Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES AND RETENTION
A dissertation submitted
byIAN MILLER
toBenedictine University
in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Educationin
Higher Education and Organizational Change
This dissertation has been accepted for the facultyof Benedictine University
__________________________ Andrew Carson, Ph.D. ________Dissertation Committee Director Date
__________________________ Anne Cubilie, Ph.D. ________Dissertation Committee Chair Date
__________________________ Amanda Turner, Ph.D. ________Dissertation Committee Reader Date
__________________________ Sunil Chand, Ph.D. ________Program Director, Faculty Date
__________________________ Eileen Kolich, Ph.D. ________Faculty Date
___________________________ Ethel Ragland, Ed.D., M.N.,R.N. __________Dean, College of Education and Health Services Date
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge all the individuals who have helped and supported
me through this long and challenging journey. My committee members—Dr. Andrew
Carson, Dr. Amanda Turner, and Dr. Anne Cubilie—have provided an enormous amount
of encouragement for me to finish this dissertation. I would also like to mention my
family—Grace, Jethro, and Bert—who supported me through many long nights of
researching, typing, and being grumpy. To my supervisor, Jenna Hyatt, who has been on
a similar journey and understands what it means to be a doctoral student and a full-time
employee. Additionally, to Richard DeShields, Eric Scott, John Mounsey, and Anna
Cairns who have been so supportive. The process of completing this dissertation has been
an experience I will never forget. Thank you to Dr. Sunil Chand, Dr. Eileen Kolich, and
the wonderful faculty of the Ed.D. Program at Benedictine University.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: Introduction...............................................................................................7Statement of the Problem........................................................................................................10
Theories of retention..............................................................................................................10Theories of living-learning communities...............................................................................11Purpose of Study....................................................................................................................12
Hypotheses................................................................................................................................14Importance of the Study..........................................................................................................15
Contributions to research and literature.................................................................................15Who will benefit and be interested?.......................................................................................16Summary................................................................................................................................16
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review...................................................................................17Theories of Retention...............................................................................................................17History of Living-Learning Communities..............................................................................19Structure of Living-Learning Communities..........................................................................22
Linked courses.......................................................................................................................23Clustered courses...................................................................................................................23Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs)..........................................................................................24Federated learning communities and coordinated studies.....................................................24Curricular learning communities...........................................................................................24Classroom learning communities...........................................................................................25Special population or Student-type learning communities....................................................26Residence-based programs (LLCs)........................................................................................28Challenges of creating and sustaining living learning communities......................................30
Research Studies of Living-Learning Communities.............................................................35Outcome-oriented studies......................................................................................................35Practice-oriented studies........................................................................................................37
Living-Learning Communities Today....................................................................................38Summary................................................................................................................................39
CHAPTER 3: Methodology............................................................................................41Introduction..............................................................................................................................41Participants...............................................................................................................................41Instrumentation........................................................................................................................43Data Collection.........................................................................................................................43Constructs.................................................................................................................................44Data Analysis............................................................................................................................46Delimitations.............................................................................................................................48Limitations................................................................................................................................49
CHAPTER 4: Results and Analysis...............................................................................50Introduction..............................................................................................................................50
CHAPTER 5: Discussion................................................................................................55Summary...................................................................................................................................55Interpretation of results...........................................................................................................55Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Future Research...............................60
4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................63
Appendix A: Colleges and Universities with LLCs......................................................77
Appendix B: Learning Community Typologies............................................................79
Appendix C: Living-Learning Community Definitions...............................................80
Appendix D: Successfully Created LLC........................................................................81
Appendix E: LLC Research Studies..............................................................................82
Appendix F: Participant Study Descriptive Statistics..................................................86
Appendix G: Retention factors and LLC status...........................................................92
5
ABSTRACT
Student retention is one of the key outcome variables in higher education. It
suggests the presence of student success and satisfaction (Levitz, Noel, & Richter, 1999).
It also serves as one of the most visible institutional performance indicators (Kahrig,
2005), important from the perspectives of accreditation (given its correlation with
graduation rates) as well as the business survival of an institution.
This study focused on determining whether or not residential first-year freshman
students in a living-learning community (LLC) were retained at a higher rate than those
not in one. The study focused on a single, public, comprehensive university located in the
Pacific Northwest. Data were collected using archival data from the Making Achievement
Possible (MAP)-Works First Year Fall Transition Survey (MAP-Works) administered
during fall 2014.
