FIG

FIGs & Learning Communities at : 

FIGs & Learning Communities at Texas Tech University February 4-6, 2007 An Overview

Current Issues in Higher Education: 

Diminished Public Confidence Increased Accountability Restricted or Static Funding vs. Rising Costs Increasingly Diverse Student Populations Increased Emphasis on Collaboration Focus on Students and Learning Expectation for greater coordination, coherence integration from college experience/education Current Issues in Higher Education

Slide3: 

“A disturbing and dangerous mismatch exists between what American society needs of higher education and what it is receiving. Nowhere is the mismatch more dangerous than in the quality of the undergraduate preparation provided on many campuses. The American imperative for the 21st century is that society must hold higher education to much higher expectations or risk national decline.” Wingspread Group, An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education (1993)

Slide4: 

“ Organizationally and operationally, we have lost sight of the forest. If undergraduate education is to be enhanced, faculty members, joined by academic and student affairs administrators must devise ways to deliver undergraduate education that are as comprehensive and integrated as the way students actually learn.” Pascarella & Terenzini Living with Myths (1994)

Slide5: 

“The key to enhancing learning and personal development is not simply for faculty to teach more and better, but also to create conditions that motivate and inspire students to devote more time and energy to educationally purposeful activities, both in and outside the classroom.” Student Learning Imperative (p. 1)

Pascarella & Terenzini: 

Pascarella & Terenzini Review of 2,600 books, chapters, journal articles, monographs, technical reports, conference papers and research reports for the past two decades

“What the research tells us is that a large part of the impact of college is determined by the extent and content of students’ interactions with the major agents of socialization on campus: faculty members & student peers.”: 

“What the research tells us is that a large part of the impact of college is determined by the extent and content of students’ interactions with the major agents of socialization on campus: faculty members & student peers.” Pascarella & Terenzini; “Living with Myths”, Change, Jan.94

Alexander Astin: 

Alexander Astin Research at the Higher Education Research Institute Ongoing for over 20 years 82 different outcomes measures cognitive & affective measures pre & post-test Controlled for 140 student characteristics

Slide9: 

“Perhaps the most important generalization to be derived from this massive study is that the strongest single source of influence on cognitive and affective development is the student’s peer group. . . [which has] enormous potential for influencing virtually all aspects of the student’s educational and personal development” Astin, Involvement in Learning Revisited: Lessons We Have Learned, 1995

Slide10: 

“Every institution of higher education should strive to create learning communities, organized around specific intellectual themes or tasks” “Involvement in Learning” National Institute of Education (1984)

Learning Communities: 

Learning Communities “Learning communities are curricular structures that link different disciplines around a common theme or questions. They give greater coherence to the curriculum and provide students and faculty with a vital sense of shared inquiry.” -Gabelnick (et. al.), 1990

Academic LC Definition: 

Academic LC Definition Fails to recognize that cognitive and affective are inextricably intertwined Exclusive focus on relationship between curricular structure and different disciplines Fails to capitalize on the educational importance of variety of student interactions in different settings

Learning Communities: 

Learning Communities “…Small subgroups of students… characterized by a common sense of purpose…that can be used to build a sense of group identity, cohesiveness, and uniqueness that encourage continuity and the integration of diverse curricular and co-curricular experiences.” Alexander Astin, Achieving Educational Excellence

Astin definition: 

Astin definition Focuses on student interactions that integrate the curricular and co-curricular experiences Stresses function over structure

Slide15: 

“A moderately large and consistent body of research indicates that students who live in residence halls programmatically designed to promote academic and intellectual development experience greater cognitive gains that students in conventional residence halls.” Terenzini, Pascarella & Blimling, Journal of College Student Development, (1996)

Residence Halls as Learning Environments: 

Residence Halls as Learning Environments Extended Peer Interaction Casual Learning “Lunch & Learn” Professional Staff Social/Educational Programming Seminar Space/Faculty Offices

University of Missouri – Columbia: 

Public, Land Grant University Main Campus of a 4-campus system AAU, Research Extensive Institution Commitment to Undergrad Education 27,000 enrollment - 21,000 undergrad 30% Live on Campus (6000) 65% in Living-Learning Experience University of Missouri – Columbia

Campus Issues: 

