In my previous blog post on Wikis, I mentioned some aspects of collaborative learning that lead me to think about cohorts and whether or not we are fully leveraging their advantages in distance education.  Given the issue of first-year student (FYS) retention and the critical nature of engagement as a key success factor, arranging FYS into groups based on career aspirations and degree paths is an important pedagogical tool for educators.  

The power of cohorts in learning is well-documented in both traditional and distance education.  For instance, graduate-level programs have come to rely heavily on the cohort structure for a number of reasons.  Students report a more robust and positive overall learning experience and benefit from being involved in a community of learners centered on the same content and in relation to their specific career interests.  Cohorts also provide training on skills directly applicable to the work place (Martin, Goldwasser, & Galentino, 2017). Wismath and Newberry (2019) designate the building of student cohorts as a key tool for team and community building and for creating a sense of social, academic and community belonging. It’s easy to see how cohorts work well in higher-level courses since those students have traveled far enough along their academic path to be accompanied by other students pursuing a common degree path. Why not harness the power of cohorts in core courses to help promote engagement among FYS? 

In regard to FYS, it could be argued that a sizeable number of them may not be convinced of their choice of degree or career path at such an early point along their academic paths.  There will also be some FYS who rethink the decision to pursue a degree altogether and subsequently withdraw from a course or degree track. These are, perhaps, factors that cannot be mitigated.  However, they don’t render the use of program-based cohorts ill-suited to FYS courses. Cohorts may hold great value to the FYS educator from the perspective of engagement and retention.  At such an early point of the academic path, it can be more difficult for students to tap into motivation derived from their career interests.  This is an area in which cohorts can help. For example, if you’re an Accounting major, you’re going to naturally be more engaged in classroom content, activities and discussions that are directly applicable to your profession than in those that aren’t so much such as areas like time management, research and critical thinking.  

As FYS educators, we tell our students to find connections between the concepts they study and their career interests, yet this is a taller order for them given the aforementioned aspects.  Some FYS struggle to make find and make those connections, valuable connections that can drive persistence and help develop the grit that is necessary to overcome the academic challenges.  Arranging students into cohorts based on their degree and career choices can provide a clearer lens through which they can view classroom concepts and generate higher engagement.  For those students who are undecided on a major or career interest, a cohort attuned to the underlying circumstances of that indecision could be assembled. Another example would be creating a cohort of FYS interested in entrepreneurship regardless of whether or not they yet have identified which industry they are interested in working. 

Creating program-based cohorts for the purpose of classroom discussion and nongraded group activities can be an effective component of the first-year experience by driving engagement through the power of commonality.  When students share the same career and degree interests, meaningful interactions through discussion are much more likely to be created and sustained and lasting bonds generated around such a strong core. I’ve observed many students, without prompt, initiate and carry on rich discussions rooted in their common career interests and experiences.  

Martin, Goldwasser, and Galentino (2017) point to their findings that cohorts effectively promote close bonds that were “positively correlated with self-reported student satisfaction and student engagement” (p. 10).  Are we utilizing cohorts to the fullest in FYS courses as a tool to drive engagement and help build persistence?  What is your experience?  Does your institution employ cohorts in building class rosters for FYS courses?  Do you arrange cohorts for discussion, learning activities or other collaborative, nongraded learning tasks?  Share your thoughts in the comments section below or by emailing me at the email link in the footer section.  I’d love to hear from you!

References

Martin, K., Goldwasser, M., & Galentino, R. (2017). Impact of Cohort Bonds on Student Satisfaction and Engagement. Current Issues in Education, 19(3), 1–12. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eue&AN=121060231&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Wismath, S., & Newberry, J. (2019). Mapping Assets: High-Impact Practices and the First- Year Experience. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 7(1), 34–54. https://doi-org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.1.4