This monograph on factors contributing to successful Curriculum Infusion Programs is the result of a collaborative research effort carried out by the following Network for Dissemination of Curriculum Infusion (NDCI) staff:
For a more detailed description of the NDCI's personnel, click here.
The final version of the monograph was written by Ron Glick based on input from the entire research staff.
In 1995, the Network for Dissemination of Curriculum Infusion (NDCI) analyzed Curriculum Infusion programs selected for funding by the U.S. Department of Education between 1989 and 1993. The purpose of the analysis was to identify factors that contributed to the success of exemplary programs. This monograph reports the results of the analysis.
The research team consisted of six faculty with research experience. They met regularly, discussed findings, and made decisions collaboratively. The NDCI defines Curriculum Infusion as the process of involving faculty in integrating prevention content into courses regularly offered across the curriculum. Because curriculum Infusion is sometimes defined differently (e.g. sending peers into courses for presentations or having substance abuse prevention staff provide information not related to the course content when faculty are absent), Network staff expected to encounter programs called Curriculum Infusion that did not meet our criteria. These programs were not included in the analysis.
Seven objective criteria were agreed upon as the initial basis for evaluating Curriculum Infusion programs carried out by colleges and universities funded by U.S. Department of Education between 1989 and 1993. They were:
1) number of courses infused,
2) number of faculty integrating prevention content into their courses,
3) number of departments (or the equivalent of departments from community colleges) offering courses,
4) number of students reached in one year by classes with prevention curriculum,
5) number of infused course sections in the college/university,
6) number of divisions/units of the college/ university involved in curriculum infusion,
7) percentage of faculty continuing to integrate prevention content into their classes.
At the time of the analysis, final reports to U.S. Department of Education were available for 1989-91 grantees and year-one reports were available for 1992 grantees. A full set of year-one reports was not yet available for 1993 grantees. Network staff reviewed the 46 final reports of 1989-91 U.S. Department of Education grantees with Curriculum Infusion programs, applying the seven criteria. The NDCI obtained year-one reports of the fifteen 1992 programs that met the Network's definition of Curriculum Infusion and evaluated these programs in terms of the seven objective criteria. Information on 1993 U.S. Department of Education grantees that carried out Curriculum Infusion was obtained by telephone and by mail. These programs were evaluated using the same seven indicators of success. At the conclusion of phase one, ten 1989-91 grantees, two 1992 schools, and two 1993 grantees were selected for structured telephone interviews which comprised the second phase of the analysis.
In the fourteen structured telephone interviews, staff addressed numerous factors that contributed to successful outcomes including:
1) the effectiveness of a program's faculty recruitment,
2) the effectiveness of the faculty development program,
3) the level of involvement of university administrators in program development,
4) the level of faculty involvement in program development,
5) the incentives for faculty participation,
6) student evaluations,
7) faculty reactions.
Based on results of the telephone interviews, five institutions were selected as exemplary programs to receive site visits in the third and final stage of the analysis. The institutions selected were: Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado, Dundalk community College in Baltimore, Maryland, Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College in Hayward, Wisconsin, McHenry County College in Crystal Lake, Illinois, and Shenandoah University in Winchester, Virginia. The success of these institutions indicates the diverse environments in which Curriculum Infusion may thrive. Three of these schools are community colleges: one is in an urban setting (Dundalk), one is suburban (McHenry) and the third community college (Lac Courte Oreilles) is located on an Indian Reservation in Northern Wisconsin. One institution is a large residential state university (Colorado State) and one is a private university (Shenandoah). Two of these schools are from the 1989 cohort (Colorado State and Lac Courte Oreilles), two are from the 1992 cohort (Dundalk and McHenry) and one was selected from the 1993 cohort (Shenandoah).
