Transcending Boundaries:
Building Community Through Residential Adult learning Randee Lipson Lawrence National-Louis University
2000 This paper discusses the potential for residential adult learning experiences in the formation of cohort learning groups in both distance (computer conferencing) and face-to-face groups in graduate adult education programs.

2:00 A. M. Nancy can't sleep. She twists and turns but the chatter in her head continues. So many thoughts, so many ideas, so many theoretical perspectives to assimilate. Since sleep is unlikely she decides to head over to the computer lab to put her thoughts down on paper. After all, her assignment is due in two days and she might as well put the time to good use. She gets out of bed, pulls on her jeans and tip toes out, being careful not to wake her roommate.

Outside of the computer lab she runs into Annette who is making a trip to the vending machine for her third candy bar of the night. The two women enter the lab together and are greeted by Rick who is revising the latest draft of his paper. The three enter into a conversation about critical reflection which continues until the sun rises.

While it sounds as if Nancy, Annette and Rick are 18 year olds on a college campus, they are actually members of a cohort of middle aged graduate students at a residential workshop at the beginning of their program of study. Cohort learning is a concept that is being embraced by an increasing number of institutions. A cohort is defined in higher education as a group of students who take all of their course work together and thus become interdependent through varied collaborative learning experiences. (Lawrence, 1996). For a cohort to be successful, it is essential that the students get to know one other and develop healthy working relationships. This paper will describe one university’s attempt to create these learning communities via students’ participation in residential experiences at the start of their degree programs. Two specific experiences will be referred to: a two week residential workshop preceding a three year doctoral cohort program, and a three day residence preceding a masters program delivered entirely online.

Residential adult learning is not a new concept. It has its roots in the Danish folk schools of the early 1800’s, referred to by founder N.S.F. Gruntvig as "schools for life". Folkelighed, or folk education, means rooted in the culture and spirit of a people, or learning from the heart. (Spicer, 1991) The Danish folk schools were residential with a blurring of work and leisure, teacher and student, and theory and practice. In North America the Highlander Research and Education Center established by Myles Horton as the Highlander Folk School, continues to bring people together to problem solve and create social change. The participants eat, sleep, work and play together, thus creating an interdependent learning community. The purposes of these programs and other contemporary folk schools such as The Clearing in Door County Wisconsin and the Folk School in the Mountains sponsored by the University of Wyoming differ from ours in one significant way. In all of these programs, the residential component comprises the learning experience in its entirety. In our case, the residence is designed to build the community and set the stage for ongoing collaborative work.

Doctoral Residence

The two week residence (Summer Institute) which precedes the doctoral program is designed for the students to begin to build strong working relationships that will sustain them over a three year period of intensive study. Since students meet for only one weekend a month and are spread out around the country it is important to build in ways to keep them connected. Secluded at a retreat facility with limited access to telephones, television or daily newspapers, students have the luxury of immersing themselves into their studies. One participant described her experiences in this way:

We ate together, slept together, studied and played together. We worked in groups and individually, gave each other advice and support; we shared stories, life histories, and our philosophies about everything and nothing. We gathered in our rooms, the classrooms, around a campfire, computer lab, dining hall, local tavern and on the pier overlooking the lake. We wrote papers, read books, sang songs, listened, climbed ropes and ladders, danced, read each others paper and discussed. We questioned, we learned, we shared, we trusted, we laughed and cried together. We bonded.

Online Residence

In the fall of 1998 we began offering our Masters program online. Our students come from around the country and we hope to soon expand to an international population. We wanted to incorporate the best practices of our face to face program which is a cohort based program. We realized that online learning is increasingly becoming the preferred option for many adults yet the retention rate is significantly lower than face to face programs. One of the reasons cited has been the isolation and lack of motivation many students feel when they are working alone with only their computer for company. When students come together and actually live with cohort members for a number of days, the effects are long lasting. They have a face, a body and a memory of shared experiences to attach to the name on their computer screen.

