ISU is a good choice for me.† I am happy to be a member of this learning community.† Your overall academic experience.‡
1998–1999 LC (n = 24)
1998–1999 non-LC (n = 12)
Pre-Mean
Post-Mean
Sig.
Pre-Mean
Post-Mean
Sig.
Pre-Mean
Post-Mean
Sig.
4.93 5.60 NA
5.07 5.40 3.85
0.164 0.271 NA
5.08 5.04 NA
4.92 5.21 4.17
0.575 0.426 NA
4.78 NA NA
5.44 NA 4.22
0.081 NA NA
† Students were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statements according to the scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = agree, 6 = strongly agree. ‡ Students were asked to indicate the level at which they expected to have the opportunities listed (pre) and their experience with the activities (post) according to the scale: 1 = low to 5 = high.
In fall 1998, 96% of learning community students met or exceeded their university-predicted first-semester GPA, while 67% of 1998 nonlearning community students did (Table 2). In the previous 2 yr, 87 and 80% of nonlearning community students met or exceeded their predicted GPA. In fall 1999, 73% of learning community students met or exceeded their predicted GPA for the first semester. This percentage was lower than both the 1996 and 1997 comparison groups, but slightly higher than the 1998 control group. Based on the conflicting data from the 1998 and 1999 learning communities, we cannot conclude that the learning community benefits predicted in the review of literature translated into any measurable increase in student academic performance, with the exception of improvement between the first and second semesters in one learning community group. Satisfaction We sought to increase student satisfaction with their academic experience by providing a network of peers and mentors, including students, faculty, and staff. Our goal was to give students an early opportunity to become integrated into the existing community of learners in the Agronomy Department to ease their transition from high school to college and thereby increase their satisfaction with the first-year experience. Our reasoning was based on the findings of Tinto et al. (1993) and Cross (1998). Tinto et al. (1993) found peer networks to function as both an academic and a social support system by providing study partners, sources of class notes, and help with homework and class assignments. Cross (1998) found students who had frequent contact with faculty members were more satisfied with their educational experiences. Data collected in the postsemester survey indicates that learning community students were satisfied with their academic experience, but no more satisfied than were nonlearning community students (Table 3). Learning community students gained satisfaction earlier, as evidenced by their responses to questions on the presemester survey, which was given shortly after they returned from the weekend field trip. On the first day of classes in fall 1998, one learning community student said of her experience, “I didn’t feel as lost as some of the other students looked.” She attributed this to the fact that she already knew many of her classmates from the field trip, and therefore had a group of friends to sit with in class. This early satisfaction may be important because research has shown that many students make their decision to leave an institution within the first 6 wk of their enrollment (Tinto, 1996). Collaborative Interactions According to Matthews et al. (1996), students are initiated into the academic culture of an institution through their par-
ticipation in a common endeavor with teachers and peers. Since our over-arching goal was to initiate new students into the existing academic culture of the Agronomy Department, we sought to increase their collaborative interactions with other students, faculty, and staff through the learning community structure and activities. We set the stage early in the semester for collaborative interactions and continued to provide opportunities for students to interact with faculty and other students throughout the semester (fall 1998) and academic year (1999–2000). This initiative included the learning community members participating in a team-building workshop during the presemester field trip. A staff coordinator, two faculty mentors, and two upperclass peer mentors met for 1 h each week with the learning community students in the orientation seminar. One of the first seminars explored personality types and their influence on group work, since students would be asked to work collaboratively on several occasions and encouraged to form supportive study groups. In addition, the learning community students occasionally gathered for social activities such as volleyball and evening meals. Participation in extra-curricular activities, specifically campus organizations, was strongly encouraged albeit not mandated. A primary mechanism of encouragement was a seminar assignment designed for discovery and acceptance of participation in structured campus activities. We asked students to attend a meeting of a campus organization and report back to the group