Tammy Winner-White, Professor of English
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Twhite@yourinter.net

Theodore Shields, Professor of Criminology
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Tshields@yourinter.net

Abstract:

This learning community (LC) model was designed for fifty first-year Criminology majors at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP). A Professor of Survey in Criminology along with a professor of College Writing designed a fifteen-week curriculum that integrates reading, writing, and Criminology theory. Edwin Sutherland’s social learning theory of Differential Association is discussed as well as the problems associated with establishing and maintaining a LC of this nature. Questions for future research are posed. A fifteen-week course outline is appended.

Key Words:

Learning Community
Criminology
College Writing
English
Edwin Sutherland
Social Learning Theory
Undergraduate

Introductions

It was June and Ted had just started collecting data on juvenile offenders who were serving time at an adult prison about an hour away from campus. He and Tammy met up once a week at the local watering hole to discuss what was going on with their classes at the University. They were both Ph.D. candidates at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Ted studied Criminology and Tammy studied English, but they always found interesting things to discuss regarding teaching and research. That summer Ted was working on a grant funded project which aimed to collect life histories on juvenile offenders transferred to the adult system. As the summer weeks rolled by, Tammy began looking forward to hearing bits and pieces of Ted’s participant’s life stories. For ethical reasons, he never referred to particular individuals or events, but one Friday afternoon Tammy asked Ted if there were any similarities in development among the participants, and not surprisingly, there were. In an attempt to illustrate how these similarities might serve to form a cogent explanation of individual criminality, Ted explained the criminological theory of Differential Association.

Sutherland’s Theory of Differential Association

While innumerable theories attempt to explain the etiology of criminal/deviant behavior, one of the more respected and intuitively appealing of these is Edwin Sutherland's (1947) theory of Differential Association (a social learning theory). According to Sutherland, criminal/deviant behaviors are learned in the same manner as any other behaviors. More significantly, Sutherland postulated that whether rich or poor, black or white, male or female, behaviors are learned by close observation and communication with intimate contacts. Thus, the most important aspect of the learning process, whether deviant or conventional, is the functioning of open lines of communication between individuals and groups. In addition, the idea of intimate contacts suggests that learning may be best facilitated within familiar and friendly groups. In essence, Sutherland's theory is a simple one, composed of nine major tenets:

1. Criminal behavior is learned
2. It is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication
3. Principle part of this learning occurs within intimate personal groups
4. Learning criminal, or any, behavior includes learning the techniques of committing the crime and learning the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from perceptions of various behaviors as favorable or unfavorable
6. A person behaves in a certain manner when he or she perceives more favorable than unfavorable definitions to the behavior
7. Differential Associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
8. The learning of criminal behavior by association involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning
9. Criminal and non-criminal behaviors are both expressions of needs and learned behaviors and values

                                        (Edwin Sutherland (1947), Principles of Criminology, 4^th edition, Harper & Row)

In exploring the life histories of these young offenders, several common themes emerged to lend support to Sutherland's views. Without divulging the findings of this yet to be completed project, it can be noted that participants regularly described a learning process consisting primarily of such intimate contacts with peers, siblings, and/or other relatives. Moreover, youthful offenders often displayed a sense of trepidation or contempt regarding anyone outside their peer and/or family groups.

In teaching predominately first year undergraduate students, Ted repeatedly noted the many similarities (though it may sound ludicrous) between youthful offenders and young undergraduate students. Much like the young offenders, Ted's students often seemed to lack confidence in their ability to change and learn in a new environment. Additionally, the students, just as the offenders, often reacted with dismay or mistrust to unfamiliar issues and concepts. At that point in our conversation we went on to discuss the possible sources of such low confidence and mistrust in youthful offenders and novice college students. One of our more logical conclusions stemmed from the fact that each population, though very different in nature, was thrust into an unfamiliar, un-secure, and potentially intimidating environment (though of course each at different levels). In an unimpressive intellectual leap, we surmised that such conditions might prove detrimental to certain students' scholastic advancement.

It was at this point that we began to think about how productive and meaningful it would be if we could create a learning community for first-year criminology majors at IUP. What we envisioned, ideally, was that the students in Ted’s Survey in Criminology course were the same group of students enrolled in Tammy’s College English course. In the past, Tammy had struggled to find a variety of writing topics that would interest some of her students most of the time. But rarely did she find assignments that interested all of them. On various occasions, Ted had complained about the quality of students’ essay exams and theory papers. Our eagerness to find solutions to our pedagogical woes, and to apply Sutherland’s theory of Differential Association to the problems we repeatedly observed in first-year students, led us to believe perhaps creating this model community of readers and writers was important and necessary.

It seemed to make sense that Criminology majors would want to write about crime related topics in College Writing. Additionally, although perhaps obvious, by applying Sutherland’s tenants of Differential Association to the axioms of a positive learning environment, we sought to create a learning community where

rather than remaining, for the most part, nameless strangers in the halls, such students could become involved in a more familiar, secure, and amiable learning environment (If only for two course sections).

Although at first we thought our LC model would be impossible to establish administratively, we soon learned that our University was very interested in learning communities. At one of the monthly English faculty meetings Tammy mentioned the idea and learned that a similar community had been successfully established with an English 101 course and a World History course. Ted had mentioned the idea to the Coordinator of the criminology doctoral program, who had expressed both interest in the concept and apprehension at the administrative complexities of such an endeavor. Nevertheless, before we knew it, our ideas were on paper and lying on the Dean’s desk for approval.

