-Attendees-at-AI-and-Ethics-blurred2.jpg)
Description
The LMU Faculty Learning Communities (FLC) program brings faculty together to discuss ideas about teaching/learning, scholarshop/creative practice, and leadership/professional development. Faculty interested in leading an FLC submit a proposal to the CFD, identifying a central theme to be discussed in-depth over the year. Each FLC group consists of 6 to 10 members, typically from different disciplines. The facilitator works with the appropriate CFD Director to organize a group. Typically, groups commit to meeting for 1.5 to 2 hours every three weeks for one year. Groups that elect to meet at the CFD will have food provided for their meetings. In groups that want to have in-depth discussion of books on teaching, each member of the group will be provided with a copy of the book to be discussed. Some groups may elect to meet virtually using Zoom video conferencing software.
Eligibility
Tenure-line, term, and contingent LMU faculty may participate in the FLC program, as long as they have an active contract with LMU during the semester that the FLC takes place.
Outcomes
All groups are expected to submit a brief report to the CFD at the end of the year. FLC members are encouraged to assess changes in their teaching, scholarship/creative practice, or leadership/professional development that result from participation in the FLC activities and group discussions. FLC members are encouraged to give presentations open to the LMU faculty through the CFD, engage in research on their FLC topic, present results in publications where appropriate, and to apply for externally funded educational grants.
Compensation
A small stipend is available for members of an FLC who participate in a majority of FLC activities. Each FLC facilitator will be provided a baseline stipend of $1,000 for a one semester FLC, distributed upon submission of the final brief report. Participants will receive $250 for one semester.
Application
FLC Proposals should be no longer than 2 single-spaced pages and describe the theme, facilitator’s background related to the theme and/or why they are interested in forming an FLC on that theme. Faculty should identify a key text (or alternative) that will serve as the basis of the FLC in-depth discussions. Faculty should articulate individual Learning Outcomes for members (e.g., revise course syllabi, make interdisciplinary research connections) and describe anticipated group goals, including ideas for assessing outcomes. Finally, faculty should describe the general structure of the FLC (i.e., anticipated activities and needs) and identified costs.
Faculty interested in being an FLC facilitator should email their proposals to: CFD@lmu.edu at least 2 months before you would like the FLC to begin. Applications are considered on a rolling basis.
Recent Examples
Uncommon Sense Teaching
The goal of this FLC was to explore how research-informed ideas about learning can help faculty design more intentional, inclusive, and effective courses. Centered on the book Uncommon Sense Teaching, this cross-disciplinary FLC included topics such as memory, attention, retrieval practice, procrastination, motivation, belonging, metacognition, collaborative learning, and lesson planning.
Participants translated these ideas into practical course artifacts, including revised activities, assignments, lesson plans, classroom routines, reflection prompts, retrieval checkpoints, and syllabus language. This supportive FLC offered space for faculty across departments and disciplines to share teaching challenges, develop small course design experiments, and reflect together on how students learn. Participants left with a concrete “try-this” plan for their own teaching and contributed to a shared set of insights that informed continued CFD programming on metacognition.
Restorative Practices
This FLC was developed in partnership with the Truth, Community Healing, and Transformation Alliance to support faculty in building capacity related to restorative practices within their leadership, classroom management, and communities. Through dialogue and hands-on experiences, faculty practiced various skills related to a restorative approach with the goal of leaving with tools to uplift cultural humility and promote a sense of belonging, community, and healing in classroom spaces.
Artists as Academics
The Artists as Academics FLC brought together faculty who balanced creative practice with teaching, research, service, and leadership. The group provided a space to share experiences, exchange strategies for sustaining creative work within academic life, and build interdisciplinary connections that strengthen LMU’s culture of creativity and scholarship.
Faculty Learning Community Report
Intellectual Virtues in the LMU Classroom
This FLC brought together an interdisciplinary group of faculty who were interested in reflecting on the nature of intellectual virtues and how they might go about strengthening them in their students. The main readings for this FLC focused, in particular, on curiosity, open-mindedness, intellectual humility, intellectual courage, and intellectual perseverance. The discussions were wide-ranging and fun!
Alternative Grading
The goal of this FLC was to explore how alternative grading practices can make assessment more transparent, equitable, and aligned with meaningful student learning. This cross-disciplinary FLC brought together faculty with a range of experience, including those new to alternative grading and those who had already experimented with approaches such as standards-based grading, specifications grading, contract grading, labor-based grading, collaborative grading, and ungrading.
Drawing on a range of readings, examples, and resources, participants examined common alternative grading models, student motivation, formative and summative feedback, and strategies for communicating grading practices clearly to students. This FLC offered space for faculty across departments and disciplines to share examples, questions, and concerns while considering how grading can move beyond point accumulation toward clearer criteria, stronger feedback loops, student agency, and more meaningful evidence of learning.