Building Synergy For High Impact Educational Initiatives First Year Seminars and Learning Communities 1st Edition Lauren Chism Schmidt

Full download test bank at ebookmeta.
com
Building Synergy for High Impact Educational

Initiatives First Year Seminars and Learning
Communities 1st Edition Lauren Chism Schmidt
For dowload this book click LINK or Button below
https://ebookmeta.com/product/building-synergy-
for-high-impact-educational-initiatives-first-
year-seminars-and-learning-communities-1st-
edition-lauren-chism-schmidt/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWLOAD EBOOK
Download More ebooks from https://ebookmeta.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Creating Impact Through Future Learning: The High

Impact Learning that Lasts (HILL) Model 1st Edition
Filip Dochy
https://ebookmeta.com/product/creating-impact-through-future-
learning-the-high-impact-learning-that-lasts-hill-model-1st-
edition-filip-dochy/
Marketing Initiatives for Sustainable Educational

Development 1st Edition Purnendu Tripathi Editor Siran
Mukerji Editor
https://ebookmeta.com/product/marketing-initiatives-for-
sustainable-educational-development-1st-edition-purnendu-
tripathi-editor-siran-mukerji-editor/
Learning to Live with Datafication: Educational Case

Studies and Initiatives from Across the World 1st
Edition Julian Sefton-Green (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/learning-to-live-with-datafication-
educational-case-studies-and-initiatives-from-across-the-
world-1st-edition-julian-sefton-green-editor/
Professional Learning Communities at Work and High

Reliability Schools Cultures of Continuous Learning
Ensure a Viable and Guaranteed Curriculum 1st Edition
Robert Eaker
https://ebookmeta.com/product/professional-learning-communities-
at-work-and-high-reliability-schools-cultures-of-continuous-
learning-ensure-a-viable-and-guaranteed-curriculum-1st-edition-
Educational Psychology for Learning and Teaching, 7th
Edition Sue Duchesne
https://ebookmeta.com/product/educational-psychology-for-
learning-and-teaching-7th-edition-sue-duchesne/
Brain Plasticity and Learning Implications for

Educational Practice 1st Edition Jennifer Anne Hawkins
https://ebookmeta.com/product/brain-plasticity-and-learning-
implications-for-educational-practice-1st-edition-jennifer-anne-
hawkins/
High Impact Teaching for Sport and Exercise Psychology

Educators 1st Edition John E. Coumbe-Lilley
https://ebookmeta.com/product/high-impact-teaching-for-sport-and-
exercise-psychology-educators-1st-edition-john-e-coumbe-lilley/
Building to Impact: The 5D Implementation Playbook for

Educators 1st Edition Arran Hamilton
https://ebookmeta.com/product/building-to-impact-
the-5d-implementation-playbook-for-educators-1st-edition-arran-
hamilton/
Emancipatory and Participatory Research for Emerging

Educational Researchers: Theory and Case Studies of
Research in Disabled Communities 1st Edition Joe Barton
https://ebookmeta.com/product/emancipatory-and-participatory-
research-for-emerging-educational-researchers-theory-and-case-
studies-of-research-in-disabled-communities-1st-edition-joe-
Cite as:
Chism Schmidt, L., & Graziano, J. (Eds.). (2016). Building synergy for high-impact educational
initiatives: First-year seminars and learning communities. Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition.
Copyright © 2016 University of South Carolina. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be
reproduced or copied in any form, by any means, without written permission of the University of
South Carolina.
ISBN: 978-1-889271-98-9 (print)
eISBN: 978-1-942072-13-3 (consumer edition)
eISBN: 978-1-942072-14-0 (library edition)
Published by:
National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience® and Students in Transition
University of South Carolina
1728 College Street, Columbia, SC 29208
www.sc.edu/fye
The First-Year Experience® is a service mark of the University of South Carolina. A license may
be granted upon written request to use the term “The First-Year Experience.” This license is not
transferable without written approval of the University of South Carolina.
Production Staff for the National Resource Center:

Project Manager: Tracy L. Skipper, Assistant Director for Publications
Design and Production: Allison Minsk, Graphic Artist
External Reviewers: Juan Huerta, Director University Core Curriculum
Programs, Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi
Emily Lardner, Director, Washington Center for the
Improvement of Undergraduate Education
Karen L. Weathermon, Director, Learning
Communities/Freshman Focus, Washington
State University
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Schmidt, Lauren Chism, editor. | Graziano, Janine, editor. |

National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition
(University of South Carolina)
Title: Building synergy for high-impact educational initiatives : first-year seminars and learning
communities / edited by Lauren Chism Schmidt and Janine Graziano, editors.
Description: Columbia, SC : National Resource Center for the First-Year
Experience & Students in Transition, 2016. | Includes index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2015025072 | ISBN 9781889271989
Subjects: LCSH: College teaching--Methodology. | College freshmen. |
Seminars. | Professional learning communities. | College
teaching--Methodology--Case studies. | College freshmen--Case studies. |
Seminars--Case studies. | Professional learning communities--Case studies.
Classification: LCC LB2331 .B793 2016 | DDC 378.1/25--dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015025072
About the Publishers
National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and

Students in Transition
The National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students
in Transition was born out of the success of University of South Carolina’s much-
honored University 101 course and a series of annual conferences focused on the
freshman year experience. The momentum created by the educators attending
these early conferences paved the way for the development of the National
Resource Center, which was established at the University of South Carolina in
1986. As the National Resource Center broadened its focus to include other
significant student transitions in higher education, it underwent several name
changes, adopting the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience
and Students in Transition in 1998.
Today, the Center collaborates with its institutional partner, University 101
Programs, in pursuit of its mission to advance and support efforts to improve
student learning and transitions into and through higher education. We achieve
this mission by providing opportunities for the exchange of practical and
scholarly information as well as the discussion of trends and issues in our field
through convening conferences and other professional development events such
as institutes, workshops, and online learning opportunities; publishing scholarly
practice books, research reports, a peer-reviewed journal, electronic newsletters,
and guides; generating, supporting, and disseminating research and scholarship;
hosting visiting scholars; and maintaining several online channels for resource
sharing and communication, including a dynamic website, listservs, and social
media outlets.
The National Resource Center serves as the trusted expert, internationally
recognized leader, and clearinghouse for scholarship, policy, and best practice for
all postsecondary student transitions.
Institutional Home
The National Resource Center is located at the University of South
Carolina’s (UofSC) f lagship campus in Columbia. Chartered in 1801, the
University’s mission is twofold: (a) to establish and maintain excellence in its
student population, faculty, academic programs, living and learning environment,
technological infrastructure, library resources, research and scholarship,
public and private support, and endowment; and (b) to enhance the industrial,
economic, and cultural potential of the state. UofSC offers 324 degree programs
through its 14 degree-granting colleges and schools. Students have been awarded
more than $16.7 million for national scholarships and fellowships since 1994. In
fiscal year 2013, faculty generated $220 million in funding for research, outreach
and training programs. UofSC is one of only 63 public universities listed by the
Carnegie Foundation in the highest tier of research institutions in the United
States.
Washington Center for Improving Undergraduate Education

The Washington Center for Improving Undergraduate Education, a public
service center of The Evergreen State College, is a statewide resource for two-
and four-year higher education institutions with a national reach and a sustained
record of educational reform.
We focus on
• helping campus teams develop sustainable, high-quality learning com-

munity programs that engage and support learners at critical points in
their educational pathways;
• collaborating with campuses to insure that their learning community
programs are in sync with other campus reform efforts and student suc-
cess initiatives;
• providing high-quality, professional development workshops focused on
effective teaching, on campuses and at state and national gatherings;
• working with statewide and regional consortia to provide curriculum
planning retreats aimed at strengthening classroom and institutional
practices;
• collaborating with other professional organizations to provide technical
assistance and coaching for national educational reform projects; and
• expanding connections between campuses and communities through
projects like Curriculum for the Bioregion.
As the National Resource Center for Learning Communities, the
Washington Center organizes the National Summer Institute on Learning
Communities; publishes Learning Community Research and Practice, a biannual,
open-access peer-reviewed electronic journal; supports the development
of statewide and regional learning community networks; offers an online
integrative learning library; and hosts the learning community directory and the
LEARNCOM listserv.
Contents
Tables and Figures ..............................................................................ix

Foreword ........................................................................................... xi
Tracy L. Skipper
Introduction..................................................................................xv
Janine Graziano and Lauren Chism Schmidt
Part I: Rationale for and Implementation of Combined Programs
Chapter 1............................................................................................ 3
The Case for Connecting First-Year Seminars and Learning Communities
Ashley Finley and George D. Kuh
Chapter 2.......................................................................................... 19
National Practices for Combining First-Year Seminars and Learning Communities
Jean M. Henscheid, Tracy L. Skipper, and Dallin G. Young
Chapter 3.......................................................................................... 41
Administering Combined First-Year Seminar and Learning Community Programs
Nia Haydel and Liya Escalera
Chapter 4.......................................................................................... 61
Teaching in Combined Programs
Lisa Dresdner and Ruthanna Spiers
Chapter 5.......................................................................................... 83
What Should We Be Assessing and Why?
Michele J. Hansen and Maureen A. Pettitt
Part II: Contexts for Implementation:
Models From Two- and Four-Year Institutions
Case Study 1.................................................................................... 105
Inviting the Mother Tongue and a First-Year Seminar to Promote Success Among
Spanish-Speaking ESL Students
Bronx Community College
Case Study 2.................................................................................... 115
The Metro College Success Program: Redesigning the First Two Years of College
City College of San Francisco and San Francisco State University
Case Study 3.................................................................................... 127
The Targeted Learning Community: A Comprehensive Approach to Promoting
the Success of First-Year Students in General Chemistry
Kennesaw State University
Case Study 4.................................................................................... 139
Common Courses: A Developing Linked Coursework Perspective
The University of South Carolina
Case Study 5.................................................................................... 151
Need a Little TLC? Incorporating First-Year Seminars in Themed Learning
Communities
Northern Illinois University
Case Study 6.................................................................................... 159
Writing Across the Curriculum Through Community Engagement: Exploring the
Foster Care System in a Thematic Living and Learning Community
Cabrini College
Case Study 7.................................................................................... 171
Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID)
Mt. Hood Community College
Conclusion...................................................................................... 179
Lauren Chism Schmidt and Janine Graziano
Index............................................................................................... 185
About the Contributors.................................................................. 205

Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1.1 Effects of Participating in High-Impact Activities on Student
Engagement ........................................................................................................................ 5
Table 1.2 Effects of Participating in High-Impact Activities on Deep/
Integrative Learning and Gains................................................................................ 6
Table 2.1 Connection of Seminar to LC by Seminar Type...................................... 24
Table 2.2 LC Features by Seminar Type............................................................................... 25
Table C1.1 Comparative Outcomes for First-Time, First-Year
ESL 03 Students.......................................................................................................... 110
Table C3.1 Comparison of Pre- and Post-MSLQ Scores........................................... 133
Table C3.2 Student Feedback to Focus-Group Questions........................................ 134
Table C4.1 Common Courses Student Survey Responses,
Fall 2012 Cohort ..............................................................................................................145
Table C4.2 EBI First-Year Initiative Survey Responses (Common
Courses Versus Randomized Sample of All U101 Sections)......... 147
Table C4.3 Independent Samples t-Test for Academic Performance
Differences for A&S Course Sections........................................................... 147
Table C5.1 EBI Map-Works Factors and Associated Questions............................ 154
Table C5.2 Students’ Map-Works Factors by Program Type................................... 155
Table C5.3 Students’ GPA and Retention by Program Type................................... 156
Table C7.1 Pre- and Post-Survey Comparison for AVID LC Students,
Fall 2012 – Winter 2013........................................................................................ 176
Figures
Figure 2.1 LC Characteristics When Co-enrollment in Some
or All Courses Present................................................................................................ 25
Figure 2.2 Role of FYS in LC Based on Open-Ended Responses to the
2012-2013 NSFYS....................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2.3 Characteristics of HIPs Shared by LCs and FYSs..................................... 35
Figure 4.1 Cycle of Disengaged Teaching and Learning.............................................. 64
Figure 4.2 Taxonomy of Significant Learning..................................................................... 74
Figure 4.3 The Interactive Nature of Significant Learning........................................... 74
Figure C2.1 Transfer Preparedness of Metro Versus Non-Metro Students, City
College Metro Academy of Health, 2010 and 2011 Cohorts........ 120
Figure C2.2 San Francisco State University Metro Persistence Rates as
Compared to All Non-Metro First-Time, Full-Time First-Year
Students............................................................................................................................ 120
Figure C2.3 San Francisco State University Metro Academies of Health and
Child Development Four-Year Graduation Rates as Compared
All Non-Metro First-Time, Full-Time First-Year Students and
Non-Metro Historically Underrepresented First-Year Students,
2010 Cohort.................................................................................................................. 121
Figure C2.4 Cost Comparison of Metro Versus Non-Metro Students............... 122
Figure C3.1 Letter Grade Distribution Among First-Year Students Enrolled in
TLC as Compared to All Other First-Year Students Enrolled in
General Chemistry I................................................................................................. 132
Figure C4.1 Alignment Across Common Courses, Goals, and Assessment
Methods........................................................................................................................... 143
Figure C5.1 Map-Works Risk Factors for Withdrawal by Program
Participation.................................................................................................................. 157
Figure C7.1 First-Year Course Sequence Featuring LC and Stand-Alone Course
Tracks................................................................................................................................. 173
Figure C7.2 Retention of Developmental Reading and Writing Students in
AVID LC Versus Stand-Alone Courses, Winter 2013 – Winter
2015..................................................................................................................................... 175
Figure C7.3 Average Pass Rates for Developmental Coursework, AVID LC
Versus Stand-Alone Courses, Spring 2013................................................. 176
Foreword
Tracy L. Skipper
First-year seminars and learning communities have followed a similar

historical trajectory, tracing their origins to the late 19th and early 20th centuries
and their initial prominence to calls for educational reform in the 1980s. The first
courses designed to address the transition issues of new college students were
offered around the turn of the 20th century at Boston University, the University
of Michigan, and Oberlin College (Hunter & Linder, 2005). As colleges began
to enroll an increasingly diverse and unevenly prepared population in the late
1970s and early 1980s, they sought ways to ensure students remained enrolled
and succeeded. First-year seminars provided an ideal vehicle for meeting these
goals.
While first-year seminars evolved from a desire to make sure new students
were fit for the university, learning communities emerged from a different
ethos, seeking to make sure the university was fit for the student. Current
learning community models emerged in the 1980s and 1990s but trace their
origins to educational reforms efforts of the 1920s and the 1960s focusing on
the integration of classroom learning and real-world experiences and the social
nature of learning (Goodsell Love, 1999). Like first-year seminars, learning
communities helped students succeed academically and remain enrolled, yet
they also responded to the educational crisis of the 1980s by making learning
more relevant, offering opportunities to synthesize a fragmented curriculum,
and actively engaging students in the construction of knowledge.
More recently, the recognition of first-year seminars and learning
communities as high-impact educational practices—that is, educationally
effective initiatives linked to increased student engagement and retention—
has led to a renewed interest in these structures. Moreover, there is evidence
the parallel trajectories of learning communities and first-year seminars are
intersecting and merging on many campuses.
A 2012 study of student success practices at four-year institutions (Barefoot,
Griffin, & Koch) found that 87% of respondents provided some type of transition
seminar for their students. Of those, 96% offered a first-year seminar. Learning
communities are less common—just over half of the institutions responding
include these among their curricular initiatives—but most of them (90%)
xi
xii | Building Synergy for High-Impact Educational Initiatives
provided these opportunities to first-year students. Of those offering first-year

learning communities, 58% reported that a seminar was one of the courses in the
learning community. It is not surprising that institutions choose to embed first-
year seminars in learning communities given that the reported goals for these
two initiatives bear striking resemblances to one another. Both are invested in
helping students make connections to faculty and other students, improving
academic performance, and increasing persistence and graduation (Barefoot et.
al, 2012).
A more recent study examining student success initiatives in two-year
colleges (Koch, Griffin, & Barefoot, 2014) suggested a strong, if somewhat
smaller, presence for such practices at these institutions. Of those responding,
80% offered a first-year seminar and 23.3% a learning community. For
institutions providing a learning community, the first-year seminar was reported
as an embedded course by 33% of respondents.
This book is designed to explore the merger of these two high-impact
practices. In particular, it is designed to offer some insight into how institutions
connect them and the impact of those combined structures on student learning
and success. In this regard, the volume is an important contribution to the
high-impact practice literature. Yet, much work remains. We assume that the
merger of first-year seminars and learning communities would have a synergistic
effect for students, but this has not been born out consistently in the literature.
Moreover, the results have not always been positive. We need additional research
to determine what works, for which students, and why.
Answering such questions is complicated by the wide variation existing in
learning communities and first-year seminars. For example, Visher and colleagues
(2012) identified four components of learning communities (i.e., course linkages
and student cohorts, faculty collaboration, curricular integration, and student
support) that ranged along a continuum from basic to advanced. At a minimum,
their model suggests a dozen different possibilities for learning community
structures. Similarly, research by the National Resource Center for The First-
Year Experience and Students in Transition over the past 25 years suggests that
first-year seminars are not of a single type; rather, a seminar may fit any one of
five basic definitions or a hybrid containing elements of one or more of those five.
That same line of inquiry suggests that campuses frequently offer more than one
type of seminar to their first-year students. Such diversity points to the challenge
of mounting multi-institutional studies examining the impact of combined first-
year seminar and learning community programs and may explain why such
studies have been rare up to this point.
Foreword | xiii
Given the diversity of these programs and the seemingly endless possibilities
for combining them, well-designed single-institution studies may seem the best
way forward in the short term. The present volume offers examples of assessed
institutional initiatives. While the outcomes described may be limited by
institutional context and program design, they do provide insight into how we
might gauge the effectiveness of these interventions and what we could expect
on our own campuses.
One other limitation of institutional studies to date—and of much research
on first-year seminars and learning communities in general—is that they have
tended to look at a narrow range of outcomes, especially those connected to
academic performance and retention. The literature advocating for the inclusion
of high-impact practices in the curriculum cites a range of other potential
outcomes, including knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural
world, intellectual and practical skills, personal and social responsibility, and
integrative and applied learning (Schneider, 2008). The cases provided here offer
examples of how institutions are moving beyond traditional student success
metrics to explore a broader range of outcomes.
As noted at the outset, learning communities and first-year seminars have
followed similar trajectories—sometimes set on parallel tracks and other times
intersecting for the benefit of the college students they are designed to serve.
Similarly, the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and
Students in Transition and the Washington Center for Improving Undergraduate
Education have operated for many years on parallel but complementary tracks.
Each organization has sought to provide resources, professional development
opportunities, and support to educators engaged in the work of facilitating
student learning and success. We are pleased to be able to come together around
two educational practices—first-year seminars and learning communities,
respectively—that have been a central focus of our efforts for many years. We
hope this collaboration provides readers with the practical strategies necessary
to create successful mergers of first-year seminars and learning communities on
their own campuses. As always, we welcome your feedback on this volume.
References
Barefoot, B. O., Griffin, B. Q., & Koch, A. K. (2012). Enhancing student success and
retention throughout undergraduate education: A national survey. Brevard, NC:
John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education.
xiv | Building Synergy for High-Impact Educational Initiatives
Goodsell Love, A. (1999). What are learning communities? In J. H. Levine

(Ed.), Learning communities: New structures, new partnerships for learning
(Monograph No. 26, pp. 1-8). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina,
National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition.
Hunter, M. S., & Linder, C. W. (2005). First-year seminars. In M. L. Upcraft, J.
N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year
student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 275-291). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Koch, S. S., Griffin, B. Q., & Barefoot, B. O. (2014). National Survey of Student
Success Initiatives at Two-Year Colleges. Brevard, NC: John N. Gardner Institute
for Excellence in Undergraduate Education.
Schneider, C. G. (2008). Liberal education and high-impact practices: Making
excellence—once and for all—inclusive. In G. D. Kuh, High-impact
educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they
matter (pp. 1-8). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Visher, M. G., Weiss, M. J., Weissman, E., Rudd, T., & Wathington, H. D. (2012).
The effects of learning communities for students in developmental education: A
synthesis of findings from six community colleges. New York, NY: National Center
for Postsecondary Research, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Introduction
Janine Graziano and Lauren Chism Schmidt
Over the years, a number of interventions aimed at increasing student

engagement and performance have been implemented in higher education.
Some of these, labeled high-impact practices (HIPs), when done well, have led
to documented evidence of student success. Two approaches that have been
identified as HIPs—first-year seminars and learning communities—are
often brought together into what we refer to here as first-year seminar/learning
community (FYS/LC) programs. In this book, authors from both two- and four-
year colleges and universities across the country explore the rationale for offering
these combined programs, make suggestions for successfully implementing
and supporting them, and provide snapshots of a variety of existing FYS/LC
structures. Before examining programs that offer first-year seminars and learning
communities together, each of these practices is considered separately.
What Are First-Year Seminars and Learning Communities?