about that organization’s purpose and activities. Each student reported on a different organization so that the number of opportunities presented to the group was maximized. Additionally, this activity served to collectively reinforce a professional value system wherein participation in community activities is desirable. We evaluated student perceptions as to the importance and effectiveness of collaborative interactions with 10 survey questions. No clear overall improvement in collaborative interactions was found as a result of the learning community activities (Table 4). Learning community students became more comfortable asking an instructor for help as their first semester progressed, but no more so than the nonlearning community students. Two additional unexpected, significant changes in student perceptions of collaborative interactions were (i) nonlearning community students’ experience in developing a social network exceeded their expectations more than that of learning community students, and (ii) at least in 1998–1999 the learning community students’ experience of learning cooperatively in groups was lower than their expectation. Incoming students viewed themselves as competent in collaborative interactions. Many of the individual survey questions had a mean score around 4 (somewhat agree) on the pretest responses. Consequently, little room for improvement J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 30, 2001 • 107
Table 4. Indicators of student perceptions of collaborative interactions (from Academic Environment Surveys 1 and 2). 1999–2000 LC (n = 15)
I feel comfortable asking an instructor for help.† I have identified at least one activity I would be interested in joining or doing.† I prefer to study with other students.† I am interested in working with students with backgrounds different from mine.† Interact closely with faculty.‡ Work together on academic issues with other students.‡ Connect with students who have similar academic goals.‡ Develop a network of other students as a resource group.‡ Develop a social network.‡ Learn cooperatively in groups.‡
1998–1999 LC (n = 24)
1998–1999 non-LC (n=12)
Pre-Mean
Post-Mean
Sig.
Pre-Mean
Post-Mean
Sig.
Pre-Mean
Post-Mean
Sig.
3.80
4.73
0.029*
4.58
5.04
0.178
3.89
4.78
0.021*
5.20 4.00
5.33 4.21
0.670 0.512
4.79 3.88
5.25 3.92
0.086 0.870
4.33 3.78
5.11 3.56
0.193 0.622
3.27 3.73 3.87 4.33 3.73 3.67 3.93
3.60 3.53 4.13 4.47 4.33 3.87 4.20
0.388 0.510 0.334 0.334 0.082 0.510 0.301
3.75 3.71 4.04 4.25 3.96 4.17 4.04
4.04 3.50 3.71 4.46 4.29 4.33 3.58
0.307 0.364 0.148 0.260 0.119 0.328 0.038*
3.44 3.44 3.67 3.67 3.44 4.00 3.44
3.44 3.67 3.67 4.11 3.56 4.56 3.56
1.000 0.447 1.000 0.140 0.729 0.013* 0.782
* Significant at the 5% level. † Students were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statements according to the scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = agree, 6 = strongly agree. ‡ Students were asked to indicate the level at which they expected to have the opportunities listed (pre) and their experience with the activities (post) according to the scale: 1 = low to 5 = high.
existed. Expectations for collaborative interaction were higher among learning community students than nonlearning community students and, in some cases, significantly so (data not shown). Their involvement in the program may have led to their higher expectations, with the presemester field trip and its interactions with faculty and other students reinforcing those expectations. Retention Academic and social experiences that integrate students into the life of the college also increase attachment and strengthen individual commitment to the institution (Tinto, unpublished data, 1994). According to Matthews et al. (1996), retention is usually high in learning communities because students become committed to each other and to the coursework. Although the Agronomy Department had not identified student attrition as a problem, retention is a strong focus at Iowa State University. As previously mentioned, many students who do not persist in a given institution make the decision to leave within the first 6 wk (Tinto, 1996). Therefore, we assumed that helping students during this transition period would increase their retention. We are most interested in longterm retention (persistence to graduation), which cannot yet be measured for these groups of students; however, we compared the two learning community groups to nonlearning community groups over the past 4 yr (Table 5). The learning community groups each had 100% retention to the second year in the university, whereas retention rates were in the low 90% range for nonlearning community groups. Retention to the third year for the 1998 learning community students (96%) was comparable to the 1997 nonlearning community rate (95%), but higher than both the 1998 nonlearnTable 5. Student retention in the department and university. Retention to 2nd yr n
Dep.
Univ.
15 24 12 23 25
87 88 75 70 84
100 100 92 91 92
Retention to 3rd yr Dep.
Retention to 4th yr
Univ.
Dep.
Univ.