Characteristics of the Residential Experience

This section discusses four characteristics of residential adult learning including: immersion, group support/relationship development, intentionality of course content and opportunities for informal learning.

Immersion A major benefit of the residential experience is that it allows students the luxury of temporarily putting other aspects of their life on hold, referred to by Fleming (1998) as detachment. This is a rare opportunity for busy adults who hold responsible jobs and often have family commitments as well. Meals are prepared by the kitchen staff, there are no televisions or easily accessible telephones. The only decisions that need to be made are related to the immediacy of the task at hand. Opportunities for group conversation or quiet individual reflection are plentiful. Although some do check in periodically with the office and call home often, their time at the residence is totally devoted to their studies and getting to know fellow cohort members. Had students commuted home each night they would have likely gotten involved with family concerns or other life issues and would not have been able to participate as fully in the learning experience.

Group support/relationship development A further benefit of being in residence is the opportunity to develop supportive relationships with group members who will be fellow travelers on the learning journey. While caring and supportive relationships are often a phenomenon of cohorts groups when students meet together once a week for a year or more (Lawrence, 1996), the constancy of the interaction in the residential setting accelerates the process. Students formed bonds and readily shared resources. They realized that there were different areas of strengths within the group and did not hesitate to ask for help when needed. As one participant related:

I remember those late night sessions in the lab. I am not very computer literate and there was always someone to help. The beauty of it is after a while I didn't feel bashful about asking [for help] because I knew nobody was going to say. "Will you just go away because I am busy". We always took time for each other, and I think we developed that sense of caring really quickly. We knew who needed what for each other, and we were willing to give that. I don't think you are ever going to find that if you just go to and from school. If you don't live with them and really understand that you can depend on them and they do have certain strengths they bring to the table, as we all do, then it will only take place in that kind of community.

In her work on developing circle communities, Baldwin (1994) discussed the concept of holding up the rim. The cohort forms a circle, at times physically but always metaphorically. Individual struggles become group struggles. If one member falls down or cannot hold on for a time, the group members hold up the rim together. This level of support continues far beyond the residence as people form study groups to explore difficult concepts, share notes, drafts of papers and have frequent discussions over telephone and email.

Groups who spend time together at an intense accelerated level often develop their own culture through the sharing of stories and experiences. Certain code words like "green jello" (served daily in the cafeteria) or "the H word" (learning to understand and pronounce hegemony) immediately trigger smiles and memories of shared experience. Graduate students often find themselves thinking about new ideas and developing insights on a variety of topics. When they try to share their thoughts with colleagues and family members they are often met with polite indifference. They gradually begin to realize that the community they have developed through the residential component and sustained over time is the one unique place where they can meet kindred spirits to have the kind of meaningful conversations they crave.

Bonds formed at the interpersonal as well as the academic level. One participant was going through major personal transitions including a move to a new state and leaving a job.

There was a lot going on in my life so for me it [the residence] created a space that equalized my trauma and chaos of what was going on in my life. . . It enabled me to put all that very much aside because there was always someone else to talk to. So for me on a personal level as well as in terms of what we call the professional, the academic, I think it really blasted us into another universe.

Another woman learned just three weeks prior the residence that she had cancer. She came to the two week session still recovering from surgery and anticipating chemotherapy sessions to follow. The tremendous support and care she received during the residential session has persisted more than a year into the program and has enabled her to continue with a rigorous program of doctoral study while simultaneously battling cancer.

This feeling of interpersonal closeness is certainly not universal for all students and all groups. Some are more private and seek out more personal space. It appeared that those students who lived with roommates or in communal housing had a different experience of bonding than those who lived alone. While many adult are initially reluctant to share a room with a virtual stranger, those who did, often found that they achieved a special level of closeness. Late night spontaneous conversations, hunting for allergy medication in the wee hours and coping with plumbing mishaps served to bring people together. Those who lived alone either by choice or circumstance did not experience this same level of bonding.