First-year seminars have been recognized as “the most commonly
implemented curricular invention designed specifically for first-year students”
(Upcraft, Gardner, Barefoot, & Associates, 2005, p. 56), and, according to the
2012-2013 National Survey of First-Year Seminars (Young & Hopp, 2014), 89.7%
of institutions reported having such a course. Similarly, the majority of colleges
and universities report having learning community programs (Barefoot, 2002).
Given the popularity of both first-year seminars and learning communities, it
is not surprising that there is a great deal of variety in how these programs are
conceptualized, structured, and implemented. As a result, the terms learning
community and first-year seminar have each been used to refer to wide range of
program types.
For example, Love (1999) noted an “explosion in the use of the term ‘learning
community’” (p. 1), and, as of this writing, a simple Google search produces
more than 1.6 million results, including uses in K-12 and higher education, the
corporate and nonprofit sectors, and elsewhere. The disparity among these
groups suggests the wide range of programs that are referred to as learning
communities.
xv
xvi | Building Synergy for High-Impact Educational Initiatives
Likewise, first-year seminars are defined in a number of ways. Greenfield,

Keup, and Gardner (2013) noted that variety exists not only among institutions,
but also on individual campuses, which often offer more than one type of
seminar. In fact, at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI),
“variation among individual sections is expected and even encouraged” (IUPUI,
2010, p. 3). Seminars may be offered in an online, hybrid, or face-to-face format;
they may focus on themes, professional disciplines, or career exploration; and
within any of the seminar designs, the activities and assignments may differ.
Given the variety that exists among programs referred to as either first-year
seminars or learning communities, for the sake of clarity and ease of discussion,
both terms, as they apply to this volume, are defined below. In restricting the
definitions of these terms, however, we recognize that we are excluding a number
of very effective programs that may be referred to as learning communities or
first-year seminars, but which are not described here because they do not fit the
definitions that follow.
As defined within this book, learning communities (LCs) enroll cohorts
of students in purposefully linked courses designed to promote connections
between and across disciplines and beyond the classroom. The inclusion
of more than one course creates the opportunity for integration of content
across disciplines; therefore, this definition presupposes that students are
co-enrolled in at least two courses. LCs have been targeted toward a diverse
group of students including those at various points in their college careers,
belonging to a particular population (e.g., ESL, honors, or sharing a common
residence), in certain academic majors (e.g., biology, math), or in career programs
(e.g., nursing, criminal justice), among others. While structures and instructional
teams vary by institutional context (e.g., may include a residential experience,
peer mentoring, tutoring, discussion groups, and a variety of other features),
LCs generally are aimed at (a) fostering close connections between and among
students, faculty, and staff as active participants in the learning process and
(b) providing students with an integrative learning experience. In this way, they
go beyond simple block scheduling of courses. Further, while LCs may be referred
to as linked courses, clusters, or cohort models, these terms lack the connotation
of intentional integration central to true LCs. In fact, Lardner and Malnarich
(2008) argued that, “learning-community work done well [emphasis added] …
requires a skillful balancing of two moves: one structural, the other pedagogical
and cross-disciplinary. When a campus gets it right, enriched integrative learning
is the result” (p. 29). And, as discussed below, the focus on integration is not only
the hallmark of LCs done well; it is also a main impetus for implementing them.
Introduction | xvii
A seminar, by definition, is a small discussion-based course in which

students and their instructors exchange ideas and information. In this volume, a
first-year seminar (FYS) is defined as a course designed to “assist students in their
academic and social development and in their transition to college. In most cases,
there is a strong emphasis on creating community in the classroom” (Hunter &
Linder, 2005, pp. 275-276), giving them something in common with LCs. Work
by the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition (Greenfield et al., 2013; Young & Hopp, 2014) has identified six types
of first-year seminars:
1. Extended orientation seminar (sometimes called freshman

orientation, college survival, college transition or student success course)
where content often includes introduction to campus resources, time
management, academic and career planning, learning strategies, and an
introduction to student development issues;
2. Academic seminar with uniform content across sections may be
interdisciplinary or theme-oriented, or part of a general education
requirement where some attention is given to academic skills
components, such as critical thinking and expository writing;
3. Academic seminar with variable content across sections is similar
to that described in (2) above, but where topics, typically connected to
the faculty member’s area of interest or expertise, differ from section to
section;
4. Preprofessional or discipline-linked seminar designed to prepare
students for the demands of the major or discipline and the profession
and generally taught within professional schools or specific disciplines,
such as engineering, health sciences, business, or education;
5. Basic study-skills seminar offered for academically underprepared
students and focused on basic academic skills, such as grammar, note
taking, and reading texts; and
6. Hybrid seminar, which has elements of two or more types of seminars.
Regardless of type, however, FYSs done well foster academic engagement;

supportive relationships with peers, faculty, and staff; and campus involvement.
In other words, they are a holistic initiative helping new students make the
transition to college.
The positive impact of seminars on first-year retention and graduation rates
has been well documented (see Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, for an overview of
research on first-year seminars). Similarly, participants in learning communities
xviii | Building Synergy for High-Impact Educational Initiatives
often demonstrate higher retention rates and grade point averages than their
peers who did not participate (Baker & Pomerantz, 2000-2001; Johnson, 2000-
2001; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Taylor, Moore, MacGregor, & Lindblad, 2003;
Tinto, 2003). Given the success of FYSs and LCs individually, a number of
institutions have chosen to bring these two practices together in combined FYS/
LC programs. For the most part, combining FYSs and LCs means embedding
seminars into LCs. According to the 2012-2013 National Survey of First-Year
Seminars, approximately one third of institutions offering a FYS connect it to
an LC; this is true at both two-year (32.8%) and four-year (38.1%) institutions
(Young & Hopp, 2014). The proportion of respondents reporting an FYS/LC
structure has doubled over the last decade and continues to rise (Young & Hopp,
2014).
Why FYS/LC Combined Programs?

Why are so many institutions choosing to embed FYSs into LCs? The
reasons range from increasing success while students are in college to increasing
their success beyond college. The transformational effect these programs often
have on campus culture provides additional impetus. Given the positive effects
of participation in LCs, it makes sense to have them available to students in their
very first semester—when they are also offered FYSs. In this way, the kind of
integrative learning experiences and sense of belonging fostered in LCs can set
the tone for a student’s entire college career—encouraging students to make
connections among all their courses and situate themselves in the college
community. Also, the variety of FYS types noted above suggests a number
of possibilities for connecting these to other courses in LCs. For example, in a
FYS that focuses on skills, content from the linked course(s) can provide the
context in which skills can be embedded and practiced; an academic FYS can
focus on a theme relevant to the course cluster while a preprofessional seminar
can offer students opportunities to apply theoretical and practical concepts
to professional tasks when paired with courses required for the program and/
or general education prerequisites. In addition, it can be cost-effective to
combine programs, especially in times of economic downturn. Resources that
might need to be duplicated in two separate programs can often be shared in
combined programs, such as student advisement and professional development
opportunities. Finally, students can be expected to reap increased benefits from
combined programs; Kuh (2008) reported cumulative benefits when students
participate in more than one HIP.
Introduction | xix
On our own campuses, we have seen the positive effects of combined

programs. At Kingsborough Community College, the social policy research
group, MDRC, randomly assigned 1,500 students to one of the Opening Doors
FYS/LCs or to a control group. Six years of follow-up data show a 4.6 percentage
point impact of FYS/LC participation on graduation rates, representing a 15%
increase in degrees earned. The program also had a positive impact on total credits
earned, student enrollment, and credit accumulation (Weiss, Mayer, Cullinan,
Ratledge, Sommo, & Diamond, 2014). Similarly, at IUPUI, findings suggest that
participation in a FYS/LC contributes to academic success. When compared
to students who participate in first-year seminars, learning communities, or no
special curricular program, students in FYS/LCs had higher first-year grade
point averages and persistence rates, even when considering student background
characteristics (Hansen & Schmidt, 2015).
But colleges are not only interested in how well students do while they are
in college, they are also invested in how well students are prepared for life after
college, especially when disciplinary boundaries have eroded. “Technology and
globalization have transformed knowledge and practices in all the disciplines,
professions, and arts… we are awash in information in all areas of life, … and
‘f lexibility’ and ‘mobility’ are the watchwords of the new economy” (Huber &
Hutchings, 2005, p. 2). At such a time, drawing from multiple knowledge bases,
perspectives, and experiences is necessary in order to fully participate and thrive
as educated citizens. Based on input from both educators and employers, The
National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America’s Promise
(LEAP), in College Learning for the New Global Century (AAC&U, 2007), made
recommendations regarding the kind of essential learning outcomes needed by
today’s graduates. Key among these learning outcomes was integrative learning as
“demonstrated through the application of knowledge, skills, and responsibilities
to new settings and complex problems” (p. 12). As a result, there has been a call,
throughout higher education, for an emphasis on educating students to think in
a more intentionally integrative way.
In A Statement on Integrative Learning, the Association of American Colleges
and Universities (AAC&U) and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching (2004) noted that integrative learning “comes in many varieties:
connecting skills and knowledge from multiple sources and experiences; applying
theory to practice in various settings; utilizing diverse and even contradictory
points of view; and, understanding issues and positions contextually” (para. 2).
They identified integrative learning experiences as those which often occur as
students address real-world problems that require a broad knowledge base and
xx | Building Synergy for High-Impact Educational Initiatives
multiple modes of inquiry and that benefit from diverse perspectives. Such
problems challenge the notion that a single solution is sufficient to resolve them.
Yet, in their statement, AAC&U and the Carnegie Foundation pointed out
that cultivating this type of learning is one of the greatest challenges of higher
education. Institutional structures, disciplinary divisions, hierarchies, and
battles for resources stif le collaborative efforts and turn departments into silos.
Antiquated methods of teaching linger, treating students as potential repositories
of information—a role that often encourages student passivity—rather than
active participants in the construction of knowledge.
FYSs and LCs directly support the aim of integrative learning and thinking;
further, both do so by emphasizing community. In learning communities,
cohorts naturally provide opportunities for building relationships with peers
and instructors. FYSs, similarly, encourage students to forge academic and
social connections by helping them situate themselves in the larger learning
environment. But bringing these programs together means addressing the
barriers noted above. It requires working across divisions—opening the door to
the kind of cross-campus collaboration that often sparks a shift in institutional
culture. This collaboration, if effective, not only supports the success of FYS/LC
programs but also can serve as the impetus for institutional transformation. That
is, as silos are dismantled and collaboration becomes the norm, how an institution
“does business” (e.g., establishes goals, sets priorities, manages resources, assesses
progress) becomes more inclusive. As a result, offering these two HIPs together
in combined FYS/LC programs provides the institution with the opportunity to
transform campus culture while helping students not only to see connections in
the world but also to connect themselves to the world.
Implementing FYS/LC Programs