Our selection process, including decisions about telephone interviews, was consciously weighted towards programs that were in place for a longer period of time and could better demonstrate institutionalization. Network staff established an honorable mention category for promising programs that were not among the five finalists and awarded certificates of merit to the eleven colleges and universities in this category. To see a list of schools that received honorable mentions, click here. The Network for Dissemination of Curriculum Infusion which began in January, 1993 provided support to two of the finalists. Shenandoah sent staff to national network conferences/trainings. The Network has a close working relationship with McHenry which sent faculty to NDCI trainings in Chicago.
The final stage of the analysis of successful Curriculum Infusion consisted of site visits to deepen understanding of factors that contribute to success. NDCI staff prepared a set of questions for the site visit, and, while on site at the five exemplary institutions, interviewed prevention staff, faculty, administrators, and, in some cases, students. The site visits provided a great deal of useful information much of which is reported in this monograph.
The following themes carry through each of the successful programs. It is important to be aware that, although the themes are present in each program, there is variation in the manner in which they applied to each campus. An important finding of our analysis is that in planning for Curriculum Infusion participants must be aware of the culture of their campus. What is striking about the five exemplary programs is the variety of ways they adjusted the Curriculum Infusion strategy to fit the realities of their campuses. Although campuses can learn a great deal from the experiences of these highly successful programs, there is no model that can simply be imposed on an individual campus.
1. In successful Curriculum Infusion programs, the lead role is assumed by a respected individual who knows the campus and has experience and contacts on both the student affairs and academic side.
Several program coordinators/project directors indicated that they could not possibly have succeeded if they were not knowledgeable about their campus. The program managers were viewed as campus experts on prevention and were considered reliable and knowledgeable resource people in the college community. In exemplary programs, the program managers, who (with the exception of McHenry) came from the student affairs side of the college/university, were comfortable working with faculty. They were skillful in their relations with faculty. They identified faculty they wanted to involve in Curriculum Infusion and engaged in dialogue with them. While all programs had the support and blessing of the college administrators, three (Colorado State, Dundalk, and Shenandoah) were essentially joint projects between the coordinators and faculty. The other two programs (Lac Courte Oreilles and McHenry) received strong support from high level administrators. At Lac Courte Oreilles, substance abuse prevention is viewed as a critical institution wide priority and strongly supported by the college president/ At McHenry, the academic vice president served as project director and played an active role in the Curriculum Infusion program. At successful programs, the common interests between student affairs and faculty in substance abuse prevention were clearly recognized by both parties. Student affairs personnel provided local and national information on substance use and abuse. They provided resources, or access to them (i.e., books, films, speakers, events). Some program coordinators were also sources for referrals or provided counseling to students with AOD problems. Curriculum Infusion provided faculty with an opportunity to influence students to think critically so that they can make intelligent decisions about the meaning of data and how specific behaviors impact their own lives and the lives of others in the society.
2. Leadership at the program level was energetic, resourceful, organized, and directed. Program leaders displayed effective human relations skills.
Campus coordinators were successful leaders. Most were engaged in the ongoing tasks of team building and engaging faculty to participate in Curriculum Infusion. The program managers were without exception well respected by both administration and faculty of their institutions. On site visits to the five exemplary programs, NDCI staff consistently encountered positive regard for the program leaders. Many faculty indicated that a principal reason for their involvement in Curriculum Infusion was their respect for and interaction with the campus coordinator. Administrators uniformly praised their coordinator's work.
3. Curriculum Infusion is viewed as an important strategy worth an investment in time and effort at the outset of the program.
Successful Curriculum Infusion took planning and work at the outset of a grant and time to unfold. Faculty needed to be enrolled and prepared to integrate prevention content into courses. In some of the successful programs, new faculty were added to the Curriculum Infusion group each semester. At Shenandoah, the early involved faculty served as models for others. The Shenandoah program manager distributed information on their Curriculum Infusion work to the entire faculty. At McHenry, early involved faculty were mentors, participation in the training of others who later developed prevention content for their classes. Shenandoah is a good example of the amount of time it takes to develop an effective and far reaching Curriculum Infusion program. In the fall of 1993, only one faculty member was involved. By April of 1995, twelve faculty had developed prevention modules for their courses. By the fall of 1995, the number of faculty doing Curriculum Infusion was 26 and continuing to rise.
