Defining Learning Communities in the Veterinary Medicine Curriculum

Abstract

Learning communities (LCs) are a type of high-impact, collaborative educational practice where students cooperate with other students in two or more classes to improve learning. Additional criteria used for defining LCs vary across the literature and have focused on high school and undergraduate programs. Similar benefits may also be experienced in professional programs; however, before further studies can investigate and describe these benefits, the structure for LCs in the veterinary curriculum must first be defined. To accomplish this, a survey instrument was developed and distributed to veterinary students attending Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine during the 2019 to 2020 academic year. The survey focused on a number of criteria and included both qualitative and quantitative questions. Criteria included demographics, prior experiences, and structure of an ideal LC. Recurring themes in the qualitative responses were identified, reviewed, and categorized based on an established coding theme. Significant correlations included an association between respondents’ opinions on the ideal number of people in a LC and prior participation in LCs; age and preference for LC focus; ideal number of LC members and LC focus; and gender identity and thoughts on LC diversity. Based on the survey results, the typical veterinary student would consider an ideal LC to (1) be selected by the students of the LC, (2) have faculty mentors, (3) have a focus on coursework with some social aspects, (4) have fewer than seven members, (5) be composed of friends, (6) meet both during and after class, and (7) be diverse.

Introduction

Overview of Learning Communities and Collaborative Learning

A learning community (LC) can be defined as an intentional, collaborative, high-impact educational practice designed to maximize students’ learning by integrating learning across two or more courses [1, 2]. More specific definitions of LCs have varied in the literature and as a result, the term has become somewhat ambiguous and can refer to online courses, on-campus living arrangements, faculty research teams, or collegiate institutions and universities as a whole [3]. The Association of American Colleges and Universities have identified LCs as a “high-impact practice,” which are practices that promote integrative and engaged learning opportunities and encourage student retention [4]. In a LC, this is accomplished by learners of various performance levels cooperating to achieve a common goal such as solving a problem, completing a task, or creating a product [5].

Reported Benefits of Learning Communities

Collaborative learning practices, including LCs, have several reported social, psychological, academic, and assessment-related benefits for both students and teachers. For students, these benefits include provision of a social support system and greater understanding of diversity, improved self-esteem, reduced anxiety, positive attitudes toward education, improved critical thinking skills, enhanced classroom outcomes and student motivation, and a sense of belonging [5, 6]. For faculty, oversight of a student LC can foster mentorship, collaboration, and a sense of community [7]. At the institutional level, both faculty and institutional administration describe novel partnerships and programs, and invigorated departments as an outcome of LC development and execution [3].

The benefits of collaborative learning practices have also been described in medical education. Interviewed nursing students described improvement to their empirical and theoretical knowledge and clinical skills associated with participation in collaborative learning activities [8].

Learning Communities in Medical Education

In 1971, the first medical school/college LC was established at the University of Missouri at Kansas City [2, 9]. In 2019, Shochet et al. described the characteristics of 27 medical college LCs [9]. In the aforementioned survey, it was found that most of the medical college LC programs assigned students to a longitudinal LC that met frequently, often weekly or bi-weekly [9]. The main objectives for most of the LCs were to support students’ professional development and identity and offer mentoring, and advising [9]. Students in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Colleges Advisory Program, a relationship-centered advising model using LC principles, indicated high student satisfaction in the relational connectedness domain [10].

While publications describing the structure and success of LCs in non-doctoral medical programs are sparse, many schools/colleges have formal LCs in nursing, dental hygiene, kinesiology, food science or nutrition, and other health sciences including Purdue University, University of South Florida, Carroll University, Marquette University, Quinnipiac University, Saint Louis University, Minnesota State University – Makato, and Iowa State University (Google search, July 11, 2023).