Intentionality of Course Content After talking with many of the students who participated in one of the residential learning experiences, and reviewing their written reflections, I have come to the realization that it is not enough to simply bring people together in residence and expect that they would automatically bond as a group. The content and focus of the experience has a major impact on the outcome. The Highlander workshops had specific objectives of developing leadership skills among oppressed people with the larger goal of creating societal change. The residential workshops for the online and doctoral students are designed as orientation to the program and to build strong working groups. Both include credit bearing courses that work toward these ends.

The online workshop includes two courses, Adult Development and Learning and Adult Learning in Groups. The courses begin during the weekend workshop and continue online over the next eight weeks. The students engage in a number of activities to foster critical reflection and collaborative learning. Last year’s workshop highlighted a group problem solving activity and an outdoor activity designed to "deepen awareness" and acquaint people with multiple ways of seeing and working together, based on the work of Lawrence and Mealman (1996).

The students in the doctoral program took three courses which were designed purposefully to acquaint students with the underlying philosophies of the program, including critical reflection, collaborative learning and life history. Students shared papers to elicit peer feedback and engaged in a number of small group activities. Some were initially concerned about sharing their life histories with relative strangers. In most cases this concern was quickly abated as supportive bonds developed. One woman experienced writer's block in her initial draft of her life history paper. There were places she couldn't or didn't want to go. In a session with three supportive cohorts, the walls came down as she shared her story. It was a profound and emotional moment.

Another highlight of the Summer Institute was participation in a day long course led by OWLS (Outdoor Wisconsin Leadership School). The course included a number of physical and psychological challenges designed to promote team building and trust. The group felt this activity was successful in helping to foster interdependence and work through some of the conflicts they were experiencing as they attempted to create their own governance system.

An important component of the success of the residential experience is the involvement of the students in the learning process and structure. According to Foucault-Mohammed "The first principle of the folk high school is the elimination of the artificial barriers between teachers and students." (1989 p. 32) Students have complete control over the learning agenda. Teachers are seen as resources for learning rather that as "officials to determine what constituted the educated person." (Spicer, 1991 p. 12) In this way, any power differential is minimized which allows for a more democratic structure.

Gruntvig emphasized the importance of dialogue between teacher and student, student and student, and teacher and teacher, which he referred to as "living exchange". He encouraged learning activities which were born out of the students' own life experiences. (Folk Education Association of America) The curriculum for the residence was proposed by the faculty and negotiated with the students. In many case, adjustments were made on the spot such as when the doctoral students expressed the need for a writing day with no structured curriculum or when the online students asked for time to discuss their concerns with the technology.

Informal Learning Although the content of the residential workshops is critical, the value of the informal learning that is possible when people are living together for twenty four hours a day is significant. Harrison Owen ( 1997) teaches about "open space technology" which is based on a concept that the spontaneous corridor conversations that occur in between sessions at a conference often lead to learning opportunities that are as rich as what happens in the formal sessions. Similarly, Mealman (1993) found that much incidental learning occurred for students in a degree program that was not attributed to the course content itself. This dynamic is magnified during a residential workshop where the usual time boundaries of "being in class" do not exist. Learning took place during evening social activities in coffee house and pubs, under trees, by the water, on porch steps, during shared meals, at the computer lab, and in people's rooms late into the night. As one participant related:

I found that hallway conversations about what we had all been talking about enriched me in terms of my own thinking so that by the time those two weeks were over and I handed in both my life history as well as the critical reflection paper, they were a lot richer than they would have been had I not been through this experience, had I just come on a day to day basis and gone home. A lot of insights that I got into my own thinking I got through conversations with others and not necessarily within the context of structured learning but outside of that.