The positive effects of HIPs depend upon them being done well—so what
does it mean to do FYSs and LCs well together? The aim of this book is to answer
this question, and, to that end, it is organized into two parts. In Part I, contributing
authors from a variety of institutional settings discuss core issues surrounding
the implementation of combined FYS/LC programs. These concerns include
providing a rationale for such programs, choosing from among a wide range
of program models, making decisions regarding program administration,
considering pedagogical implications, and assessing program outcomes. In Part
II, seven FYS/LC case studies present an array of program models in a variety
of settings. Cases range from an integrative general education program in the
Introduction | xxi
rural cornfields of DeKalb, Illinois, to a social justice program thriving in an

urban community college system in San Francisco, to a science metacognition
program in suburban Atlanta.
Part I: Rationale and Implementation of Combined Programs

Combining FYSs and LCs seems a natural pairing as LCs can help entering
students find their place and make a connection to the college or university, and
provide a context in which students can apply traditional FYS topics, such as
studying, note taking, and test-taking skills. But is there evidence that there are
benefits to bringing these two HIPs together in a combined program? In Chapter 1,
Ashley Finley and George D. Kuh argue that there is. They begin by tracing how
FYSs and LCs came to be considered HIPs, exploring empirical evidence of the
positive impacts that each of these practices has been shown to have on outcomes
such as engagement, persistence, and grade point averages. The authors then go
on to explore findings in regards to participation in multiple HIPs. Finley and Kuh
draw attention to the need to ensure the features that contributed to the programs’
designation as high impact are consistently maintained. Jean Henscheid, Tracy
Skipper, and Dallin Young explore this last point in Chapter 2 where they consider
the various roles seminars can play in LCs. They begin by acknowledging that the
ways of embedding FYSs in LCs are as varied as the needs of the students these
programs serve. They discuss the range of roles seminars can play in LCs—
including serving as sites for activities where material and concepts from other
courses in the link can be integrated, applied, and practiced—and how course
goals, assignments, activities, assessment, and faculty roles vary with different
models for embedding seminars in LCs. Ultimately, however, it is up to individual
institutions to decide which model best fits their needs. To that end, the authors
comment on the advantages and disadvantages of various models, as well as the
issues to consider when choosing a model for implementation.
In Chapter 3, Nia Haydel and Liya Escalera address the nuts and bolts of
implementing and sustaining FYS/LC programs. What structures and funding
must be in place, what new collaborations must be forged, and what practical
adjustments must be made to the way a college does business for FYS/LC
programs to work? Changes that are made to support these programs often
have a wide-ranging impact on an institution, transforming the culture in the
process. Implementing FYS/LC programs requires reexamining an array of
services, processes, and policies, including course scheduling and requirements,
recruitment, orientation, advisement, and registration. And, since the benefits of
program participation are not always immediately apparent, it is often necessary
xxii | Building Synergy for High-Impact Educational Initiatives
to offer incentives. Of course, getting programs up and running is one task,

sustaining them is another, so Haydel and Escalera also suggest strategies for
keeping programs viable.
Good teaching stands at the heart of FYSs and LCs done well. In Chapter 4,
Lisa Dresdner and Ruthanna Spiers discuss the process of shifting teaching
practices to focus on integrative learning. They encourage educators to disrupt
the cycle of disengaged teaching and learning in order to create opportunities
for significant learning experiences, and offer practical strategies on how faculty
can collaborate to synthesize content across disciplines and design integrative
assignments.
While Chapters 1 through 4 focus on how to design, implement, and
support FYS/LC programs, in Chapter 5, Michele Hansen and Maureen Pettitt
explore how we can discover whether or not these programs are successful—
information that is crucial in helping to document the importance of such
programs in fulfilling an institution’s mission to support student success. They
begin by discussing traditional approaches to researching and assessing FYSs and
LCs, noting their limitations, followed by suggestions for alternative directions,
including evaluating more varied outcomes at multiple levels and employing
more rigorous research designs. However, echoing Finley and Kuh in Chapter 1,
they recognize the need for new assessment techniques to investigate the possible
synergistic effects when students participate in multiple HIPs simultaneously.
Part II: Contexts for Implementation: Models From

Two- and Four-Year Institutions
With the f lexibility inherent in both LCs and FYSs, it is difficult to provide
a holistic picture of what combined FYS/LC programs look like in action. To
be effective, the programs must be contextualized in the unique characteristics
of each institution and cater to the dynamic student populations they are
designed to serve. Accordingly, this publication intentionally includes examples
from diverse institutions across the country: two- and four-year (and even a
program uniting two-and four-year institutions); public and private; urban,
suburban, and rural; institutions serving predominately majority or historically
underrepresented students; and institutions with as few as 1,300 to as many as
32,000 undergraduate students. The variety extends beyond the programs and
into an array of assessment methods employed to measure program outcomes.
Examples include quantitative analyses investigating cost-effectiveness, exam
scores, grade point average, persistence, graduation rates, pre- and post-surveys,
qualitative interviews, analyses of meta-ref lection papers, and open-ended
Introduction | xxiii
survey responses. Collectively, the cases provide a comprehensive picture of

the diversity, f lexibility, and value of combined FYS/LC programs, alongside
examples for measuring outcomes and improving future practice.
Bronx Community College provides an intimate look at how combined
FYS/LC programs can serve nonnative English speakers as they explore
the cultural context of learning in U.S. higher education. Metro Academies
of City College of San Francisco and San Francisco State University offer a
glimpse into measuring the cost-effectiveness of combined programs, which is
paramount when institutions have increasingly limited resources and are asked
to demonstrate return on investment. Kennesaw State University explores
metacognition in students enrolled in a combined program including chemistry,
which provides a nice contrast to the residentially based FYS/LC offered through
the Common Courses program at the University of South Carolina. Northern
Illinois University describes how MAP-Works data shed light on students’
experiences in combined programs, while Cabrini College shares rubrics used
to investigate direct measures of learning in social justice writing assignments.
Finally, Mt. Hood Community College details a comprehensive program for
students in developmental courses connected to various themes.
Conclusion
Just as teaching in FYS/LC programs defies the usual institutional culture
of working in isolation, writing for this publication required authors to work in
concert. The more than 30 authors contributing to this volume modeled the
collaboration and partnerships essential to successful FYS/LC programs. Co-
authors from distinctly different institutional backgrounds worked incredibly
hard to join forces in crafting chapters combining research and practice. We
thank all of the contributors for sharing their experiences, observations, and
ref lections, and invite readers to draw from these as they plan, implement, or
further develop FYS/LCs at their institutions.
References
The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (2007).
College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/
GlobalCentury_final.pdf
xxiv | Building Synergy for High-Impact Educational Initiatives
The Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Carnegie Foun-
dation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2004, March). A statement on inte-
grative learning. Retrieved from the Gallery of Teaching and Learning web-
site: http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org/ilp/uploads/ilp_statement.pdf
Baker, S., & Pomerantz, N. (2000-2001). Impact of learning communities on re-
tention at a metropolitan university. Journal of College Student Retention: Re-
search, Theory & Practice, 2, 115–126.
Barefoot, B. O. (2002). Second National Survey of First-Year Academic Programs. Bre-
vard, NC: Policy Center on the First Year of College. Retrieved from http://
www.firstyear.org/uploads/File/2002_2nd_Nat_Survey_Responses_
ALL.pdf
Greenfield, G. M., & Keup, J. R., & Gardner, J. N. (2013). Developing and sustain-
ing successful first-year programs: A guide for practitioners. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Hansen, M. J., & Schmidt, L. (2015, April 10). The synergy of and readiness for
high-impact practices during the first year of college. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Hunter, M. S., & Linder, C. W. (2005). First-year seminars. In M. L. Upcraft, J.
N. Gardner, B. O. Barefoot, & Associates, Challenging and supporting the first-
year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 275-291). San
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). (2010). A template
for first-year seminars. Retrieved from http://resources.uc.iupui.edu/Link-
Click.aspx?fileticket=FBV4bBWZwDE%3D&tabid=882&mid=8083
Johnson, J. L. (2000-2001). Learning communities and special efforts in the re-
tention of university students: What works, what doesn’t, and is the return
worth the investment? Journal of College Student Retention, 2(3), 219-38.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who has access
to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Col-
leges and Universities.
Lardner, E., & Malnarich, G. (2008). A new era in learning-community work:
Why the pedagogy of intentional integration matters. Change, 40, 30-37.
Love, A. G. (1999). What are learning communities? In J. H. Levine (Ed.), Learn-
ing communities: New structures, new partnerships for learning (Monograph
No. 26, pp. 1-8). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Re-
source Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition.
Introduction | xxv
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third de-
cade of research, Vol. 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. (Eds.). (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical
guide to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San
Taylor, K., Moore, W. S., MacGregor, J., & Lindblad, J. (2003). Learning communi-
ty research and assessment: What we know now (National Learning Communi-
ties Project Monograph Series). Olympia, WA: The Evergreen State College,
Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Educa-
tion, in cooperation with the American Association for Higher Education.
Tinto, V. (2003). Learning better together: The impact of learning communities
on student success. In Promoting student success in college (Higher Education
Monograph Series, 2003-1, pp. 1-8). Syracuse, NY: School of Education, Syr-
acuse University.
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N, Barefoot, B. O., & Associates. (2005). Challenging
and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of
college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, M. J., Mayer, A., Cullinan, D., Ratledge, A., Sommo, C., & Diamond, J.
(2014). A random assignment evaluation of learning communities at Kingsborough
Community College: Seven years later. New York, NY: MDRC.
Young, D. G., & Hopp, J. M. (2014). 2012-2013 National Survey of First-Year Sem-
inars: Exploring high-impact practices in the first college year (Research Reports
on College Transitions, No. 4). Columbia, SC: University of South Caroli-
na, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in
Transition.
Chapter 1
The Case for Connecting First-Year
Seminars and Learning Communities
Ashley Finley and George D. Kuh
Of the many efforts to improve undergraduate education introduced during