Aim

While LCs are common in medical education, the majority of the literature surrounding LCs originate from the undergraduate setting, though LCs have also been described in elementary and secondary education [11]. While several of the currently existing examples of undergraduate or medical college LC design structures could apply to a veterinary medical curriculum, others may not be transferrable. To date, there is a paucity of information on both the prevalence of formal LCs in veterinary programs and their structure. The objective of this study is to describe the organizational criteria for LCs within veterinary medicine, as defined by veterinary students at Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine (ISU-CVM). By defining the “ideal” LC, the authors intend to provide a foundation for LC design in the veterinary medicine curriculum to support further investigation and description of the LC structure and student experience.

Materials and Methods

Design

A survey instrument was developed by the authors to focus on a foundational exploration of LC experiences, opinions, and preferences within the current veterinary student population. The survey questions were synthesized and agreed upon by the authors after review of commonly reported LC structures in the current literature. While construction of a survey to LC directors or veterinary college administrators, similar to Shochet et al. [9], would yield useful data, this design was not pursued due to the aforementioned lack of information regarding LCs in veterinary colleges. Additionally, “Students as Partners” (SaP) is an emerging pedagogical model that centers on the collaboration of students and faculty to contribute to curricular and pedagogical design, decisions, implementation, investigation, and analysis [12]. Given the limitations of an administrator survey and the reported beneficial outcomes of SaP on student learning [12], the authors elected to gather student feedback.

As this study was exploratory in nature, both qualitative and quantitative questions were developed for a concurrent mixed-methods design. In order to establish face validity, the primary investigator (CLA) developed the questions and the co-investigator (CAV) who has expertise in survey instrument design and development as well as LC structure reviewed the questions and instrument. Edits to the questions included wording for clarity, question organization, and question scale options. Quantitative questions consisted of multiple-choice items inquiring about past experiences and opinions surrounding LCs. In order to reduce the survey burden on participants, for this exploratory study, single-item scales were utilized. Ideally, a test–retest method would be utilized to establish reliability of a single-item scale; however, the COVID-19 pandemic created confounding factors that made a retest not possible. In addition to the multiple-choice questions, students were provided the opportunity to describe their experience within a LC (if applicable) and describe other educational and social dynamics considered important for defining a LC in the veterinary medicine curriculum. The goal of using a concurrent mixed-methods design was to confirm, cross-validate, and corroborate the findings within a single survey. After completion, the instrument and other study materials were submitted to the Iowa State University Institutional Review Board (ISU IRB) and the study was deemed exempt from IRB oversight (IRB 20–108).

Data Collection

The survey was constructed in the online survey platform Qualtrics (QualtricsXM) and was distributed via email to first, second, third, and fourth year veterinary students attending ISU-CVM during the 2019 to 2020 school year. The survey was open for responses for 29 days and a reminder email was distributed to the students 10 days prior to the survey closing. All responses were submitted between August 24 and September 15, 2020.

Data Analysis

After data collection concluded, the researchers cleaned the data removing any incomplete responses, which were defined as those having less than 70% completion. Quantitative data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Build 1.0.0.1508 and Microsoft Excel. In order to determine relationships between student opinions and experiences surrounding LCs, Pearson correlations were performed to investigate responses depending on gender identity, age, and previous experience with LCs.

Theme Development and Coding

Qualitative responses were reviewed independently by both researchers. Themes were developed independently by identifying recurring items, then discussed and agreed upon. Following the theme development, the survey responses were reviewed and categorized based on the established coding theme by one investigator (CLA). The coding data was reviewed by the investigator (CAV) and the coding category choices were confirmed via mutual agreement.

Mixing

Where appropriate, the qualitative data was quantitized and used in analysis. One example of this would be to count the number of statements regarding a particular theme, and then this count would be utilized in the quantitative analysis. In other aspects, the qualitative data were used to triangulate the quantitative responses.

