During the 2001-2002 academic year, a group of five Durham Tech faculty members collaborated across curriculum lines to learn more about each others’ disciplines and to determine ways in which they could offer instructional support to one another.  The group included Rita Buhr, English Instructor in the Arts, Sciences, and University Transfer Department; Mary Anne Grabarek, Reading Instructor and Dean of Developmental Studies and Special Programs; Margaret Skulnik, Instructor of Nursing and Director of the Associate Degree in Nursing Program; Dale Smith, Instructor of Nursing and Health Technologies; and Michelle Stanek, Field Coordinator and Instructor for the Clinical Trials Research Associate Program.  The collaboration was made possible in part by a grant from the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technological Act of 1998, which covered course release time for Buhr and Grabarek to coordinate the project.  The grant supported efforts by Durham Tech’s Teaching-Learning Center to increase instructors’ awareness of the need to incorporate and promote workplace-readiness skills in their courses.

     Buhr and Grabarek worked during the fall of 2001 with students in Smith’s and Skulnik’s NUR 110 courses, respectively.  NUR 110 is the first nursing course for students in the Associate Degree Nursing (ADN) program.  Buhr also worked with Stanek in the spring of 2002 to identify writing needs and develop a plan for assisting those needs for students in the Clinical Trials Research Associate (CTRA) program.  The reflections collected in this article are culled from a roundtable discussion among the five participating faculty members in spring 2002.

The Need and Motivation for Collaboration            

     Durham Tech serves a broad range of technical, vocational, and university-bound students – some of whom are in the workplace while they take classes and others of whom are receiving training to enter the workplace.  In feedback regarding the effectiveness and success of their Durham Tech hires, many area employers report that new hires need to be better prepared for the workplace.  They need stronger communication skills (oral and written); they need more acute computer skills; they need to be able to work effectively in groups or teams; and they need to possess basic personal qualities or habits that contribute to being a “good employee.”  Some of these qualities or habits include being on-time all the time, maintaining a good attendance record, being able to read and follow instructions; understanding workplace ethics, being accountable and responsible for one’s own work and one’s own errors, dressing and presenting oneself appropriately, making sound decisions, being able to proofread carefully, keeping a positive attitude, and citing sources appropriately in written documents and presentations.

     Teaching these skills and habits can be challenging within the demanding program curricula at Durham Tech.  To be sure, there is little room for additional “workplace communications” instruction in the already full list of instructional requirements for each program.  In addition, different programs require different competencies.  For example, Smith explains, “Nurses don’t necessarily write in good English all the time.  We teach them to write in abbreviated, non-sentence structures for care plans – not in complete sentences.  They bullet their instructions, like ‘Obtain X’ or ‘Monitor Y.’  Much of their communication is now done by checking off items on a computer screen or circling boxes.  They might write four or five sentences if they want to say something out of the ordinary, but even then there’s a lot of abbreviation.”  Still, Smith acknowledges, nurses need to be able to write in standard English, because they are often required to plan and conduct in-services for the departments they’re working with, and they are often required to produce patient education materials.  Finally, they may decide to get a bachelor’s degree in nursing, which would require academic writing at a four-year college or university.            

     Clinical Trials Research Associates also face a complex and demanding list of communications requirements.  According to Stanek, students need to be able to follow a template to write reports and follow-up letters that are appropriate for different audiences.  For example, she says, “When writing a report to the drug company and a letter to the person conducting the research, the same information has to be presented, but it’s presented in a different way.  General reports don’t need to be as tactful as if we were speaking to the person conducting the research.  Figuring out the different audiences adds a degree of complexity for our students.”  CTRA students also write summaries of study developments, which can have legal implications.  “We often have our students and the people in the field write in passive voice,” says Stanek.  “They need to say that there was a problem, but not necessarily who did it.  In addition, they often have to provide negative information in a not-so-negative manner.  It has to be assertive enough to get the point across without placing blame or causing defensiveness.  They have to try to be very subtle.  The critical thinking and communication demands of working in this field are exorbitant.”

     The “softer” skills that employers look for – those, for example, that deal with promptness, appearance, ethics, accountability, and attitude – are critical to both the nursing and clinical trials students.  Teaching and enforcing these kinds of skills, all participating faculty agreed, need to be part of every class and every field experience.  Students need to be aware of acceptable standards of comportment, and they need to be willing to conform to them.  A number of fieldwork “horror stories” exemplify the critical nature of these qualities.  Smith told about a nursing student who had to be told repeatedly by her field supervisor to remove a pierced-tongue ornament while on the job.  Stanek answered with a story about a clinical trials student who forged the field supervisor’s signature on her daily reports, and who, once confronted, could not understand the ethical violation she had committed.  Students need to learn acceptable professional behavior if they are to be viable job candidates after they complete their degrees.            

     The question for the faculty participating in the cross-curriculum collaboration, then, became “How can we address the workplace communication needs and personal/professional habits of technical and vocational students and help them see the relevance of these skills for their future employability?”  The teams (Buhr/Smith, Grabarek/Skulnik, and Buhr/Stanek) developed different ways of exploring and addressing these needs.

How the Collaboration Worked            

     Buhr met three times with Smith to discuss the kinds of writing done by her nursing students.  She marked a set of short papers from Smith’s students to identify those who potentially needed help with using standard English.  She also marked a longer paper from one student.  In addition, Buhr researched professional writing done by nurses on the job and gave copies to Smith to use as a reference and example with her students.