the last quarter century, few have been as well received and promising as first-year
seminars and learning communities. Each of these programmatic interventions
is associated with such desirable short- and long-term student outcomes as
satisfaction, engagement in educationally purposeful activities, and persistence,
among others. This trifecta of student performance indicators led the Association
of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) to include first-year seminars
and learning communities on its list of 10 high-impact practices (Kuh, 2008).
What is a high-impact practice (HIP)? What is it about first-year seminars
and learning communities that warrants each being designated as one? And,
equally important, do students who take a first-year seminar that is part of a
learning community benefit more than their counterparts who experience one
or the other but not both?
In this chapter we address these questions, drawing on our own research
and on related literature. First, we review the short history of HIPs, including how
they were identified, their distinguishing features, and the empirical research
that documents their noteworthy effects. We then brief ly review different types
of first-year seminars and learning community structures and discuss why
certain formats are more likely to qualify as high-impact practices. We also
examine some of the existing research regarding the synergistic advantages of
integrating a first-year seminar into a learning community to promote student
engagement and success. And finally, we close with some observations about
the importance of implementation quality to ensure that first-year seminars and
learning communities have the intended positive effects on students.
A Brief History of High-Impact Practices

One of the five clusters of effective educational practices originally used
to report results from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
is Enriching Educational Experiences. This set of items (sometimes called a
benchmark) was the last to be named, primarily because its nine components
had not previously been grouped either conceptually or empirically into a single
3
4 | Building Synergy for High-Impact Educational Initiatives
scale. However, the design team that helped create the NSSE questionnaire in
1998 was convinced that the individual activities and experiences that made
up the Enriching Educational Experiences cluster were too important not to
be represented on the survey (Kuh, 2008). The research supporting the value
of certain educationally enriching activities, such as service-learning and
experiences with diversity, was substantial, growing, and almost uniformly
positive. At the same time, even though the anecdotal evidence was favorable,
there was not as much empirical support for the benefits of other educationally
enriching activities, including student-faculty research, internships, and study
abroad.
It was this uneven empirical support for the activities making up the
Educationally Enriching Experiences cluster that led George Kuh in 2005 to
ask the NSSE analyst team at the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary
Research to take a closer look at the relationships between the Educationally
Enriching Experiences cluster and other NSSE items, including self-reported
outcomes as well as grades and persistence. The data for the latter two variables
were collected under the auspices of the Connecting the Dots study, which
involved an analysis of 11,420 individual student ACT/SAT score reports,
transcripts, and financial aid records from 18 baccalaureate-granting colleges and
universities, including four historically Black institutions and three Hispanic-
serving institutions (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008; Kuh, Kinzie,
Cruce, Shoup, & Gonyea, 2007).
In his 2008 AAC&U monograph, Kuh summarized what the NSSE
analysts discovered. Four additional AAC&U publications have appeared since,
examining different facets of high-impact practices. Brownell and Swaner (2009)
reviewed the literature documenting the positive effects of participating in one of
five HIPs: first-year seminars, learning communities, service-learning, student-
faculty research, and study abroad. Kuh and O’Donnell (2013) discussed what
is needed to enhance the implementation quality of HIPs and to bring them to
scale so that larger numbers of students at more institutions will benefit. Finley
and McNair (2013) reported the findings from their research that illustrates the
unusually positive effects of participation for students from underserved groups.
Finally, Wellman and Brusi (2013) offered insights and suggestions for evaluating
the return on investing in and scaling selected HIPs in terms of persistence and
other student success proxies.
The main story line running through all these publications is that students
who participate in, for example, either a learning community or service-learning
course in the first college year are more engaged in the educationally purposeful
Connecting First-Year Seminars and Learning Communities | 5
activities represented in the four other NSSE clusters (Table 1.1). The likely
reasons for this pattern of findings are a function of the kinds of student behaviors
and interactions that are characteristic of a HIP. When done well (a point about
which we will say more later), a HIP typically demands more time on task by
students, induces more student-faculty interaction, generates more opportunities
for feedback from both faculty and peers, and more frequently puts students in
situations where they have to transfer and apply what they are learning. When
faculty or internship or field supervisors ask students to systematically ref lect on
and distill meaning from these experiences and connect them to other aspects of
their education and life, these activities become even more meaningful.
Table 1.1
Effects of Participating in High-Impact Activities on Student Engagement
Level of Active and Student- Supportive

academic collaborative faculty campus
challenge learning interaction environment
First-year students
Learning communities ++ +++ +++ ++
Service-learning ++ +++ +++ ++
Seniors
Study abroad ++ ++ ++ +
Student-faculty +++ +++ +++ ++
research
Internship ++ +++ +++ ++
Service-learning ++ +++ +++ ++
Culminating ++ ++ +++ ++
experience
+ p < .001. ++ p <.001 & Unstd B > .10. +++ p < .001 & Unstd B > .30.
These features of a HIP explain in large part why students report more
frequently using deep learning behaviors, such as integrating and applying
information from different courses to practical problems, discussing ideas with
faculty members and peers, and making judgments about the value of information
(Table 1.2). Students who have participated in a HIP also report making greater
gains in general education outcomes, personal and social development, and
practical competence. These same patterns of differences substantially favoring
first-year students who have experienced a high-impact practice hold for seniors,
and have been corroborated every year since 2007 in NSSE annual reports (e.g.,
NSSE, n.d.).
Table 1.2
Effects of Participating in High-Impact Activities on Deep/Integrative Learning and Gains
Deep learning General gains Personal Practical

gains gains
First-year students
Learning +++ ++ ++ ++
communities
Service-learning +++ ++ +++ ++
Seniors
Study abroad ++ + ++
Student-faculty +++ ++ ++ ++
research
Internship ++ ++ ++ ++
Service-learning +++ ++ +++ ++
Culminating ++ ++ ++ ++
experience
+ p < .001. ++ p <.001 & Unstd B > .10. +++ p < .001 & Unstd B > .30.
These findings are both statistically significant and have unusually large ef-
fect sizes, which represent the magnitude of the statistically significant differences
between those who have been in a high-impact practice and those who have not.
In Tables 1.1 and 1.2, the + signs represent effect sizes. The more + signs associated
with an outcome, the greater the effect size. The overwhelmingly positive pattern
of large effect size differences suggests that the impact of these experiences is
likely manifested in students in observable and personally meaningful ways.
Perhaps the most concrete example is data from California State University,
Northridge showing that students who participate in one or more HIPs are more
likely to persist and graduate (Kuh & O’Donnell, 2013), and findings reported
by Finley and McNair (2013) indicating higher perceived learning gains with
greater participation in HIPs. Moreover, the positive relationships between HIP
involvement and desired outcomes generally hold for all students, background
characteristics notwithstanding. In fact, the students who are not as well prepared
academically (as indicated by precollege achievement test scores, such as ACT or
SAT) or are from underserved backgrounds appear to benefit more than their
better prepared peers, which is a form of compensatory effect (Cruce, Wolniak,
Seifert, & Pascarella, 2006; Finley & McNair, 2013; Kuh, 2008; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). We will say more about some of these benefits later.
First-Year Seminars and Learning Communities

as High-Impact Practices
As mentioned earlier, first-year seminars and learning communities
are among the most commonly offered and, thus, highly subscribed HIPs.
Sometimes a stand-alone first-year seminar by itself is what the institution
considers to be its first-year experience. In other instances, the first-year seminar is
integrated into a learning community or is a component of a campuswide effort
to enhance the first year of college. Before we explore the rationale for integrating
these two curricular practices, we examine the educational effectiveness of each
individually.
First-Year Seminars
The exhorted value of the first-year seminar dates back centuries, probably
to ancient Greece (Keup, 2012). However, the rationale, structure, and intended
outcomes have evolved over time from a narrow focus on imparting knowledge
and indirectly socializing newcomers to the academic ethos to intentional efforts
to teach typically traditional-age first-year students “how to do college” in a
psychosocially supportive context. For example, small classes taught in tutorial
format were a staple at colleges in the Colonial era. A discussion–oriented course
taught by a faculty member using the Socratic approach with a small number of
first-year students (e.g., 15-20) was a central component of the undergraduate
curricular reform ineffectively championed by Robert Maynard Hutchins when
he was president of the University of Chicago in the 1930s. Even into the 1960s,
many colleges continued to organize the first-year curriculum in a manner that
featured at least one small required class taught by full-time faculty, which was
usually part of the general education component of the baccalaureate degree,
such as a literature, history, or social science offering.
As undergraduate enrollments swelled through the 1970s, universities
traded the small required first-year class(es) for large enrollment lecture-oriented
sections, which made class discussion difficult if not impossible. Moreover, for all
practical purposes, this trend also allowed first-year students to be anonymous,
even among other students in the same class, exacerbating the sense that “I am
on my own here.” Anonymity—though students may say they prefer it—is the
enemy of connecting in personally meaningful and satisfying ways with peers
and faculty or learning how to successfully manage academic challenges and
navigate the institutional culture.
These factors, along with the reports that an unacceptably large number
of students were leaving college prematurely, inspired the University of South
Carolina, under the leadership of John N. Gardner, to create University 101, an
orientation-to-college course that was the central organizational component of
what became The First-Year Experience (FYE) movement. More than 40 years
later, over 95% of campuses report having something akin to a first-year seminar
(Barefoot, Griffin, & Koch, 2012).
What is generically called a first-year seminar can take different forms, even
on the same campus. At some institutions, the first-year seminar is required of
all students; at others the course is optional. Some seminars are offered pass-
fail; others may be graded. The number of credits assigned to the seminar also
varies from one campus to another. Most seminars are one-semester offerings,
but some continue through the entire first year. The backgrounds of instructors
vary, with seminars being led by faculty teaching academic content related to
their primary disciplinary affiliation on some campuses and by student affairs or
library personnel on others. Sometimes instructors teach the first-year seminar as
part of their regular teaching load, but occasionally instructors receive additional
compensation for doing so.
The goals of the seminar—often multiple—also vary. According to a recent
survey of more than 800 institutions with first-year seminars (Young & Hopp,
2014), the most commonly cited goals of seminars included helping students
develop a connection with the institution (44.9%), providing an orientation to
campus resources and services (37.8%), and developing academic skills (36.3%).
About one third of respondents (31.8%) reported that service-learning or
community service activity is part of the first-year seminar.
All this is to say that there is considerable variation in the activities and
student experiences that constitute a first-year seminar. This makes it difficult to
determine which effects can be attributed to which first-year seminar format or
structural elements. Even so, there is considerable research showing the positive
effects of participating in a first-year seminar, much of it gathered by staff at the
University of South Carolina’s National Resource Center for The First-Year
Experience and Students in Transition.
Learning Communities
Just as the first-year seminar can take different structural forms, so it is with
learning communities. And the understanding of what constitutes a learning
community also has evolved over time. Thus, there are some similar challenges
to teasing out the key features of learning communities that make them high
impact.
Decades ago, many institutions considered the entire campus to be a learning