Results

Participant Demographics

In total, 231 students out of 625 veterinary students responded and agreed to participate. Of that, 165 (26.4%) respondents completed 100% of the survey and generated usable data. The remaining responses were excluded given the low completion rate of < 26%. Those within this group mainly responded to the first item which was regarding consent or then subsequently answered only one or two of the first survey questions: (1) Have you heard of learning communities? (2) Have you ever participated in a learning community? The demographics of the respondent veterinary students are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Reported demographics from the 165 veterinary student respondents

Demographic criteria		Number and percentage of student responses
Age	< 21 years	1 (0.61%)
	21 – 25 years	116 (70.30%)
	26 – 30 years	38 (23.03%)
	31 – 35 years	7 (4.24%)
	> 35 years	3 (1.82%)
Class Year	1st year	43 (26.06%)
	2nd year	38 (23.03%)
	3rd year	61 (36.97%)
	4th year	23 (13.94%)
Gender	Female	150 (90.91%)
	Male	13 (7.88%)
	Wish to self-describe	2 (1.20%)

Responses

Table 2 lists the survey’s multiple-choice questions along with the number and percentage of responses selecting each option. Table 3 describes a qualitative, open-ended question along with the number of students whose response demonstrated specific, recurring themes.

Table 2.

Number and percentage of veterinary student responses to multiple-choice questions regarding LCs

Multiple-choice question	Multiple-choice answer options	Number and percentage of student responses
1. Have you heard of learning communities?	No	54 (32.73%)
	Maybe	16 (9.70%)
	Yes	95 (57.57%)
4. Have you ever participated in a learning community?	No	99 (60.00%)
	Maybe	25 (15.15%)
	Yes	41 (24.85%)
5. In your opinion, members of a learning community should be…	Assigned	47 (28.48%)
	Selected by students of the learning community	118 (71.52%)
7. In your opinion, should faculty members be involved with a learning community?	No—learning communities should be student driven	13 (7.88%)
	Yes—faculty members should be mentors for learning communities	109 (66.06%)
	Yes—faculty members should only be involved when social dynamic issues arise	4 (2.42%)
	Yes—faculty members should only be involved when content-based questions arise	39 (23.64%)
11. In your opinion, learning communities should…	Be curriculum related only	30 (18.18%)
	Have social aspects, but focused mostly on course-work	128 (77.58%)
	Be focused on social outings, but involve some coursework	7 (4.24%)
14. To you, the ideal number of people in a learning community should be…	3–5	62 (37.58%)
	5–7	63 (38.18%)
	7–9	29 (17.58%)
	9 +	11 (6.66%)
18. In your opinion, learning communities should…	Have cool group names	78 (47.27%)
	Be nameless	87 (52.73%)
20. Ideally, members of a learning community should be…	Friends	121 (73.33%)
	Just peers	44 (26.67%)
22. Preferably, learning communities should meet…	During class and after	109 (66.06%)
	Only during class	15 (9.09%)
	Only after class	41 (24.85%)
25. In your opinion, a learning community…	Requires face-to-face contact	88 (53.33%)
	Can be virtual/remote (i.e., email, texting, instant/direct messaging, etc.)	77 (46.67%)
27. In your opinion, a learning community should…	Share similar demographics (i.e., age, sex, etc.)	25 (15.15%)
	Be diverse	140 (84.85%)

Table 3.

Number of veterinary student responses to open answer questions regarding LCs

Open-answer question	Theme	Number of student responses
You indicated that you have been in a LC before. Please describe this experience	Undergraduate	22
	Graduate school	1
	COVID Professional LC	6
What other educational and social dynamics do you believe define a LC in the veterinary medicine curriculum?	Similar career interests or goals	28
	Should be optional	3
	Environment is a concern	41
	Diverse groups	12
	Study habits should be similar	6
	Similar communication style	2

Correlations

Results of the Pearson correlations focused on past participation and LC preference variables indicated that there was a significant positive association between respondent’s opinions of an ideal number of people in a LC and their past participation in LCs (r(165) = 0.198, p = 0.011). No significant correlations were found between past participation in a learning community and preference for assigned vs selected structure, faculty involvement, curriculum vs social focus, interpersonal relationships between LC members (friends vs just peers), or diverse vs homogenous demographic makeup of the LC.