Campus Issues Student Success Commitment to Undergraduate Education Retention/Integration Personalizing/Humanizing Experience Course Availability/Planning Efficiency/Effectiveness

Student Success Objectives: 

Student Success Objectives substantially enhance academic achievement, retention and educational attainment for freshmen make the campus “psychologically small” by creating peer reference groups for new students purposely integrate curricular and co‑curricular experiences through the development of a seamless learning environment provide a venue for enabling admitted students to register early for their fall classes encourage faculty to integrate ideas, concepts, content, writing, assessment and research from their various disciplines, thereby enhancing general education outcomes for students

Learning Community Growth at MU: 

Learning Community Growth at MU Percentage of Residents in Learning Communities

Learning Community Growth: 

Learning Community Growth

Learning Communities at MU: 

Learning Communities at MU 123 Different Living/Learning Opportunities Sponsored Learning Communities (22) Freshman Interest Groups (101)

Sponsored Learning Communities: 

Sponsored Learning Communities Students Living Together w/ Common Interests/Purpose Academic Majors (11) Academic Interest (4) Interest (7) Assignment Programming/Resources Academic Partners/Stakeholders Staffing Patterns Little or No Physical Renovation

Academic Majors: 

Academic Majors Engineering Men in Engineering Nursing Life Sciences (Biology etc.) Health & Helping Professions Pre-Veterinary Medicine Agriculture World of Business Education Natural Resources Journalism & Communication

Academic Interest/Themes: 

Academic Interest/Themes Honors College Human & Behavioral Sciences Law & Society Culture & Society

Common Interest/Experience: 

Common Interest/Experience Wakonse/Leadership Pathways (Deciding/Exploring) Pangaea E.V.A. Success ROTC Greek Leadership Junior/Senior

Freshman Interest Group: 

Freshman Interest Group Co-enrollment in 3 general education courses around a particular theme 1 credit proseminar 20 students (max.) enrolled in each FIG Live together on same res hall floor Peer Advisor (P.A.) Faculty co-facilitator Primary Emphasis on Fall Semester Other characteristics

Learning Community ExamplesUniversity of Missouri-Columbia: 

Learning Community Examples University of Missouri-Columbia Men of Engineering Engnr.FIG Non-FIG Frosh & Returners Carver Community of Science and Math Science Ed FIG Bio FIG Chem FIG Returning Residents Engnr. FIG

FIGs Program at MU: 

FIGs Program at MU Oct. 1994 – Visit to Oregon, Washington by VC C. Schroeder, Assc. Dean T. Tarkow, Chair J. David Nov. 1994 – Initial Planning Meeting Modify Oregon/Washington Model for MU Add Residential Component Create Faculty Role March. 1995 – FIGs promotion/recruitment Fall, 1995 – 21 FIGs, 225 students Some original Co-facs still participating in 2006 Fall, 2004 – 89 FIGs, 1450 students Fall, 2005 – 94 FIGs Fall, 2006 – 101 FIGs (planned)

3 general education courses around a theme: 

3 general education courses around a theme Utilizes existing courses Students co-enrolled in same courses Applies to all majors/areas of study Seek to integrate coursework between classes or with co-curriculum

1 credit proseminar: 

1 credit proseminar Pass/Fail Taught by P.A. (under guidance of Co-fac) College survival skills (time mgt., registration) University resources (library, learning center) Technology (e-mail, WWW home pages, Web research) Attempted integration of courses Reflect on college and/or transitional experiences Field experiences of academic nature or related to FIG theme

20 students enrolled in each FIG: 

20 students enrolled in each FIG Students co-enrolled in all three courses, i.e. same sections Live together on same residence hall floor or in same learning community Most are coed enrollment (implications for housing) All levels of academic ability

Peer Advisor (PA): 

Peer Advisor (PA) Upper-level student (initially most juniors and seniors, some sophomore and grad) Strong academic ability Differentiation between CA/RA job Good interpersonal skills Live on floor with students Teaches proseminar along w/ faculty (actually do most teaching) Compensation was initially about 1/3 of CA, now the same

Faculty co-facilitator: 

Faculty co-facilitator Volunteer or selectively recruited Frequently teach one of the three classes in FIG Assists with proseminar Small development stipend of $250 70% tenured or tenure-track faculty Some staff co-facilitators (almost exclusively academic staff)

Other characteristics: 