4. All programs offered some form of incentive with money being the most common but perhaps not the most significant.
An important reality on college campuses is that a principal source of stress reported by faculty is lack of time to accomplish tasks they have set for themselves. An incentive such as released time where money is provided to hire someone else to teach an instructor's course is very appealing. This was the incentive offered by McHenry County College. Many faculty members believe they are underpaid; thus monetary incentives were effectively employed by other exemplary programs. Dundalk and Shenandoah gave grants of $450 to $500 to each participating faculty member. Colorado State provided a $125 gift certificate to faculty who participated in a one-day workshop on substance abuse. For many younger faculty, participation in a Curriculum Infusion program could be cited in supporting applications for retention, promotion, and tenure. For the successful programs, other incentives were also significant. There were intrinsic rewards related to teaching and learning: some faculty told NDCI site visit teams that Curriculum Infusion allowed them to rethink their course objectives and procedures. Like all human beings, faculty like to be recognized. The schools we reviewed accomplished this in a number of ways: lunches, dinners, certificates of award, thank you letters, articles in the campus paper, and opportunities to meet with other colleagues to share ideas. An important incentive stressed by many participating faculty inculcate in the five exemplary programs is that substance abuse prevention Curriculum Infusion provided the opportunity to serve students by working to reduce a major campus problem. Some faculty cited experiences with substance abuse among students and in their own lives as important motivating factors.
5. There was significant involvement of faculty in each program.
At all five campuses, faculty were involved by designing prevention content for their courses. Some with expertise in substance abuse participated in training their colleagues for Curriculum Infusion in faculty development workshops. Faculty provided feedback to one another in training sessions. In some cases, faculty experienced in Curriculum Infusion served as mentors for their colleagues; at three campuses- Dundalk, McHenry, and Shenandoah- some participating faculty joined student affairs staff at workshops and conferences on substance abuse prevention in higher education and Curriculum Infusion.
6. The process of training and participating was important in developing and sustaining the program.
At four of the exemplary Curriculum Infusion programs- Colorado State, Dundalk, McHenry, and Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa- there were sessions for training faculty. These were supplemented by on-going, informal dialogue and resources provided to faculty by program coordinators. At one school (Shenandoah) there was no formal training; here program managers provided individual feedback/ information to faculty developing prevention modules. Faculty interviewed by NDCI site visit teams regarded training sessions positively, not only for the information provided, but also for the informal contact and dialogue with the program coordinator and other faculty. While formal announcements and incentives were used for recruiting faculty, the informal interactions between the coordinators and faculty and among the faculty themselves appeared to be more significant. In some cases, the informal interactions were critical in recruiting new faculty to the Curriculum Infusion program. At all five campuses, the positive interaction sustained interest in and enthusiasm for the Curriculum Infusion work.
7. Effective Curriculum Infusion programs have resulted in positive evaluations.
The reaction by faculty at the five exemplary programs was highly favorable. Site visit interviews demonstrated that many faculty viewed Curriculum Infusion as an opportunity to make a worthwhile contribution to the well being of their students. Many indicated the project was personally relevant to them. For some the project was considered an opportunity to learn about a new area: prevention. A number of faculty emphasized the prevention curriculum fit easily into their course and/or made their course more interesting to students. At the exemplary programs, student reaction to the prevention curriculum was measured as part of regular course evaluations, and was generally highly positive. The site visit team to Dundalk Community College met with group of students who made it clear that they did not feel they had been introduced to material outside the scope of their course or that they had been propagandized; they expressed positive feelings about having prevention material infused into their courses. The student body president at Shenandoah who had participated in a course with prevention content indicated that it was more effective to receive information on alcohol and other drugs in the class than from dormitory resident assistants. She told the NDCI site visit team that, "when you hear about it, think about it, write it in a test, you take it seriously. There are the facts."