The majority (71.5%) of the survey participants agreed that LCs should be selected by the members of the LC rather than assigned. Additionally, the majority (73.3%) of the participants consider that LC members should be friends rather than just peers. There is a moderate correlation (r(165) =  − 0.500, p ≤ 0.000) between thoughts on LC assignment and their relationship composition so that approximately 62% of the respondents conclude that LCs should comprise selected friends.

Regarding demographic factors and Pearson correlation with LC preference variables, a significant positive relationship was also found between respondent age and the relationship structure within LCs (r(165) = 0.207, p = 0.008), indicating that younger participants preferred having a LC composed of friend groups vs peers. Additionally, a significant negative association between respondent’s age and their preference for LCs being focused on curricular vs social aspects was found (r(165) =  − 0.215, p = 0.005), indicating a preference for smaller community size.

Most (77.6%) survey respondents held the opinion that LCs should have social aspects, but be focused on coursework. There was a weak correlation (r(165) = 0.289, p ≤ 0.000) between the preference for LC focus (curricular vs social aspects) and the ideal number of members in the LC.

A significant positive correlation was found between respondents’ gender identity and their preference for diverse vs homogenous learning community structure (r(165) =  − 0.174, p = 0.025), indicating a preference for more diverse groups. No other statistically significant relationships were found between the demographic variables and the LC preference variables.

Lastly, there were weak correlations with team naming vs LC focus (curricular vs social) (r(165) =  − 0.158, p = 0.043) and the ideal number of people in a learning community (r(165) =  − 0.178, p = 0.022) indicating that as LC size increased, the interest in naming the team also increased.

Discussion

History of LCs

One of the first collaborative learning programs was described in 1932 by Alexander Meiklejohn in The Experimental College, which recorded the findings for an experimental, small, intensive, residence-based curricular program at the University of Wisconsin in the 1920s [13]. In the 1970s and 1990s, LCs focused on the freshman year and general education to improve student retention and consistency [14]. Over the past several decades, the utilization of LCs has steadily increased across college campuses [3]. Specific types of LCs that have been described include interdisciplinary or intradisciplinary curricular LCs, classroom LCs in single courses, residential LCs, demographic-based or interest-based LCs, and virtual LCs [3]. Additionally, there are several subtypes of LCs such as total-classroom LCs and within-classroom LCs, which are subtypes of classroom-based LCs [15].

Iowa State University has offered a variety of LC programs to undergraduate students for almost 30 years and reports considerable participation with more than 93% of first-year students participating in a LC (https://www.lc.iastate.edu accessed June 29, 2023). While a formal LC program is not currently offered at the ISU-CVM, it should be noted that this study’s survey was distributed during the COVID-19 pandemic and, as part of the ISU-CVM’s response to the social distancing guidelines, professional LC groups were created. These professional LC groups comprised three to five students, who were already study-mates, friends, or roommates. For some classes (example, soft tissue surgery), six to eight professional LC groups were combined to form a larger group of 30 to 35 students. Furthermore, it could be contended that each veterinary class could be considered their own informal LC since each class comprised a group of peers matriculating through a shared curriculum.

LC Prior Knowledge and Experience

While many of the participating veterinary students had heard of LCs, fewer had experience participating in formal LCs unrelated to the COVID-19 professional LCs. Students with prior experience in LCs may have their opinions shaped by their prior experiences, which could impact their responses to the survey. There is potential for further explore and implement a LC model in the veterinary and possibly pre-veterinary educational space.

LC Member Selection and Relationship

The majority of survey participants acknowledged a preference for a LC comprised of friends vs only peers. Given that the majority of the respondents who identified a preference for friendly relationships within their LC also indicated an inclination for being able to select their LC members, it is presumed that many individuals would like to be able to learn in communities of established friend groups in lieu of being assigned a LC and building new friendships with the LC members. Students may find this preferable because familiar friends can foster feelings of safety, which is crucial for student development and learning and cohesiveness of collaborative learning [16].