community, implying that an ethic of belonging, shared intellectual pursuits,
and coherence of purpose characterized the curriculum and cocurriculum.
Even today, one can find such language in the catalogues of small colleges. As
institutions have grown in size, it has become physically unsustainable for
all students to know one another or study the same material at the same time.
Yet, at certain institutions—most notably large public universities, such as
the University of Oregon and University of Washington—efforts were made
to reproduce many of the more educationally effective attributes of the small
college through structural interventions designed to have similar effects. Central
to this conception of the contemporary learning community is the notion that
students in the critical transition period between high school and college or some
other life experience (e.g., military, employment) and university study can benefit
from connecting in meaningful ways with peers engaged in similar intellectual
pursuits.
The most common feature of these efforts is assigning students to block-
scheduled courses linked by a common theme often pertaining to a social
issue or contemporary topic (Brownell & Swaner, 2010); that is, the same small
groups of students (e.g., 18-22) are co-enrolled in the same sections of two or
three classes, such as a writing class and introduction to psychology, or some
other combination. For example, the Themed Learning Community (TLC)
implemented successfully since 2003 at Indiana University-Purdue University
Indianapolis (IUPUI) is made up of three or four courses (one of which is a first-
year seminar) in which 25 or fewer students are co-enrolled. The instructional
team consists of three to five faculty members, an academic advisor, a librarian,
and a peer mentor. Such a design provides students with common intellectual
material and allows them to come to know one another in an academic setting,
making it easier for them to study together and help one another manage common
problems and challenges. On average, the first-to-second-year persistence rates
of students in a TLC at IUPUI are between 2 and 9% higher than their peers
who do not have such an experience (IUPUI, 2011b). Also, the first-year grades
of TLC participants in a given year tend to be on average .1 to .2 points higher
(IUPUI, 2011a).
In some instances, institutions provide incentives for faculty who teach the
courses that make up the learning community with the expectation that they will
collaborate on the design of assignments and other experiences so that students
will have to synthesize and integrate material from the different courses. An
upper-division undergraduate peer preceptor or mentor is sometimes part of the
instructional team, as in the IUPUI example. Some residential campuses, such

as the University of Missouri, link housing assignments to the blocked courses
to create a Freshman Interest Group, wherein students taking the same courses
also live in close proximity. This structural feature—sometimes including a peer
preceptor who lives in the same residence and organizes out-of-class activities—
helps facilitate peer interaction outside the classroom.
Even though learning communities take different forms, NSSE data show
that students in learning communities—defined as the same group of students
taking two or three classes together—spend on average 20% more time per week
preparing for class. As Tables 1.1 and 1.2 show, such students are more engaged
overall in their learning and benefit more than their peers who do not have such
an experience.
According to the Washington Center for the Improvement of Under-
graduate Education at The Evergreen State College, learning communities are
morphing into a new stage, which it calls new era learning communities, focused
on fostering greater levels of learning. What was originally introduced as a
curricular reform focused on content is now cast more broadly and incorporates
an emphasis on helping students learn about the campus culture as well as how
to learn and thrive in college (Lardner & Malnarich, 2008).
Is Two Better Than One? The Synergistic Payoff of Linking HIPs

The varied and effective forms of both first-year seminars and learning
communities help explain their popularity. Too often, however, these programs
function independently of one another, almost as if they are parallel, rather than
connected, student experiences. This can contribute to feelings of initiative
fatigue on the part of involved faculty and staff members—the sense of being
overwhelmed because they are expending time and effort beyond their regular
duties by implementing what may appear to be programs and services that
are not mission relevant or strategic priorities (Kuh & Hutchings, 2015). One
way to ameliorate initiative fatigue is to make plain how programs, such as
learning communities and first-year seminars, are related and contribute to
institutional goals like improved persistence and graduation rates and higher
levels of integrative learning, among other student outcomes. Perhaps even more
important, embedding a first-year seminar in a learning community may have
the happy prospect of accentuating the positive effects of each.
We do know something about the benefit of students’ cumulative
participation over time in HIPs. Finley and McNair (2013) found that students
reported persistently greater gains in desired learning outcomes and more
frequent participation in deep learning activities when engaging in multiple

HIPs. The highest perceived gains were associated with participating in five to
six HIPs over the course of the college career. Moreover, these perceived gains
were reported by different groups of students, including transfer, first-generation,
underrepresented minority, and traditionally advantaged students.
As noted earlier, California State University-Northridge found that
participation in multiple HIPs was linked to higher graduation rates, with a
compensatory boost in graduation rates for Latino students. In fact, although
HIPs participation translated into higher graduation rates for both White and
Latino students, when Latinos participated in five to six of these experiences,
they graduated at a higher rate than their White counterparts (Kuh & O’Donnell,
2013).
What the above research does not clarify is the degree to which the effect on
student outcomes is amplified when students participate in two HIPS, such as a
first-year seminar and a learning community, simultaneously. There is, however,
evidence to suggest that weaving together two HIPs into the same experience
may indeed be more powerful than either one is alone.
The Case for Integrating First-Year Seminars and

Learning Communities
The 2012-2013 National Survey of First-Year Seminars found that more
than “90% of survey respondents reported intentionally connecting at least
one high-impact practice (HIP) to their first-year seminar (National Resource
Center, 2013, p. 3). For most of the nearly 800 campuses responding to this
question, the majority enhanced first-year seminars by using collaborative
assignments. Approximately one half of campuses responding to the survey
reported including diversity and global learning experiences into first-year
seminars, while a third reported including service-learning experiences. A third
of campuses in the sample indicated that first-year seminars were connected with
learning communities (National Resource Center, 2013).
In their instructive review of the research on five HIPs (i.e. first-year
seminars, learning communities, service-learning, undergraduate research,
capstone courses and projects), Brownell and Swaner (2010) brief ly discussed
the potential of incorporating multiple HIPs into the same activity, particularly
first-year seminars and learning communities. Their review of the literature
indicated that “connecting the first-year seminar with a learning community
was associated with better outcomes for students” (p. 41). Among these
improved outcomes were greater student engagement, both inside and outside
of the classroom; more frequent substantive interactions with peers and faculty;
intellectual growth; and personal development in terms of improved study skills,
time management skills, and an enhanced sense of well-being.
Combining first-year seminars and learning communities has also been
associated with improvement in certain institutional outcomes, such as
persistence (Hanover Research 2011; Tampke & Durodoye, 2013). Additionally,
integration of HIPs need not stop at only two experiences. For example, Brownell
and Swaner (2010) suggested that adding service-learning to the first-year
seminar linked to a learning community may yield even greater positive effects.
Service-learning “focuses students on real, unscripted problems, and issues; and
it broadens students’ thinking about what it means to be part of a community,
expanding that concept beyond the campus”(p.43).
Additional research about the effects of linking first-year seminars and
learning communities will likely produce additional valuable insights into how
student and institutional outcomes are affected by the pairing of HIPS. At the
same time, as we emphasize later, calling something a high-impact practice does
not necessarily make it so. Intentional design and careful attention must be paid
to the ways in which these practices are implemented to ensure that the label high
impact also means high quality.
The Case for Quality

The reality on many campuses is that faculty often commit themselves to
lead a HIP without a clear understanding of what exactly makes the experience
high impact or a plan for ensuring that the features meet a standard for quality.
Too often, important questions are not raised, such as, What types of activities
maximize engagement in first-year seminars? How does the community aspect of a
learning community get translated into actual practice or ref lective assignments?
and In what ways should performance expectations or feedback be elevated to
challenge students in appropriate ways?
Kuh (2008) offered an important observation about why students who
participate in certain educational programs or practices tend to benefit in
unusually positive ways: “There is growing evidence that—when done well—
[emphasis added] some programs and activities appear to engage participants at
levels that elevate their performances across multiple engagement and desired-
outcomes measures” (p. 14). It is not enough to offer a first-year seminar or a
learning community or a service-learning course. Institutions must also ensure
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of How to become
an inventor
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Title: How to become an inventor

Containing experiments in photography, hydraulics,
galvanism and electricity, magnetism, heat, and the
wonders of the microscope
Author: Aaron A. Warford
Release date: February 7, 2024 [eBook #72892]
Language: English
Original publication: New York: Frank Tousey, 1898
Credits: Demian Katz, Craig Kirkwood, and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
(Images courtesy of the Digital Library@Villanova
University.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HOW TO

BECOME AN INVENTOR ***
Transcriber’s Notes:
The Table of Contents was created by the transcriber and placed in the public
domain.
Additional Transcriber’s Notes are at the end.
CONTENTS
How to Become an Inventor.
Galvanism, Or Voltaic
Electricity.
Heat.
Hydraulics.
Magnetism.
How to Become a
Photographer.
Mechanics.
Pneumatics.
How to Become an Optician.
The Microscope.
CONTAINING
Experiments in Photography, Hydraulics,

Galvanism and Electricity,
MAGNETISM, HEAT,
AND THE
Wonders of the Microscope.
ALSO GIVING
Instruction in the Use of Tools

AND
OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS.
New York:
FRANK TOUSEY, Publisher,
29 West 26th Street.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1898, by
FRANK TOUSEY,
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D.C.
Nothing is more useful to a youth than to be able to do a little
carpentering. To be handy with a chisel and saw, a nail and a
hammer, saves many a dollar in the course of the year. If you call in
a carpenter for a little work he is sure to spin out a “regular job.” I
remember once buying some oak saplings, which cost me fifteen
cents a stick; and wanting to build a summer-house, I required eight
of them to be sawn through, so I applied to a carpenter, and the
sticks were cut, but, to my astonishment, four dollars was charged
for this little “job,” although the wood cost me only one dollar and
thirty cents. I found out afterwards that the proper price for sawing
would have amounted to about one dollar, so that three dollars profit
was clapped on for the benefit of my experience. I just mention this
to show my young friends that if they wish to make summer-houses
for their gardens, cages for their birds, fowl-houses, rabbit-hutches,
or boxes for their books, they must learn to make them for
themselves. I shall therefore offer them a little advice upon
“carpentering.”
THE SHOP AND BENCH.