The results indicated no significant association between LLC status and retention.
Specifically, LLCs do not appear to result in improved retention at the institution studied.
Follow-up research may seek replication at other institutions. Additional
recommendations for research are suggested. This study has implications for theories of
student retention in higher education, the rationale of LLC design, and choices in higher
education funding.
6
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
Over the last 30 years, United States higher education has been in the spotlight of
critics calling for numerous reforms. Several reports highlight the need for colleges and
universities to address issues such as cost of tuition, remedial education, accountability,
and retention. The National Commission of Excellence in Education (1983) focused on
the readiness of high school graduates entering college, as well as college graduates
entering the workforce. The Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American
Higher Education (1984) focused on issues related to student involvement and
motivation. These reports also offered recommendations for colleges and universities to
improve in those areas. The American Association for Higher Education, the American
College Personnel Association and the National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators (1998), the Kellogg Commission (1997), and the American College
Personnel Association (2008) highlighted the need for change and offered
recommendations (Kahrig, 2005). Thus, student retention is one of the ways to measure
whether institutions meet the broad areas of student success and satisfaction (Levitz,
Noel, & Richter, 1999). Student retention also serves as one of the most visible
institutional performance indicators (Kahrig, 2005). Therefore, the calls for a more
seamless educational experience for undergraduate students to bridge their academic and
personal lives contributed to the creation of living-learning communities at colleges and
universities throughout the country (Inkelas, Vogt, Longerbeam, Owen, & Johnson, 2006,
p. 40).
Researchers such as Tinto (1975) and Astin (1977, 1993) have developed and
revised retention theories since the 1970s. The National Center for Higher Education
7
Management Systems (2010) reported that students were more likely to drop out of
postsecondary education in year one than in any other year. According to the National
Student Clearinghouse Research Center (NSCRC), the retention rate for all students
beginning college for the first time in fall 2012 was 58.2 percent (2014). Beginning
college for the first time refers to students enrolled for the first time at a U.S. Title IV
degree-granting institution and who had not previously completed a college degree. This
definition is based on institutions that have submitted student enrollment data to the
Clearinghouse since at least June 1, 2005 (NSCRC, 2014). The NSCRC also reported that
the retention rate of students who entered college at age 20 or younger remained almost
constant; however, the retention rate of those who entered college at age 24 or older has
fallen 1 percentage point between 2009 and 2012. Retention is defined as continued
enrollment (or degree completion) within the same higher education institution in the fall
semesters of a student’s first and second year (NSCRC, 2014). As a result of these
decreasing retention rates, institutions across the country are assessing and evaluating
ways to increase retention of first-year students.
One such way has been with learning communities (LCs), which have their roots
going back to the early 1920s (Smith, MacGregor, Matthews, & Gabelnick, 2004). They
encompass a variety of curricular and co-curricular structures that intentionally link at
least two academic courses and involve a common cohort of students (Smith et al., 2004).
Examples of the various structures include: freshman seminar or interest groups,
integrative seminar or colloquy learning communities, linked or clustered courses, team-
taught courses, and residential-learning communities also known as living-learning
communities (Smith et al., 2004).
8
Living-learning communities (LLCs) are a subset of LCs. They combine shared
academic experiences such as a common course, or even linked courses, with a shared
living environment. LLCs are usually designated communities in on-campus residence
halls. Students with common academic interests live together in the same residence hall
and develop personal and academic relationships with other students and faculty from a
particular field of study. Students are able and encouraged to participate in out-of-
classroom enrichment activities that support their academic pursuits. LLCs help bridge
the gap between students' academic interests with their residence hall living experience.
They are one of the ways universities have responded to address the issue of retention
(Smith et al., 2004).
Dozens of colleges and universities have established LLCs, offering them as
opportunities to engage with faculty, develop peer connections, and establish academic
connections; Swail (2004) championed these activities as important contributors to
retention in post-secondary education. Students are often able to voluntarily select the
LLC that best fits their interest. (See Appendix A for examples of institutions with
LLCs.) The intention with such LLCs is to help to bridge the gap between a student’s
living environment and their learning environment (Blimling, 1998; Borst, 2011; Smith et
al., 2004; Wawrzynski & Jessup-Anger, 2010). Existing research supports LLC
proponents’ claims that they provide students with such benefits as increased faculty
interactions, peer interactions, and social integration (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003;
Wawrzynski & Jessup-Anger, 2010; Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). These studies focused on
student outcomes and student perceptions. However, none of these studies directly
addressed the retention rates of students participating in LLCs.