It should be noted in this study that younger respondents were substantially more likely to prefer a LC composed of friends than older students. However, it is unclear if this is related to generational or maturity differences or if the finding was bias given the underrepresentation of survey participants > 30 years of age.

Diversity

The majority of students participating in the survey believed that the LCs should comprise diverse members. However, the survey participants were not provided a definition of diversity nor was diversity asked to be specifically defined by the participants. However, a few survey participants commented specifically that diverse backgrounds are advantageous for a LC. Other participants noted that individuals in a LC should have similar career interests, but their demographics and past experiences may be diverse. However, largely, the meaning of diversity was open to interpretation by each participant. In the literature, the definition of diversity has varied widely from synonymous use with race and ethnicity to encompassing broader aspects such as nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social class, age, and disability [17].

Student diversity has shown several benefits to learning in higher education including improved educational and social outcomes [17]. Though in practice, the success of diverse students in a LC may largely depend on how their “difference” is viewed by others and how they are treated in response in the campus climate [17]. However, in the veterinary profession, the campus climate itself may face challenges due to historically low diversity. Underrepresented racial groups in veterinary medicine include Black, Latinx, Asian, Native American, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders [18]. Other underrepresented groups according to the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC) include people identifying as male and first-generation college students [18, 19]. While the percentage of gender, sexual, and romantic minorities is largely unknown in veterinary medicine, they are suspected to be well-represented, but do not always experience a welcoming environment [20]. In summary, the overall lack of diversity in veterinary medicine may be a barrier to the formation of these desired, diverse LCs.

Faculty Involvement

Based on the responses to a national survey in 2015, many medical school LCs incorporate faculty involvement and mentorship with the student and faculty relationship that extend beyond a single course, activity, and often beyond a single academic year [9]. Therefore, in this survey, it is unsurprising that the majority of respondents believed that faculty members should be active mentors for LC members or at least available when content-based questions arose. This affirmative attitude towards faculty participation is advantageous since the literature supports that a positive rapport between students and teachers improves student attendance and attentiveness along with overall enjoyment of the subject matter [21]. Furthermore, the literature supports that faculty are also positively affected by involvement with LCs and report high levels of job satisfaction along with engagement and productivity in their roles [9]. Additionally, LC faculty may notice improvements in their own skills and receive better teaching evaluations [22].

Social Aspects

The preponderance of students held the opinion that LCs should have social aspects, but be focused mainly on coursework. Fewer students desired LCs to be focused only on curriculum or social aspects. The weak correlation between preferred LC size and curricular focus is attributed to students with a preference for smaller LCs also preferring a focus on the curriculum. This is not unexpected since it has been noted that students find small-group discussions to kindle interest and engagement with academic material [23]. Furthermore, there was additionally a correlation between age and preferences regarding curricular and social focus with older students preferring an emphasis on the curriculum rather than social outings. It is unclear if this is related to maturity, past experiences, or a data bias due to the low number of survey respondents > 30 years of age.

Community Naming

The respondent population was fairly split between desiring “cool group names” vs being nameless. Some correlations were noted between community size, the focus of the LCs (curriculum vs social), and gender identity. As the interest in social aspects of LCs increased, so did the interest in having a LC name. Additionally, as the LC size grew, the interest in naming the LC did as well. Since team naming is sometimes utilized as a team building exercise, it is possible that larger groups desire this activity as a means of obtaining cohesion and identity. In many LCs, a “sense of community” is a primary purpose and is used to create a supportive learning environment, build relationships between students and faculty, and develop relationships between students [9]. The cause for the correlation between gender identity and opinions on naming the LC is unclear.

Meeting Frequency

The majority of the survey respondents indicated that they believed LC members should meet both during and after class, which suggests a desire for continued contact with team members rather than intermittent collaboration. This is not unexpected since prior studies have suggested that teams collaborating on long-term tasks may be more satisfied and productive compared to transient groups focused on short-term goals [24]. It is also a logical mindset that over time teams will naturally improve their collaborative efforts and problem-solving skills.