Faculty and staff involved in Curriculum Infusion at the five exemplary programs believe that they are having an impact. A post test at McHenry indicated positive change in attitude and behavior toward use of alcohol following Curriculum Infusion. Each of the six faculty interviewed by the site visit team to Colorado State provided examples of positive changed. These include students coming for referral to counseling as a result of the Curriculum Infusion and students telling the instructor that the prevention material in class had been a turning point for them to reduce heavy use of substances. Changes in faculty and graduate students' attitudes towards alcohol following the integration of prevention content into the curriculum were also reported at CSU. Following Curriculum Infusion binge drinking was seen as a problem and taken seriously. At Shenandoah, administrators noted that in the last year there has been a substantial decline in substance- abuse- related discipline cases on campus. They believe this change may relate to the school's successful Curriculum Infusion program.
Situated in Fort Collins, Colorado, Colorado State is a residential campus with 20,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Curriculum Infusion at Colorado State was characterized by the program coordinator's dual role of encouraging faculty to develop prevention content for their own courses and functioning as a co-presenter and presenter in classes where she designed prevention content to fit the course. Colorado State demonstrates ways in which in-class learning can relate to campus wide awareness campaigns sponsored by student affairs: for example, alcohol awareness posters created as an assignment by graphic arts students were viewed and voted on by more than 1,200 Colorado State students who chose the alcohol awareness poster for the campus.
Curriculum Infusion at Colorado State has involved 41 faculty teaching 22 courses covering 35 sections. Prevention content is integrated into courses in 19 departments across five divisions of the university: Agriculture, Business, Natural Sciences, Forestry and Liberal Arts. More than 2,900 students are reached in an academic year. The prevention coordinator indicated that all of the faculty who initiated substance abuse prevention through Curriculum Infusion are continuing to integrate prevention content into their courses.
The program coordinator's role was critical in recruiting faculty and as a frequent presenter or co-presenter of the prevention content of courses. She is also a resource for faculty involved in Curriculum Infusion. She co-presents parts of a freshman and senior seminar to students in the Animal Biology Program, is the principal presenter in the professional issued course required of students in the Graduate Veterinary Medicine Program and is the presenter on substance abuse issues related to business in a management course.
The formal basis for recruitment was bringing faculty to a two-day baseline training in substance abuse prevention and intervention in return for a $125.00 gift certificate. The 40 faculty who attended the baseline training were asked to integrate substance abuse prevention content into their classes. The program coordinator's ongoing relationship with faculty was a key incentive for faculty participation. She had spoken/participated in their classes and been the person to whom the made substance abuse referrals.
Faculty indicate they became involved because of the positive personal relationship with the program coordinator and her effectiveness in the classroom. They also participated because prevention content strengthened their courses, because of concern for student welfare, and because of their personal histories including involvement with recovering students.
Dundalk Community College is located in Baltimore, Maryland in an area that is partly residential and partly industrial. It is a typical community college with a mixture of young students preparing for transfer to a 4-year institution or vocational degrees and returning adults looking to further their education or job training. The Curriculum Infusion program at Dundalk was distinguished by its wellness enhancement approach. Faculty emphasized healthy life choices which included, but did not necessarily emphasize, avoiding alcohol and other drugs.
Curriculum Infusion at Dundalk has included 19 faculty teaching courses in English, business, biology, psychology, early childhood education, reading, career counseling, and chemical dependency counseling. The ten faculty who continued with teaching positions at the college are still integrating the prevention content into their courses.
The program coordinator has a background in counseling and had been working both as a counselor and instructor at the college before the grant program was initiated. His involvement with the entire college community prepared him to play the lead role in the recruitment and training of faculty for the Curriculum Infusion project.. By taking a "wellness enhancement" approach to the issue of substance abuse, he was able to involve several faculty who perhaps would not have participated if they had been required to approach the issue directly. These faculty members focused their modules on topics such as stress management and self esteem. The faculty all designed their own modules, but the program coordinator provided a great deal of support as well as resources.