Other characteristics Open to all students (majors, academic ability) Some FIGs: Require higher math proficiency or Honors College enrollment Appeal to or designed for specific majors/interests Not “nested” in other Learning Communities (every LC has FIG except ROTC, Greek Leadership) Cultural Event Participation No additional cost for participants Orientation program Integrated into summer and fall orientation programs Changed how all freshman are registered

FIGs have many positive impactson students: 

FIGs have many positive impacts on students More involved on campus Spend more time studying Perceive the residence halls as more academically & socially supportive More frequently have positive interactions with diverse peers More frequent interaction with faculty Report having an easier academic transition to MU Are more likely to be retained and to graduate Compared to their peers, FIG students:

More freshmen in FIGs form academically relevant peer networks : 

More freshmen in FIGs form academically relevant peer networks

First-Year Retention (Entering class of 2003): 

First-Year Retention (Entering class of 2003)

FIG students are also 1% to 8%more likely to Graduate: 

FIG students are also 1% to 8% more likely to Graduate

African American Graduation RatesEntering Classes of 1998-2000: 

African American Graduation Rates Entering Classes of 1998-2000

Graduation within the major: 

Graduation within the major Recent assessment indicates that, at least for engineering students, the gains in graduation are within the major.

Engineering GraduationEntering class of 1998 with an initial interest in engineering: 

Engineering Graduation Entering class of 1998 with an initial interest in engineering

Co-enrollment strategies: 

Co-enrollment strategies Summarizing course descriptions Preliminary course schedule Enrollment coordination Blocking courses/seats Communication w/ Directors of Undergraduate Studies and Academic Advisors Course registration during summer orientation FIGs Assignment and preferences

Co-enrollment strategiesIdentifying courses: 

Co-enrollment strategies Identifying courses Consultation with Academic Advisors General Education Curriculum Large lecture vs. Smaller classroom Proseminar- for credit; pass/fail Teaching methods - frequent feedback & testing Math and English

Co-enrollment Issues: 

Co-enrollment Issues Courses may be cancelled by departments Requirements for academic majors may change Many students enter college with dual or AP credit Students may be at various levels for math and science courses Students frequently change majors Holding courses can create bottlenecks

Enrollment Logistics: 

Enrollment Logistics Students are initially placed based on FIG preferences and housing application Student profile sheets that contain academic attributes are generated FIGs Coordinator places students in FIG courses based on attributes In some cases, students are reassigned to another FIG based on qualifications Coordinate assignments with Registrar

Seminar Content: 

Seminar Content Initially utilized U101 (Gardner) class syllabus Dropped most U101 components based on student feedback Most popular sessions – registration, theme-related activities Reduced emphasis on writing, but still a component Developed, utilized, abandoned textbook

Housing Assignment Strategies: 

Housing Assignment Strategies Identifying halls Coed ADA-accessible Identifying floors Coed-able Retention/Renewals Gender Balance in system FIG Density per floor Preference Priority over initial choices

Housing Assignment Strategies : 

Housing Assignment Strategies Roommate requests Hand-assignment process Bio Sheets Calling Other Learning Communities Tentative Assignments Automated Assignments

Staffing/Training: 

Staffing/Training PA/CA Co-Fac Hall Coordinators Student Coordinators Coordinator

Staffing/Training: 

Staffing/Training Management by Committee Peer Advisor vs. Community Advisor Integration of Peer Advisor w/ hall staff Joint Training with C.A.’s Direct and Indirect Supervision by RHC Training as instructors/academic issues Co-fac training/orientation (meet w/ PA)

Orientation: 

Orientation Summer Contact/Anticipatory Socialization Welcome & Parent Orientation Introduction of Staff & Faculty Academic Event Resource Tours Visit Classrooms Teams Challenge Experience

Modifications/Additions: 

Modifications/Additions Co-enrollment in Winter Semester (1997) PA’s Required to “live-on” (1998) Cultural Event (1998) Theater, Concert Series, Jazz Series, RagTag FIGs Bowl for United Way (1999) Transfer Interest Groups (2000) Parent Orientation and E-Newsletter (2002) Winter Interest Groups (2003) Blackboard (2003) Common Pro-seminar times, multiple FIGs in same course sections (2003)

Modifications/Adjustments: 