96 75 95 76
74 56
95 72
% 1999–2000 LC 1998–1999 LC 1998–1999 non-LC 1997–1998 non-LC 1996–1997 non-LC
83 58 74 60
108 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 30, 2001
ing community rate (75%) and the 1996 nonlearning community rate (76%). Retention in the major was also higher for the learning community groups. The data support Tinto (unpublished data, 1994; 1996) in indicating that student retention at the institution and in the major may be one benefit of learning community membership. As in the academic performance issue, we are interested in the long-term influence of learning community involvement on student retention. Therefore, we will continue to follow student retention to graduation. Career Understanding Although all agronomy students are required to complete a career seminar course at the sophomore level, we expected that giving new students an early introduction to agronomy careers would help reaffirm their decision regarding their major and give relevance to their coursework. Career information, guest speakers, and short field trips were included in the weekly orientation seminar. However, our greatest effort at promoting career understanding came very early in the learning community experience in the form of the weekend field trip before fall classes began. Each year, we visited agronomyrelated businesses and research sites including seed processing facilities, university research farms, environmental quality projects, and agricultural supply cooperatives active in precision agriculture (Fig. 2). One student made the comment after the field trip, “I learned a lot about my career options. Now I have a better idea about what I want to do.” Our success at achieving the objective of promoting career understanding was measured in two ways. The first, retention rate in the major, may be considered an ultimate (albeit indirect) measure of the effectiveness of the learning community in increasing students’ career awareness. By that measure, it seems the learning communities achieved some success. A second, more direct measure, was a survey question that asked students to rate their expectations (pre) and experiences (post) about gaining a better understanding of their career options. The 1998 nonlearning community group rated their experience in gaining career understanding as higher (although not significantly so) than their expectations (3.78 vs. 4.22); the 1998 and 1999 learning community groups rated their expectations higher than their experiences (4.40 vs. 4.20 and 4.42 vs. 4.08, respectively).
Table 6. Cost summary of time and money spent on learning community activities (1998 and 1999–2000). 1998 Learning community Faculty involvement Activity
No.
Dollars spent
Total hours† Agron. Grant
1999–2000 Learning community Faculty involvement No.
Dollars spent
Total hours† Agron. Grant
Grant writing Presemester trip Course seminar Peer mentors Social activities Altruistic activities
4 4 3 3 3 --
40 100 48 36‡ 9 --
-------
-2640 57 200 358 --
6 6 3 3 3 2
60 140 68 51‡ 36 4
--210 ----
-2228 -2625 222 --
Total
--
233
--
3255
--
359
210
5075
† Total hours = sum of hours faculty spent preparing and executing the activity (generally the bulk of the time was spent with students). ‡ Hours spent by faculty in supervisory meetings with peer mentors.
Contradictions exist between the direct and indirect measures as to the success of learning communities in achieving the objective of improving career understanding. A possible reason for this discrepancy is the learning community students completed the presemester survey soon after returning from the weekend, career-oriented field trip, while their expectations were probably high. This may indicate that the students would like to experience more career exploration during the orientation seminar, or that the pretest would be better administered before the field trip. Academic Goals Not all students enter college with clearly held goals and, in some cases, those goals may not be realistic. Students who lack goal clarity are generally less willing to meet the demands of college life and may be more likely, when stressed, to leave rather than persist (Tinto, unpublished data, 1994). In an attempt to address the importance of setting goals, a seminar session on goal setting was held early in the fall semester. Students were asked to meet with their academic advisers to set a grade point goal for their first semester and were challenged to work collaboratively to achieve their group goal. Even though setting realistic goals was discussed and students were cautioned that their high school grades were not a good predictor of their college grades, in both years the students had trouble setting an attainable grade point goal for the first semester. Learning community students in fall 1998 set an average grade point goal of 3.18, but in reality earned an average GPA of 2.78. Only eight (33%) of the 24 students met or exceeded their set goal for the semester. In fall 1999, learning community students set an average grade point goal of 3.26, but earned an average GPA of 2.55. Only 1 (7%) of the 15 students met or exceeded his set goal for the semester. This serves as a clear example that many new students have an inflated view of their ability to do college-level work. Students were asked to rate their expectations (pre) and experiences (post) about earning high grades. The 1999–2000 learning community students’ pretest mean (on a scale from 1 = low to 5 = high) was 4.13, their posttest mean was 3.13, and the significance was