Endeavor to procure some small outhouse, in which you may erect
what is called a carpenter’s or joiner’s bench. These may very often
be bought second-hand, or if not, can easily be procured at a
reasonable rate. I am very particular in recommending a bench, as
without it you will find many obstacles to your work. You must also
provide yourself with a set of tools,—gimlets, hammers, planes,
saws, gouges, files, nails, screws, and such articles of use.
The bench is composed of a platform or top, supported by four stout
legs; supplied with a bench hook; this ought to be fitted in tight, so as
to move up and down with a hammer only. The use of it is to keep
any wood steady you may have to plane; the bench screw is used
for keeping any wood firm and steady you may have to saw, which is
to be put in the grip and screwed tight. Sometimes the edges of
wood require to be planed, and then the wood is put in the grip or
cheeks of the bench and held tight while you plane it. Make holes in
the side of the bench, for the insertion of a movable pin to support
the end of the board you have to plane or saw, which is not in the
screw. The height of your bench should be about 2 feet 8 inches.
The common length is from 10 to 12 feet, and the breadth about 3
feet 6 inches.
The jack plane is the first to be used. It is about 17 inches in length,
and is used to take the rough parts from a piece of wood. It should
be held steadily by fixing the right hand at the handle, and the left
over the top and side, and pushed forward on the wood, when the
knife will take off a shaving which runs through the hole, and falls on
the side. In using the plane the endeavor should be to take off a
clean shaving, which is done by using the instrument uniformly and
steadily over every surface to be planed.
There is another kind of plane, called the trying plane, having a
double top or handle. It is used to regulate and smooth to a higher
degree, the surface of the wood that had previously been smoothed
from the rough by the jack plane. Its length is about 22 inches, and it
is broader than the jack plane. There is another plane called the long
plane, which is used for facing a piece of stuff, which it does with the
greatest exactness; its length is about 2 feet 4 inches. There is also
the joiner’s plane, which is the longest of all the planes, being 30
inches long. But the most handy of the planes to the boy carpenter is
the smoothing plane. It is the last plane used in joining, and gives the
utmost degree of smoothness to the surface of a piece of finished
work; it is about 7 inches in length, the sides of the stock are curved,
and resemble in figure a coffin; it is used in a similar way to the
other.
SAWS.
There are many kinds of saws, but the most useful one is what is
called the “hand saw.” It has a blade or plate about 28 inches long;
the teeth of which are so formed as to allow you to cut the wood
crossways as well as lengthways. The handle of the saw is made so
as to allow a full yet free grasp of the hand, either for a pull or a
thrust.
The panel saw. This saw has a plate nearly of the same size as a
hand saw, and is used for cutting very thin boards, which the rough
teeth of the hand saw would not cut through without breaking them.
The tenon saw is of a different shape to the others, and is made to
cut across the grain of the wood so as to leave the ends nicely even,
that it may fit to the piece it is joined to, which is called a shoulder,
being that part which comes in contact with the fiber of the wood. To
do this it requires that the teeth should be much smaller, and they
are therefore placed so close as eight or ten to the inch, according to
the length of the blade.
The dovetail saw. There is another most useful saw it would be of
advantage for the young carpenter to have, namely, the dovetail saw.
It is about 9 inches long, and contains at least fifteen teeth in the
inch. It is used for cutting the dovetails of boxes. Its plate is very thin,
and it requires some care in using. It has a back for the purpose of
strength, formed of a thin piece of brass or iron, let in so as to give
the blade the requisite firmness necessary in using it.
The compass saw. The plate of this kind of saw is very narrow, and
not more than one inch wide at the broadest part, gradually
diminishing to about a quarter of an inch at the lower end. It is about
15 inches in length, and used for cutting a piece of wood into a
circular form, and the plate being narrow allows it to follow the foot of
the compass to a very small diameter.
The keyhole saw. The keyhole saw is much smaller than the above.
It is used for cutting short curves, small holes, &c., such as a
keyhole. The handle is the same form as that of the chisel, a small
slit being cut through from end to end. It has a screw on one side, in
order that the blade may be set to any length, according to the
circumference of the hole to be cut.
THE SPOKE SHAVE.

This is a very useful tool. It is employed for smoothing the edges of
round pieces, or other ends requiring to be shaved down. It is a
narrow plane made of boxwood, and has generally a steel blade let
into it to cut; it is used by taking hold of each end with a hand, and
moving it to and fro over the wood to be shaved down.
STOCK AND BITS.

There are about thirty-six bits to a set, all of different shapes and
sizes; but our young friends need not get quite so many; if they
provide themselves with a couple of a medium size, this will be
sufficient, such as the center bit and the auger bit. The center bit will
cut holes varying from a quarter of an inch to three quarters of an
inch in diameter, and is used by pressing the knob end against the
chest, and twirling the center part round with the hand. It cuts a hole
very clean, leaving it quite smooth inside. The auger bit is for the
same purpose, and is used in the same manner. Another bit, called
the taper shell bit, is used for making holes wider, and is a very
useful implement.
HOW TO MAKE A WHEELBARROW.

One of the handiest things in a garden is a wheelbarrow, and one of
the prettiest for the young carpenter to exercise his ingenuity upon.
To make one, take a wide plank or board about an inch and a quarter
thick. Proceed to your bench, and having fitted it to its proper
position, take your jack plane and plane off the rough, next use your
smoothing plane to make it smooth. Then take your pencil and draw
upon its side the figure of a wheelbarrow. Then take your compass
saw and cut round the marks you have made: to do this you will
have to fix your board in the screw of your bench. When this is done
take your spoke shave, and shave the edges all round till they are
very smooth and even, and you have one side of your barrow. Lay
this on another piece of board, and mark the shape of it with your
pencil; cut and shave it exactly as you did the first side, so that when
finished the two will exactly correspond; then cut a piece off another
board for the back and front of the barrow, by the same method you
cut the sides, and plane and finish them up in a similar way. Cut
some tenons at the end of each exactly to correspond with the
mortices on the sides, let them be a trifle larger than the mortices, so
that they will drive in tight. Then cut the bottom out neatly, and nail it
to the sides. Having proceeded thus far, cut out the legs of your
barrow, and nail one on each side. Give each leg a shoulder for the
sides to rest upon.
To make the wheel. Take a piece of board, and strike a circle upon it
the size you wish your wheel to be of, and with the compass saw cut
close round to the stroke; cut out a square hole in the center for the
nave to join. Then get the blacksmith to put an iron rim round the
wheel to keep it from splitting, and a round pin in each side of the
nave, and put a staple in each side of the barrow to keep the wheel
in its place. Paint the whole of any color you choose, and you will
have a wheelbarrow.
THE WAY TO MAKE A BOX.

First ascertain the size you wish your box to be of. Then cut off your
stuff, but take care to cut it a quarter of an inch longer than the size
of your box from outside to outside. Should you want it deeper or
broader than the length of a deal, the widest of which is generally
only eleven inches; suppose, for instance, you wish your box to be
18 inches deep, and you have only 9-inch deal to make it with, you
will of course have to join two together, or make what is called in
carpentering a gluejoint. First, then, after you have cut off your stuff,
take your jack plane and “scuffle the rough off,” then put your board
edgeways into the bench-screw, and take your trying plane or long
plane to get the edge of the deals that are to be glued together
perfectly straight and even; and lastly use the joiner plane, which will
take off a nice uniform shaving of the whole length of the board.
Proceed exactly in the same manner with the other board to be
joined to the first. Then, after having made each thoroughly smooth,
clap the two together and see if they will lie close in every part; if not
you must plane them till they do, taking care to plane the edges
perfectly square, or at right angles to the surface of the board, for if
you are not careful in this particular, when your boards are glued
together they will be of this form. When you have joined them
properly for glueing, let your glue be nicely hot and not too thick, and
hold both edges of the boards together so that you can with a brush
put the glue on both at one time, put the two together very quickly, let
one of them be in the bench-screw, and while there rub the other
backwards and forwards until the glue sets, which it will soon do if
well joined. Let the whole dry, and then the glued part will be as
strong as any other part of the board.
After your sides, ends, bottom, and top are thus prepared, you must
then plane them up nicely, so that they are perfectly smooth and
straight. Use first the jack plane, then the trying plane. When this is
done you have to proceed to a nice little job, namely, to dovetail the
corners together so as to form your box. In this process much
depends upon the planing and squaring of the stuff, for if you have
not done this nicely the dovetailing will be very imperfectly
performed. Assuming that everything has been well done, then take
the two ends of the box, and see that each is perfectly square and
true to the other. Then allow one-eighth of an inch more than the
thickness of your sides, and set out the ends, squaring it over on
both sides, which when the dovetails are cut out will form the inside
of the box.
TO CUT THE DOVETAILS.

Take one “end-piece” of the box, and place it endways into the
bench-screw, and mark out the dovetails on the edge of the board
inside, then with your dovetail saw cut in into the marks down to the
lines squared over on the flat side. Then with a chisel cut out that
part of the wood that is crossed, and leave the other part, this being
the part which will form the pins or tails. Then take one side of your
box and lay it flat on the bench, the inside uppermost; then place the
end you have cut on it, keeping the edges flush, and mark round the
shape of the pins, which will leave their form on the side piece, the
black places being the mortices which are to be cut out. In cutting
out these you must be careful to cut within side of the stroke, so that
the mortices will be a little smaller than the pins, which will admit of
their being driven in quite tight, and will allow the glue to adhere to
them (for you have to glue these when you fix them). When you have
thus put the ends and sides together let them stand till the glue gets
dry, then take your planes and plane the quarter of an inch off the
pins which you allowed to be a little longer than the length of the box,
and you have then made the body of your box.
THE BOTTOM OF THE BOX.