In the following, we would like to share with you our model for creating and sustaining a learning community for first-year Criminology majors at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP). The model is student-centered in that our focus is on building an integrative community of readers and writers who are dedicated to learning the historical, practical, and theoretical underpinnings of Criminology and the Criminal Justice System. We would like to tell you why such a community is necessary, how it works, the hurdles we had to overcome, and the lessons we have learned as teachers working within this context. Lastly, we have included a fifteen-week course outline.

The Need for an LC in Criminology at IUP

Indiana University of Pennsylvania is the largest of fourteen higher education institutions within the Pennsylvania State System. As a research-one institution, it is, and has always considered itself to be a university focused on excellence in teaching. Of the 30+ major fields of study at IUP, the department of Criminology has the most majors. This year, the department faced an enrollment of approximately 1100 undergraduate majors. As one can imagine, scheduling this many students – all with the same major, is a problem. To ease the load of advising and scheduling on faculty, the department created an Advising Center run by graduate students. Regarding the schedules of first-year Criminology majors, IUP requires all incoming first-year students to be enrolled in either remedial English (EN 95) or College Writing (EN 101). With enrollments at an all time high at IUP, the English department is forced to offer 75 sections of first-year English courses. Full time faculty, Temporary staff and Teaching Associates (graduate students) all teach at least one section of either Basic Writing or College Writing – but the way in which the course is taught, that is, the primary mode of instruction, is up to the discretion of the instructor. This policy gives IUP English faculty the freedom to experiment with new ideas such as teaching in networked computer labs or linking up with other courses to create learning communities.

Given the number of undergraduate Criminology majors at IUP, and that all first-year students have to take some form of English their first semester, and given the flexibility in the ways English 101 can be taught at our institution, IUP provided a context conducive to this type of learning community.

Integrating the Two Courses: Logistics

This learning community is designed to build a sense of trust and respect among its members. In doing so, enrollments in both classes are restricted to only those who are a part of the LC. In order to establish this homogeneous group, 50 first-year criminology majors are registered for both Survey in Criminology and College English during IUP’s summer orientation program. Since IUP has computerized scheduling, both courses are closed in the system and the students are manually enrolled. Regarding the course times and locations, the Criminology course is scheduled to meet three days a week in a traditional classroom equipped with movable chairs, overhead projection screen and a blackboard, while the College English course is scheduled to meet immediately after the Criminology course in a computer lab which has word processing capabilities and access to the World Wide Web. In case the community needs to meet either in the classroom or the computer lab for two hours, both rooms are scheduled for two-hour blocks on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

Hurdles to overcome

Perhaps the greatest hurdle we had to overcome when establishing this learning community was logistics. As teachers, we had ideas and plans to integrate our curriculums, but we needed the right learning environment. In order to create this context we needed the support of our Dean and Department Chairs. Scheduling class meetings, room locations, and lab times with two departments can be difficult. In our case, it was necessary for both department chairs to work together to help us overcome these obstacles. It takes at least nine months advance notice, at IUP, to close off a special section of a course that serves predominately first-year students. Regarding controlled enrollment, summer orientation programs provide the perfect way to solicit volunteers to join the community. And, manual registration, rather than computerized scheduling, ensures that each student enrolls in both courses that comprise the LC. Besides problems of logistics, establishing a learning community requires a great degree of flexibility on the part of the teachers involved. Curriculums have to bend in order to facilitate the newly established goals of the community. Certainly a project such as this is not for a teacher who is set in his or her ways. Rather, such a teaching opportunity gives the professors involved a chance to explore new ways of achieving course goals.

Lessons learned and Questions Asked

This is the first LC model we have created. Certainly as teachers and as scholars we have learned from our model that implementing a LC takes time and patience. The greatest, and most apparent, lesson we have learned is that in order to create a successful LC you have to plan ahead. In our case, it took nine months of planning to implement a fifteen-week model. Regarding our class activities and lessons, we learned that conducting community-building activities at the beginning of the semester and throughout the course of the fifteen-weeks was essential in order to reinforce involvement, interaction and positive group dynamics. We also feel it is important for LC instructors to return to the well respected tradition of keeping a teaching journal. Noting what worked and what did not work helped us to revise the model as we went along and it served as a data gathering device.

The creation of this LC model evoked more unanswered questions for us. In what ways do social and behavior theories such as Sutherland’s theory of Differential Association apply to high-risk learning environments, specifically those which are comprised of first-year college students in state system schools? Also, in what ways do LC environments empower students and teachers that are not possible in traditional classrooms? And lastly, outside of the time it takes to establish a LC, what risks are involved for teachers who are interested in creating and sustaining these kinds of learning contexts?

In closing, ours is an emerging project. We neither sought nor expected any truly significant evaluative results in this first organizational attempt. Nonetheless, we remain confident that our initial goals (to develop an environment more conducive to learning for at risk students, to keep low level college writers interested, and to develop more effective writers within Criminology or other disciplines) may best be achieved by implementing such LC's.

Biographies:

Tammy Winner-White is a Professor of English and Communications Media at Indiana University of Pennsylvania where she is currently completing her Ph.D. in Rhetoric & Linguistics. Her doctoral research is based on her interests in collaborative web-based teaching and writing practices. Tammy’s research has been published in such articles as the SITE Journal and Computers and Composition. She has presented papers at major conferences such as the Conference on College Composition and Communication and The Society for Information Technology Education.

Theodore Shields is a Professor of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania where he is working towards completion of his Ph.D. in Criminology. His doctoral research and interests include criminological theory, juvenile crime/justice and undergraduate education in Criminology. Ted's theoretical work has been published in The Red Feather Journal of Sociology, and he has presented papers/research at national conferences such as The American Society of Criminology and The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.