Communication Methods

There was a fairly even distribution between students desiring face-to-face contact with their team members and beliefs that remote communication is an acceptable form of interaction. This could be due to the current generation’s familiarity with technology; however, it warrants acknowledgement that the survey was distributed during the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Therefore, the students had recent or ongoing experiences with virtual and remote teaching formats that could have shaped their responses.

Conclusions

The “Ideal” Learning Community as Described by Veterinary Students

In review, the aim of the study was to help describe the organization and criteria for LCs within veterinary medicine, as defined by current veterinary students at ISU-CVM. Based on the survey results, the “ideal” LC according to veterinary students would be selected by students of the LC, have faculty mentors, have social aspects but a focus on coursework, be comprised of fewer than 7 members, be composed of friends, meet both during and after class, and be composed of diverse students.

Limitations of Study

This survey was distributed only to veterinary students at ISU-CVM and it is possible that there may be variation in the views regarding LCs across institutions. Furthermore, the criteria for an “ideal” LC may be described differently by veterinary medical educators, veterinary college administrators, or LC faculty mentors.

Additionally, the survey was distributed during the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic after many institutions, including ISU-CVM, had shifted into virtual or blended instruction. This may have had an impact on the survey responses, particularly for the questions, “In your opinion, a learning community a) requires face-to-face contact or b) can be virtual/remote (i.e., email, texting, instant/direct messaging, etc.),” “Have you heard of learning communities?” and “Have you ever participated in a learning community?” The level of impact of COVID-19 and the implemented social-distancing LCs on the survey results are uncertain. Given this, there is potential for further exploration and implementation of a LC model in the veterinary and potentially pre-veterinary educational space.

Very few students participating in the study identified as male or > 30 years of age, though this is not surprising given the current estimated provided by the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges which cite approximately 80% of enrolled students identify as female [25]. It is possible that these skewed demographics could impact the results of this study, though to an unknown extent. The possible impacts could be attributed to overall underrepresentation or even differences between genders or age groups in defining criteria. For example, men and women may define “friends” differently or older students may define “diversity” differently.

Next Steps

This study aimed to define the organizational criteria for LCs with the intention that the information could be used to provide a foundation for LC design in the veterinary medicine curriculum and support further investigation of the student experience. In particular, investigation of learning outcomes for veterinary students within a LC compared to students not participating in a LC would provide pivotal information regarding the benefits and disadvantages of LCs in a professional medical program. Furthermore, future studies should assess if the described “ideal” LC structure facilitates the best outcomes in practice or if unintended negative outcomes are fostered instead. For instance, in this study, the “ideal” LC is described as being composed of friends selected by the students; a potential concern of this design could be that some students may be excluded from a LC and/or feel unwelcomed.

The survey instrument designed for this study was exploratory in nature and the questions were constructed to investigate the opinions on LC structures currently described in the literature. As novel LC structures are designed and explored, the characterization of the “ideal” LC could shift. Additionally, if LCs are developed in the veterinary medicine curriculum, defining the description of the “ideal” LC according to veterinary college administrators, faculty, and mentors familiar with LCs could provide helpful insight.

Lastly, future studies should explore the characteristics of LCs in veterinary medicine and relate to the desired outcomes. The reported potential benefits of LCs could be particularly rewarding in the veterinary curriculum given the high rates of psychological stress (i.e., anxiety, depression, burnout) reported in both veterinary students [26] and practicing veterinarians [27]. It is possible that in addition to the academic benefits of LCs, the social benefits and social support offered by LCs and other collaborative learning methods may reduce psychological distress when facing stressful events such as veterinary school [28]. Further studies should investigate the effects of LCs in the veterinary medicine curriculum utilizing these variables including education outcomes, student retention within programs, overall student success, wellness, and identity development.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Courtney Vengrin currently serves as the Senior Director of Assessment with the International Council for Veterinary Assessment (ICVA) and is affiliate faculty at Iowa State University. On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.