Memos were sent to faculty encouraging them to participate in prevention Curriculum Infusion and indicating that a $450 incentive was available to faculty who completed a module and included it as part of their course. Announcements and personal contact by the coordinator informed faculty of the Curriculum Infusion program and incentive. Involvement of the Director of the Chemical Dependency counseling program, a respected faculty member/administrator, facilitated recruitment.
The program coordinator and the Director of the Chemical Dependency Counseling program developed training sessions which included a two hour orientation session followed several months later by meetings where faculty had the opportunity to share their proposals for prevention curriculum. The orientation included information on prevention and value clarification and sample modules. Grant funds were also used to send faculty to conferences where they could obtain additional information about prevention and get ideas on how to incorporate prevention curriculum into their courses.
Faculty reported that they became involved because of the program coordinator as well as for these other reasons:
Faculty are continuing to use prevention material in their courses because the material is relevant and thought provoking, there has been positive student response, and it is useful for students because of their career choice in counseling. In discussion groups with the NDCI site visit team, faculty seemed in agreement that the stipend did make participation more attractive because it lent credibility and seriousness to the undertaking. They also indicated that they felt they had ownership if the program and that the students have benefited.
Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa (LCOO) Community College is a small (479 students) institution located on an Indian reservation near Hayward, Wisconsin. Substance abuse is a devastating problem in the community, and prevention is a priority of the administrators and faculty. The college President affirmed the college's commitment to prevention efforts when he met the NDCI site visit team. There is a close working relationship between student affairs and the academic side of the university.
At the time of the site visit all of the faculty were incorporating some prevention information into their courses. The expectation is that all faculty will dedicate at least three class hours over the term to prevention content in each course.
Although the program coordinator had a major responsibility for writing and implementing the FIPSE grant, it was a community project. Members of the college staff, tribal representatives, students and members of the neighboring community were involved in the planning from the very beginning. There has been a great deal of networking. Representatives from various constituencies were asked to help in a variety of ways (for example, radio stations made public service announcements about prevention activities). Two staff people were hired to implement the grant. Although these positions ended when the grant period was over, their functions were institutionalized.
In some respects, recruitment and incentives are not an issue for this college. All faculty are expected to participate in the Curriculum Infusion program as part of their job. LCOO is a small campus and financial resources are tight. However, as prevention strategies and activities were devised, faculty and staff and their families were invited to participate along with the students. Social gatherings were also a means to involve faculty and staff and support their involvement in the prevention effort.
The official training consisted of a half-day during which experts presented material on substance abuse. The Dean of Student Services provides additional resource materials to the faculty and staff.
The faculty and staff appeared to the site visit team to have a deep commitment to the students and college. There is a high level of energy apparent at the college. Perhaps because the staff is small and the resources limited, there appears to be a collective sense that we are all in this together and must do the best for our students, including helping to prevent substance abuse.
Curriculum Infusion at McHenry county College features the leadership and active involvement of the Vice President for Academic Affairs who chaired a seven person management team including academic deans and representatives from student affairs.
Located in a far northwest suburb of Chicago, McHenry County College serves a full-time equivalent student population of 2,200. McHenry's program has included a 26 faculty and staff teaching courses in psychology, sociology, electronics, computer-aided design, fitness, athletics, counseling, career development, speech, education, English and health. Only four faculty still teaching courses which included prevention content were not continuing the Curriculum Infusion. McHenry's program reaches more than 1,200 students in the classroom each year.
Curriculum Infusion was coordinated by the Associate Dean of Humanities. She designed and had oversight for implementation of the program; she also played an active role recruiting faculty. The program coordinator received significant support from other members of McHenry's management team, including the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Associate Dean for Math and Science. These three highly placed administrators facilitated faculty recruitment and provided the course releases and training for McHenry's program. In interviews with NDCI staff, they indicated that their work was reinforced by the enthusiastic response of the faculty to Curriculum Infusion.
A general memo from the Academic Vice President and the Curriculum Infusion coordinator to all faculty described Curriculum Infusion and offered one course release (a part- time instructor would be hired to replace the full- time faculty member) as an incentive for developing a module. The memo was followed by personal phone calls from the program coordinator.