Modifications/Adjustments Hall assignment preferences Advanced placement/prior college credit Course descriptions FIG Proseminar Textbook Greek/Commuter PA integration/live-on requirement Supervision (PA & Program) Clear Partnership Different FIG Versions/TRIGs

Lessons Learned: 

Lessons Learned Three Zones of an Institution Culture and Value Differences Lack of Understanding/Appreciation of distinct/unique roles of Faculty & Staff Role Stereotyping/Misunderstanding Lack of Common Understanding of what Constitutes Student Learning Faculty Allegiance to Discipline, not Department or Institution Selective Risk Taking is Essential Accept “Win-Don’t Lose” We can be our own worst enemies

Lessons Learned: 

Lessons Learned Importance of living accommodations Student Affairs usually must take the initiative Student Affairs staff equally uncomfortable in “Faculty World” Linking to Institutional Goals/Mission Importance of Assessment Consistent Collaborative Messages and “Cross Pollination” Faculty generally unaware of student affairs and may be critical/envious of resources Faculty just as concerned about “fitting in” Program viewed as “guinea pig” or “silver bullet”

Lessons Learned Student Dynamics: 

Lessons Learned Student Dynamics Having 20 students who intimately know each other can create interesting dynamics in both large lecture courses and small class Issue of academic dishonesty in both co-enrolled and FIG courses Faculty clarification of difference between collaborative work and cheating

Recommendations: 

Recommendations Identify Key Academic Faculty (Admin.), Student Affairs and Res Life staff Share excerpted readings; Retreat Identify Funding Sources Identify High Transition Halls Personally Recruit Faculty & P.A. Utilize Academic Support Resources U101, Tutoring, Computing, Retention Services Coordinate Marketing w/ Admissions Joint Sponsorship/Ownership Evolve/Expand Incrementally

Recommendations: 

Take the initiative in seeking out connections Ask how you can assist others in achieving THEIR objectives Examine enrollment trends/demands Read departmental/faculty newsletters; attend faculty senate meetings Identify obstacles that students face in delivery of academic/other support (reasonably correctable) Identify partners who have combination of authority, resources, and commitment Recommendations

Timeline (cont.) : 

Timeline (cont.) April, 1995 Returning student contracts due, assignments made (floors finalized) Peer Advisors selected (welcome/discuss) May, 1995 Students assigned to FIGs Students hand-assigned to rooms Students notified of FIG assignment, FIG-mates, schedule

Recommendations: 

Recommendations Develop an assessment strategy early Utilize data in planning and refinement process Identify performance indicators Establish and maintain effective communication at all levels Involve mid-level and support staff Educate internal and external constituents

Recommendations: 

Recommendations Ensure programs consistent w/ institutional mission Develop shared vision w/ faculty Partnerships that meet faculty/student needs Learn about faculty culture & reward system Purposeful interaction between students and faculty Connect out-of-class learning w/ academic objectives Use residential facilities/technology to support learning Learn about and integrate innovative instructional techniques Recognize faculty & staff contributions Schuh, (1999)

Recommended Readings: 

Recommended Readings Schuh, J.H., & Whitt, E.J. (1999). Creating successful partnerships between academic and student affairs. New Directions for Student Services, 87. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Shapiro, N.S. & Levine, J.H. (1999). Creating Learning Communities. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Schuh, J.H. (Ed.) (1999). Educational Programming and Student Learning in College and University Residence Halls. ACUHO-I monograph. Columbus, OH. Levine, J.H. (Ed.). (1999). Learning Communities: New Structures, new partnerships for learning (No. 26). Columbia, S.C. University of South Carolina. Schroeder, C.C. (1999). Forging educational partnerships that advance student learning. In G.S. Blimling & E.J. Whitt (Eds.), Good Practice in Student Affairs: Principles to Foster Student Learning (pp. 133-156). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J. et.al (1990); Learning Communities: Creating Connections Among Students, Faculty & Disciplines,; New Directions for Teaching & Learning, #41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Anecdotal DataStudents: 

Anecdotal Data Students 82-85% recommend as is to friend more w/ minor modifications Addressed two major concerns Will I fit in & make friends? Can I make it academically? Beneficial for Out of State Students Makes Campus Conceptually Smaller

Anecdotal Data Staff: 

Anecdotal Data Staff Quicker formation of community Transcend Facility Challenges Ease in Community Standards Established Connections Faster