Cut your bottom the exact size of the box, nail the bottom on, and
“get out” a piece of wood (by cutting and planing in the usual
manner) to nail round so as to form a skirting to it, and at the same
time hide the joints of the bottom; “get out” a similar piece of wood to
nail round the top which will form the lid. Then get a pair of box joints
and a lock, and having put them on by a stroke of your own
ingenuity, you will have a “box.”
GALVANISM, OR VOLTAIC
ELECTRICITY.
“To play with fire
They say is dangerous; what is it then
To shake hands with the lightning, and to sport
With thunder?”—Tyler.
Galvanism, or electricity of quantity, in contradistinction to frictional

electricity, called electricity of intensity, owes its name to the
experiments on animal irritability made in 1790 by M. Galvani, a
professor of anatomy at Bologna. These experiments were
suggested by the following circumstances.
ORIGIN OF GALVANISM.
It happened that the wife of Galvani, who was consumptive, was
advised to take as an article of food some soup made of the flesh of
frogs. Several of these creatures were killed and skinned, and were
lying on the table in the laboratory close to an electrical machine,
with which a pupil of the professor was making experiments. While
the machine was in action, he chanced to touch the bare nerve of
the leg of one of the frogs with the blade of the knife that he had in
his hand, when suddenly the whole limb was thrown into violent
convulsions. Galvani was not present when this occurred; but being
informed of it, he immediately set himself to investigate the cause.
He found that it was only when a spark was drawn from the prime
conductor, and when the knife or any other good conductor was in
contact with the nerve, that the contracting took place; and after a
time he discovered that the effect was independent of the electrical
machine, and might be equally well produced by making a metallic
communication between the outside muscle and the crural nerve.
SIMPLE EXPERIMENT TO EXCITE GALVANIC
ACTION.
If the young experimenter will obtain a piece of zinc of the size of half
a dollar and place it on the top of his tongue, and place a half-dollar
beneath it, and bring the edges of the half-dollar and zinc in contact
in front of his tongue, he will notice a peculiar sensation in the nerves
of this organ, and some taste will be imparted to his mouth at the
moment of contact.
WITH METAL PLATES IN WATER.

If we take two plates of different kinds of metal, platinum (or copper)
and zinc for example, and immerse them in pure water, having wires
attached to them above, then if the wire of each is brought into
contact in another vessel of water, a galvanic circle will be formed,
the water will be slowly decomposed, its oxygen will be fixed on the
zinc wire, and at the same time a current of electricity will be
transmitted through the liquid to the platina or copper wire, on the
end of which the other element of water, namely, the hydrogen, will
make its appearance in the form of minute gas bubbles. The
electrical current passes back again into the zinc at the points of its
contact with the platina, and thus a continued current is kept up, and
hence it is called a galvanic circle. The moment the circuit is broken
by separating the wires the current ceases, but is again renewed by
making them touch either in or out of the water. If a small quantity of
sulphuric acid be added to the water, the phenomenon will be more
apparent. The end of the wire attached to the piece of platinum or
copper is called the positive pole of the battery, and that of the wire
attached to the zinc the negative pole.
The current of electricity here generated will be extremely feeble; but
this can be easily increased by multiplying the glasses and the
number of the pieces of metal. If we take six such glasses instead of
one, partially fill them with dilute sulphuric acid, and put a piece of
zinc and copper into each, connecting them by means of copper wire
from glass to glass through the whole series, a stronger current of
electricity will be the result. The experimenter must be careful not to
let the wire and zinc touch each other at the bottom of the tumblers,
and must also remember that the copper of glass 1 is connected with
the zinc of glass 2, and so on.
TO MAKE A MAGNET BY THE VOLTAIC

CURRENT.
To effect this, make a connection between the poles of the above or
any excited battery with the two ends of a wire formed into a spiral
coil, by bending common bonnet-wire closely round a cylinder, or
tube, of about an inch in diameter; into this coil introduce a needle or
piece of steel wire, laying it lengthways down the circles of the coil.
In a few minutes after the electric fluid has passed through the spiral
wire, and consequently round the needle or wire, the latter will be
found to be strongly magnetized, and to possess all the properties of
a magnet.
EFFECTS OF GALVANISM ON A MAGNET.

If a galvanic current, or any electric current, be made to pass along a
wire under which, and in a line with it, a compass is placed, it will be
found that the needle will no longer point north and south, but will
take a direction nearly across the current, and point almost east and
west.
CHANGE OF COLOR BY GALVANISM.

Put a teaspoonful of sulphate of soda into a cup, and dissolve it in
hot water; pour a little cabbage blue into the solution, and put a
portion into two glasses, connecting them by a piece of linen or
cotton cloth previously moistened in the same solution. On putting
one of the wires of the galvanic pole into each glass, the acid
accumulates in the one, turning the blue to a red, and the alkali in
the other, rendering it green. If the wires be now reversed, the acid
accumulates eventually in the glass where the alkali appeared, while
the alkali passes to the glass where the acid was.
THE GALVANIC SHOCK.
If the ends of the wires of a small galvanic battery are connected
with a proper electro-magnetic coil, which may now be purchased at
a very cheap rate, and the wires from the coil be placed in separate
basins of water, then, on dipping the fingers of each hand in the
basin, a smart shock will be felt, with a particular aching
accompanied with trembling. With a strong battery and larger coil
this effect is felt as high as the shoulders. The shock will also be felt
by simply holding the wires of a powerful galvanic battery, one in
each hand, provided the hands be moistened with salt and water.
Several persons may receive the shock from the battery and coil
together by joining hands.
THE ELECTROTYPE.
The electro-galvanic current has in no case been more interestingly
employed than in the process of electrotyping. It consists of a mode
of obtaining the copy of coins, medals, engraved plates, and other
objects, which may be easily illustrated.
HOW TO MAKE AN ELECTROTYPE APPARATUS.

Take an earthen jar and a porous tube; fill the tube with ten parts of
water and one of sulphuric acid; put it into the jar, into which pour as
much of a solution of sulphate of copper (blue vitriol) as will fill three
parts of it; place in the tube a piece of zinc, to which a copper wire is
soldered and bent round, so that one end be immersed in the
sulphate of copper; and a deposit of the copper will be immediately
formed upon the wire. If there be plenty of acid and water, so as to
allow of the action enduring for a long time, this process will go on till
it has deposited all the copper. This is the principle upon which
electrotyping proceeds—a principle referable to electro-chemical
decomposition.
TO OBTAIN THE COPY OF A COIN OR MEDAL.

Never place the original medal in the apparatus, or the deposited
copper may adhere so tightly to it that the removal destroys the
beauty of the medal. Having taken an impression in sealing-wax,
cover the latter with black-lead, and attach a wire so that it is in
contact with the black-lead. To the wire and cast thus arranged a
piece of sheet or cast zinc, amalgamated with mercury, must be
attached, and we are at once furnished with the materials for the
battery, as the object to be copied supplies the place of the copper.
The medal must always be placed horizontally. Now let the
apparatus be charged with the solution, by pouring into the outer
vessel a portion of the coppery solution, so that it will stand about an
inch above the medal; then pour in the glass the dilute acid to the
same height as the former; now introduce the zinc into the acid, and
the object to be copied into the solution of copper, which will
immediately be deposited on the medal, and when of a sufficient
thickness may be taken off.

Building Synergy For High Impact Educational Initiatives First Year Seminars and Learning Communities 1st Edition Lauren Chism Schmidt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Synergy For High Impact Educational Initiatives First Year Seminars and Learning Communities 1st Edition Lauren Chism Schmidt

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Synergy For High Impact Educational Initiatives First Year Seminars and Learning Communities 1st Edition Lauren Chism Schmidt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download test bank at ebookmeta.

Building Synergy for High Impact Educational

Download More ebooks from https://ebookmeta.com

Creating Impact Through Future Learning: The High

Marketing Initiatives for Sustainable Educational

Learning to Live with Datafication: Educational Case

Professional Learning Communities at Work and High

Brain Plasticity and Learning Implications for

High Impact Teaching for Sport and Exercise Psychology

Building to Impact: The 5D Implementation Playbook for

Emancipatory and Participatory Research for Emerging

Production Staff for the National Resource Center:

Names: Schmidt, Lauren Chism, editor. | Graziano, Janine, editor. |

National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and

Washington Center for Improving Undergraduate Education

• helping campus teams develop sustainable, high-quality learning com-

Tables and Figures ..............................................................................ix

Part I: Rationale for and Implementation of Combined Programs

About the Contributors.................................................................. 205

First-year seminars and learning communities have followed a similar

provided these opportunities to first-year students. Of those offering first-year

Goodsell Love, A. (1999). What are learning communities? In J. H. Levine

Over the years, a number of interventions aimed at increasing student

What Are First-Year Seminars and Learning Communities?

Likewise, first-year seminars are defined in a number of ways. Greenfield,

A seminar, by definition, is a small discussion-based course in which

1. Extended orientation seminar (sometimes called freshman

Regardless of type, however, FYSs done well foster academic engagement;

Why FYS/LC Combined Programs?

On our own campuses, we have seen the positive effects of combined

Implementing FYS/LC Programs

rural cornfields of DeKalb, Illinois, to a social justice program thriving in an

Part I: Rationale and Implementation of Combined Programs

to offer incentives. Of course, getting programs up and running is one task,

Part II: Contexts for Implementation: Models From

survey responses. Collectively, the cases provide a comprehensive picture of

Of the many efforts to improve undergraduate education introduced during

A Brief History of High-Impact Practices

Level of Active and Student- Supportive

Deep learning General gains Personal Practical

First-Year Seminars and Learning Communities

Decades ago, many institutions considered the entire campus to be a learning

instructional team, as in the IUPUI example. Some residential campuses, such

Is Two Better Than One? The Synergistic Payoff of Linking HIPs

frequent participation in deep learning activities when engaging in multiple

The Case for Integrating First-Year Seminars and

The Case for Quality

Title: How to become an inventor

Author: Aaron A. Warford

Release date: February 7, 2024 [eBook #72892]

Original publication: New York: Frank Tousey, 1898

Credits: Demian Katz, Craig Kirkwood, and the Online

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HOW TO

Experiments in Photography, Hydraulics,

Wonders of the Microscope.

Instruction in the Use of Tools

THE SHOP AND BENCH.

THE SPOKE SHAVE.

STOCK AND BITS.