 

Linking Research to Practice - and Back Again

The residential learning experience has high potential for fostering collaborative learning in a supportive community by allowing the participants the opportunity to fully immerse themselves into an environment that transcends the boundaries of time and space found in a typical college classroom. Supportive relationships are developed that sustain participants in times when physical proximity is not possible. Intentional learning experiences can be structured by faculty to allow for group cohesion, while opportunities for informal and incidental learning abound.

One unique feature of a residential experience is that when people live together they get to know one another beyond the intellectual and social realms usually experienced during two hour or four hour or even all day class sessions. During these times it is easy to hide behind a facade, sharing only aspects of oneself that one wants the group to know about. It is almost impossible to keep up this facade over an extended time period. Learning becomes more holistic, often taking on emotional and spiritual dimensions as people share honestly from the heart region. At times the shadow side becomes visible and often conflict occurs. The conflict is healthy in that it contributes to the growth of the group as well as the individuals. Because the student population tends to be diverse, participants often have the opportunity to live with others across the borders of race, religion and ethnicity, perhaps for the first time.

The benefits of residential learning have implications for adult education far beyond higher education. We live in a communal society. Much of what can be accomplished for the good of the people and the good of the planet requires a cooperative spirit. Residential learning is an intense and effective way of fostering community and trust among groups of individuals who have important work to accomplish together whether it is in the university, the corporation, on a farm or individuals working together on a community project. In the Danish folk schools, the residential setting was a way of building community and fostering trust between the students and staff, and especially among the students themselves. For Gruntvig, participation and interaction on the part of the students was essential. The engagement of the students with the staff and into inquiry into the "questions of life" were primary to what ever else was learned. (Patterson & Wilson 1974) "Gruntvig believed that a dialogue between equals had a 'mystical effect' in its power to educate the spirit. The freedom to converse and learn from others in a supportive communal atmosphere became for Gruntvig, the cornerstone of his educational theory." (Foucault-Mohammed, 1989 p. 31)

Through the residential learning programs described in this paper, Gruntvig's theory was put to the test. Participants gained knowledge and understanding that went far beyond what they would have experienced in a traditional class. This topic has wide ranging implications for research. Participation in these residential workshops has actually been a form of action research where the nature, process and outcomes of the experience continue to be studied by both faculty and students. Some potential directions for research that would inform practitioners about residential learning include: studying factors contributing to retention in online learning programs, perceptions of group cohesiveness following residential learning experiences in both online and face to face groups, and uncovering the potential for learning outside of formal class sessions. The power and potential of residential learning for building a spirit of community to accomplish goals among groups and create change in society at large, needs to continue to be explored.

References

Baldwin, C. (1994). Calling the circle. Newburg, OR: Swan Raven & Co.

Fleming, J.A. (1998). Understanding residential learning: The power of detachment and continuity. Adult Education Quarterly, 48 (4), 260-271.

Foucault-Mohammed, C. (1989). The Danish Folk High School: Key to the success of democracy. Labour Education, (75), 28-33.

Lawrence R. L. (1996). Co-learning communities: A hermeneutic account of adult learning in higher education through the lived world of cohorts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University.

Lawrence, R. L., & Mealman, C. A. (1996). Seizing learning opportunities: Embracing a collaborative process. In Sixteenth Annual Alliance/ACE Conference, (pp. 29-51). St. Pete Beach, Florida:

Mealman, C. A. (1993) Incidental learning by adults in a nontraditional degree program: A case study. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Columbus, Ohio.

Owen, H. (1997). Open space technology: A users guide. San Franciso: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Patterson, R. S. & Wilson, L. (1974). The influence of the Danish folk high school in Canada. Paedegogica Historica, 14 (1), 64-79.

Spicer, C. (1991). Folk education: Resurrecting roots of adult and experiential learning theory. The Journal of Experiential Education, 14 (3), 13-16.

 

Randee Lipson Lawrence, National-Louis University, 200 S. Naperville Rd., Wheaton, IL 60187 (630) 668-3838 X4388 rlaw@whe2.nl.edu