     In her work with the Clinical Trials program, Buhr also met with Stanek over the course of the spring semester to identify the writing needs of her students and to discuss ways in which she and Stanek might learn from each other how to integrate cross-curricular concepts into their assignments.  Presently, Buhr and Stanek are working on a career communication presentation specifically geared toward CTRA students, which would be incorporated into the CTRA curriculum.             

     Grabarek worked with Skulnik to develop strategies for students in NUR 110 who showed signs of struggling with reading their main text for the class by a poor grade on the first test.  She addressed the class with a short explanation of what she could offer in terms of assistance.  Students were given her contact information and card.  Skulnik also met with at-risk students and suggested that they contact Grabarek concerning reading problems they might be having with the material.  Six students expressed interest in contacting her.  Two actually did.  She met with one student five times for a minimum of one hour each time.  They reviewed each question on the student’s first test by examining the passages in the text related to each question so that she could see what was different about the way she perceived what she had read and the actual meaning of the material.  “This was a long and difficult process for her,” Grabarek says, “but she was enthusiastic and hopeful about wanting to improve her grades in the class.  She immediately saw the connection between her reading habits and her misunderstanding of the material.” Grabarek helped the student prepare for the second test by reviewing what she had read in the book, helping her find ways to remember facts, and helping her make connections among the pieces of information she was learning.  “She had not been aware that pieces of information she was memorizing had anything to do with other things she was learning in class,” recalls Grabarek.  “Once these connections were explained or pointed out, the preparation became easier for her.”  Grabarek felt gratified when the student ultimately commented, “I finally understand what I am trying to do here.”  Her grade on the second test was 22 points higher than her grade on the first test. 

     Grabarek’s observations of the nursing class and her work with students revealed a discrepancy between student note-taking and comprehension:  “In the classes I went to, I took notes on the instructor’s PowerPoint presentations and then read the same chapters students were assigned.  I showed one of the students I was working with the connections I had made.  She had copied down the same word-for-word presentation notes, but couldn’t make the connection with the reading.  The reason was that she hadn’t really been able to read and understand the book. She didn’t internalize the connection.”

Outcomes and Recommendations

     The collaboration among faculty members was an enriching experience for all involved.  In fact, most plan to continue taking the extra time to consult with one another and work with students who need assistance.  As a result of the grant, the participating faculty learned a number of valuable lessons:

• Collaboration requires time and energy. Buhr notes:  “Mary Anne and I had grant releases for a course, but these wonderful nursing instructors didn’t have anything like that (it’s more difficult to find part-time replacements for technical courses).  They just volunteered their time.  That’s difficult.  They’re very busy.  With the kind of schedule everyone has, it makes it very difficult to do this kind of project.”
• Using real workplace situations and assignments adds value to instruction. “Right after we talked, I was doing a career communication unit and there was a Clinical Trials student,” recalls Buhr.  “I could talk intelligently to her about the kind of writing she would be doing.  I could see in her face that she perked up – here an English teacher uses workplace examples.  The more WE know, the more relevant our time with them seems.  When they complain because we mark standard English major errors, I tell them that business audiences are pickier than we are.  They may not believe that, but I think it’s true.”  Indeed, in her presentation to Durham Tech faculty and staff, Dr. Nancy Martin-Young from Wake Tech reported that the EPA is charged $75 per typographical error in the reports they submit.  Errors in the workplace can be costly.
• Effective workplace-readiness may require an institutional commitment and initiative. “The institution has to make a commitment to workplace-ready students and get us all on board,” advocates Grabarek.  “Our current atmosphere is that we get the technical skills across – nobody does that better – but as far as the workplace connection, even though folks individually are trying to do everything they can, there is not much support from the institution.  By support I don’t mean money.  I’m talking about an actual mindset for all of us.  That way the students will begin to get the idea.  It has to be across the board.  Students shouldn’t even go into the cafeteria and not have to confront being workplace-ready.  They have to confront that in the library.  Instead of the librarians taking them by the hand and helping them, somehow they have to behave as if they were in a law library in a business where things move a little more quickly.  We’re not all focused on that.  During registration, we aren’t saying:  This paperwork is required, so do it the right way or you won’t get it done.  Instead we say:  Here, let me hold your hand and move the pen.  If the form isn’t filled out properly, we should not accept it until it is.  All the way up the chain this institution should say:  That’s the way the workplace will be.”
• Students could benefit from a mandatory workplace-readiness course, workshop, or on-line exercise. Smith says, “It would be great if we could get some kind of ‘Introduction to Workplace Skills’ seminar – or put it on line. We can throw it into the syllabus and make the students do it.”
• Instructors need to be aware of the special workplace-readiness challenges facing international students and those for whom English is not a first language. The challenges they face can be daunting and may require additional support.   Nonetheless, these students must be accountable for the same standards as native English speakers, because the workplace will not view them differently.
• Students need to have appropriate expectations and understanding of the ways in which their classroom performance can reflect and influence their future employability. Smith laments, “Our students have a tendency to think that they should be given the information during the class session, as opposed to having to read it.  When they do read it, they sit down and read selectively; they don’t ask themselves what they just read or think about it.”  All participants agree that the effort students put into their classwork is probably a good indicator of the effort they will put into their jobs.  Instructors often are called as references by prospective employers, so students ought to put every effort into their classwork.           
• In a community college setting, experienced students have a lot to offer less-experienced students in terms of setting appropriate expectations about the workplace. “In our environment, we must maintain an awareness of students’ differences in experience,” says Grabarek.  “If a student in a reading class has had no experiences to match up with what she’s reading, then that’s a challenge.  We have students who have minimal experiences and minimal exposure – even to the names of the presidents, for example.”