Anecdotal DataParents : 

Anecdotal Data Parents Assisted in Transition Provided Academic Support Eased Parental Concerns Sibling Comparisons

Anecdotal DataFaculty: 

Anecdotal Data Faculty Students attend class together Better prepared for class Participate in class (support) Work outside of class together Comparisons to Honors section

Planning & Implementation: 

Planning & Implementation FIGs Development Implementation Strategies Modifications/Lessons Learned Recommendations

Formation of Planning Team: 

Formation of Planning Team Large Discussion Committee Core Planning Group

Large Discussion Committee: 

Large Discussion Committee Admissions (Director) Recruitment (Director) Registrar (Director & Associate) Faculty Enrichment & General Education (Director) Learning Center (Director, First Year Experience Coordinator, Technical Educator) Arts & Sciences College (Associate Dean) Faculty (3-5, including Director of Lower Division English Writing & Biological Sciences Dept. Chair) Residential Life (Director, Residence Hall Coordinators, Community Advisor, 4-5 Students)

Core Planning Group (original): 

Core Planning Group (original) A & S Associate Dean (Faculty Rank) Director of Residential Life Director of Learning Center (Faculty Rank) Academic Advisor Hall Coordinator (2) Graduate Student (Teaching Assistant) 2 Students

Core Planning Group (current): 

Core Planning Group (current) Associate Dean, Arts & Sciences Director of Residential Life FIGs Coordinator Assistant Director of Residential Academic Programs (RAP) Hall Coordinator 3 Student Assistant Coordinators

Timeline (Cont.): 

Timeline (Cont.) Aug. 1995 - 225 FIGs students, 18 FIGs Aug. 1996 - 435 FIGs students, 32 FIGs Aug. 1997 - 725 FIGs students, 50 FIGs Jan. 1998 - Second semester component developed/implemented Aug. 1998 – 900 FIGs students, 61 FIGs May 1999 – First FIGs cohort graduates June 1999 – Proseminar Textbook developed Aug. 1999 – 965 FIGs students, 65 FIGs Aug. 2000 – 1240 FIGs students, 79 FIGs (new staffing structure/compensation)

FIG Expansion: 

FIG Expansion

Implementation Strategies: 

Implementation Strategies Housing Assignment Co-enrollment Staffing/training Orientation

Housing Assignment Strategies: 

Housing Assignment Strategies Identifying halls Coed ADA-accessible Identifying floors Coed-able Retention/Renewals Gender Balance in system FIG Density per floor Preference Priority over initial choices

Housing Assignment Strategies : 

Housing Assignment Strategies Roommate requests Hand-assignment process Bio Sheets Calling Other Learning Communities Tentative Assignments Automated Assignments

Funding (1st Year): 

Funding (1st Year) Split Funding Res Life $38,500 Arts & Sciences $47,300 Salaries = 79% of budget 21 FIGs, 230 Students = $375/Student

Funding (2nd Year): 

Funding (2nd Year) Split Funding Chancellor $78,250 (50%) Provost $39,100 (25%) V.C.S.A. $39,100 (25%) Salaries = 68% of budget 33 FIGs, 500 Students = $315/Student

FIGs Budget (6th Year) : 

FIGs Budget (6th Year) Split Funding Chancellor $ 50,000 (11%) Provost $100,000 (22%) V.C.S.A. $100,000 (22%) Residential Life $150,000 (33%) Arts & Sciences $ 50,000 (11%) Salaries = 88% of budget 79 FIGs, 1240 Students = $347/Student

For More Information:: 

For More Information: Academic/Faculty Ted Tarkow, Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences – TarkowT@missouri.edu Res Life Overview Frankie Minor, Director of Residential Life MinorF@missouri.edu PA’s, Proseminar & Overall Nitty Gritty Andrew Beckett, Coordinator, FIGs Program BeckettA@missouri.edu FIGs Home Page http://www.missouri.edu/~figwww/

Outcomes: 

Outcomes Quantitative Qualitative

Contributions to Student Success: 

Contributions to Student Success Involvement in campus and community activities Higher participation rates in leadership positions and campus activities Increased participation in in-hall study groups and increased satisfaction with group work Better academic performance Increased academic achievement for all abilities Encouraging data on improved graduation rates More frequent interaction with faculty and peers Greater academic focus Greater career focus Deep, lasting friendships built around common interests