McHenry established an extensive faculty training program including luncheon workshops where faculty learned more about substance abuse issues and shared information about their plans to integrate prevention content into courses. Early module developers served as mentors to others. Some McHenry faculty also participated in training in Chicago sponsored by the NDCI.
Faculty were very favorably impressed by the extent of administrative support for their program. In interviews with NDCI staff, they commented favorably on the helpfulness of the course release and the quality of the faculty training workshops at McHenry. The Vice President for Academic Affairs indicated that Curriculum Infusion provided the opportunity to support faculty and staff. He also indicated that Curriculum Infusion has strong support from McHenry's President and Board of Trustees; there have been two presentations on McHenry's program to the Board.
Curriculum Infusion at Shenandoah is distinguished by the patience of program managers in allowing time for the program to evolve and by the personal one on one method of carrying out faculty training/development. Shenandoah's program was also distinguished by some exceptionally creative approaches to Curriculum Infusion. For example, student in a dance class wrote poems on their experience with alcohol and other drugs. They then choreographed the poetry and danced to their poetry/choreography before the Shenandoah student body.
At the time of the site visit, 26 Shenandoah faculty were integrating prevention content into 30 courses across the curriculum. Additional faculty were still being added to the Curriculum Infusion group. Infused areas include biology, anatomy and physiology, business, management, psychology, philosophy, occupational therapy, education, and dance.
The program coordinator and the project director worked actively to recruit faculty, involve them, and where needed, assist them in integrating prevention content into their courses. While the majority of faculty have designed and taught the prevention content, in a number of cases grant managers were involved in the design and/or delivery of the prevention content. Overall, twenty-one of thirty courses where prevention content was integrated were done without assistance from the program coordinator or director who were involved in varying degrees in the other nine courses.
Memo were sent to faculty describing ways they could integrate prevention into courses and indicating that a $500 incentive was available to faculty who completed module write-ups following a general set of guidelines. These memos were followed up personally by the program managers. The successes of early involved faculty were publicized to the campus, encouraging other faculty to integrate prevention content into their courses.
There was no formal faculty training at Shenandoah. The program coordinator and program director met individually with faculty and discussed ways that faculty could integrate prevention into their courses. They also provided resource materials to faculty.
Faculty indicated that they became involved for a number of reasons:
Faculty told the NDCI site visit team that they are continuing to integrate prevention content into their courses because of positive student response, the prevention content strengthened their courses making them more interesting to teach and because Curriculum Infusion helps students.
Administrators at Shenandoah were very enthusiastic about Curriculum Infusion. There had not been a history of cooperative work between student affairs and academic affairs at the university. According to the Vice President for Student Affairs who praised the enthusiastic work of Shenandoah faculty involved in Curriculum Infusion, the program was a "real breakthrough."
Twelve faculty have integrated prevention content into courses reaching 900 to 1,000 students. In addition, substance abuse prevention is part of the content of the course, Introduction to University Life.
The Curriculum Infusion program in allied health, pharmacy, an nursing is supported by a university administration concerned about workplace and ethical issues.
Two thousand students were reached in 45 sections of courses in psychology, business, and health.
Twelve faculty have integrated into 14 courses
Prevention curriculum has been developed by more than 20 faculty. The Curriculum Infusion strategy is also being employed to address other issues such as sexual assault and domestic violence.
Twenty faculty from nine academic departments integrated prevention content into their courses last tear with additional faculty participating in the program this academic year.
Prevention content is now part of all sections of the required freshman seminar and part of five required teacher education courses. The Curriculum Infusion program is now expanding to the general curriculum of the university.
Prevention content has been integrated into 20 courses across the curriculum.
Prevention content is part of 18 courses in 11 departments across the curriculum.
Eleven faculty have integrated prevention content into 12 courses in six of the eight divisions of the college.
Fourteen faculty are now integrating prevention content into their courses.