Slide84: 

Had significantly higher levels of involvement, interaction, integration and gains in general education than did students in traditional residence halls. Reported greater gains in general education associated with cultural arts, interaction with peers and the intellectual content of their interactions Reported higher levels of institutional commitment College Student Experience Questionnaire FIG Students first year

College Student Experience Questionnaire: Long Term Effects (freshmen to sophomore year): 

College Student Experience Questionnaire: Long Term Effects (freshmen to sophomore year) Perceived gains in general education: non-fig students “catch up” their second year FIG students “maintain” their lead as far as use of library FIG Students widen their lead as far as their participation in clubs and organizations

National Survey of Student Engagement: 

National Survey of Student Engagement Provide support to succeed academically LC 3.06 Traditional 2.69 Entire educational experience LC 3.24 Traditional 2.99 Start over at same institution LC 3.40 Traditional 3.14

Freshman Survey Data(CSEQ): 

Freshman Survey Data (CSEQ) Factor FIGs L.C. FTC Faculty-Student Interaction 2.50 2.09 2.00 Academic Integration 2.79 2.85 2.72 Social Integration 2.98 2.96 2.89 Perceived Quality 3.22 3.23 3.18 Institutional Commitment 3.12 3.08 3.01 Intent to Persist 3.84 3.89 3.75

FIG Students:: 

FIG Students: Experienced intellectual development strongly related to two integration measures – involvement in residence halls and interaction with faculty. Were retained in the residence halls (up to 10%) and at the institution (87% vs. 82%) in significantly greater percentages than non-participants Students in FIGs binge drink less frequently than non-FIG students Students are more engaged in the academics (NSSE)

Winter Semester Co-enrollment: 

Winter Semester Co-enrollment

FIG Students:: 

FIG Students: Had significantly higher levels of involvement, interaction, integration and gains in general education than did students in traditional residence halls. Reported greater gains in general education associated with cultural arts, interaction with peers and the intellectual content of their interactions Were retained in the residence halls and at the institution in significantly greater percentages than non-participants.

FIG Students:: 

FIG Students: Experienced intellectual development strongly related to two integration measures – involvement in residence halls and interaction with faculty. Preliminarily appear to graduate in significantly higher percentage than non-participants. Reported higher levels of institutional commitment

Slide93: 

Academic Performance FIGs FIGs+LC F.T.C. Predicted GPA 2.87 2.87 2.75 Actual GPA 3.02 3.04 2.81 Residual GPA .15 .18 .06

Academic Performance*Minority Students: 

Academic Performance* Minority Students FIGs L.C. F.T.C. African-American 2.82 2.26 2.25 All Minority 2.97 2.46 2.35 * Controlled for Entering Academic Ability

Retention at : 

Retention at FIGs L.C. F.T.C. Fall - Winter 95.6% 99.6% 91.1% Fall - Fall 87.1% 89.1% 81.5%

Freshman Survey Data: 

Freshman Survey Data Factor FIGs L.C. FTC Faculty-Student Interaction 2.50 2.09 2.00 Academic Integration 2.79 2.85 2.72 Social Integration 2.98 2.96 2.89 Perceived Quality 3.22 3.23 3.18 Institutional Commitment 3.12 3.08 3.01 Intent to Persist 3.84 3.89 3.75

Timeline: 

Timeline October, 1994 - Vice Chancellor and 2 Faculty visit Univ. of Washington November, 1994 Res Life asked to respond and to develop initial outline First planning committee meeting January, 1995 - Rough Outline of Program (courses, proseminar, P.A. position, halls assessment)

Timeline (cont.): 

Timeline (cont.) February, 1995 Recruit Peer Advisors Refine Program Outline March, 1995 Housing contracts mailed to students Preliminary floors/houses identified FIGs booklet sent with letter from Chancellor

Timeline (cont.): 

Timeline (cont.) June, 1995 Housing tentative assignments mailed Summer Welcome (orientation & registration), schedule July, 1995 Request for changes accommodated when possible Final assignments sent

Timeline (cont.): 

Timeline (cont.) August, 1995 P.A.’s write FIG-ees P.A.’s return early for training (meeting w/ faculty) FIG-ees (and all students) arrive Information session for FIG-ees Classes begin