9
Statement of the Problem
There are increasing calls for higher education institutions to reform their
teaching and learning practices to meet the changing demographics of students and to
address demands for accountability by legislators (Smith et al., 2004). Part of reforming
teaching and learning practices is to better understand issues of retention and build
models to effectively address those issues. Previous research studies provided data
indicating that student retention is negatively impacted by lack of academic and social
engagement (Eck, Edge, & Stephenson, 2007). Kahrig (2005) noted that several
investigators, including Tinto, Astin, and Pascarella and Terenzini, examined social and
academic integration and their interconnections to retention.
Theories of retention. According to Tinto (1987, 1993), there are three major
reasons a student may decide to leave an institution: academic difficulties, the inability of
individuals to resolve their educational and occupational goals, and their failure to
become or remain incorporated in the intellectual and social life of the institution. Tinto's
(1987, 1993) "model of institutional departure" stated that, to persist, students need
integration into formal (academic performance) and informal (faculty and staff
interactions) academic systems and formal (extracurricular activities) and informal (peer-
group interactions) social systems. Therefore, it is important for institutions to understand
whether LLCs are indeed able to reduce the major reasons why students may decide to
leave. If so, institutions could use LLCs as a mechanism to address student retention
(Tinto, 1997).
Astin’s (1984) student involvement theory provided a lens through which to view
issues relevant to a student’s transition to college that may also impact retention. The
10
research suggested a student’s successful transition to college is enhanced by his or her
on-campus living experience, participation in organized social groups (e.g., fraternities
and sororities), working part-time on campus, and making other connections within the
institution (Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Leonard, 2007). Given that LLCs are, by design,
intended to foster student interactions with and connections to others within the
institution, they may represent a tool to boost student involvement and improve retention.
Although much of Tinto’s retention research considered LCs as the mechanism
for colleges and universities to address retention, what he said for LCs could presumably
apply also to LLCs. For example, Tinto (1999) reported there are four conditions that
help support retention: information/advice, support, involvement, and learning. LLCs
may boost student retention because they create an environment where students are active
participants in their learning. LLCs begin to move students and faculty away from the
traditional model of learning and teaching as individuals to a more collaborative learning
environment in which students become active members of their learning experience
(Gabelnick, 1997). Inkelas and Weisman (2003) found LLC students perceived their
residence environment to be more supportive than did non-LLC students. Students feel
more comfortable confronting each other, engaging with students and faculty, and
experiencing how group work deepens individual knowledge (Gabelnick, 1997).
Theories of living-learning communities. While we do not know the exact
number of LLCs, based on the 2004 and 2007 National Study of Living-Learning
Programs (NSLLP), we do know there are at least 600 different LLCs offered at over 50
different institutions throughout the United States (Inkelas & Associates, 2007).
Understanding the basic LC typologies is also important to distinguishing how LLCs
11
impact retention. A number of researchers, including Shapiro and Levine (1999), Smith
et al. (2004), Lenning and Ebbers (1999), and Gabelnick et al. (1990) developed several
LC typologies (see Appendix B for overview of LC typologies). This study of LLCs will
focus around the typology Shapiro and Levine (1999) described as “residence-based
programs,” Smith et al. (2004) describe as “living-learning communities,” and Lenning
and Ebbers (1999) describe as “residential learning communities.” Inkelas and Weisman
(2003) reported, “the critical difference between living-learning programs and other types
of learning communities is that the participants not only partake in coordinated curricular
activities, but also live together in a specific residence hall ” (p. 335).
Purpose of Study. Consistent with Swail’s (2004) theory of factors that serve to
promote retention, this study examined whether first-year freshman students participating
in LLCs have better retention rates than those who do not participate in LLCs. It also
analyzed the effectiveness of LLCs to support first-year freshman students in developing
peer connections, faculty interactions, and being academically engaged at a university.
From these data, we determined whether first-year freshman students participating in
LLCs had better retention rates than those who do not.
When examining LLCs as a possible model to address issues of retention,
identifying the appropriate LLC structure to test becomes a challenge. While LLCs have
a history going back as early as the 1920s, it has only been since the 1980s that higher
education institutions have really begun to establish LLCs. There are no specific or
national data on the exact number of institutions that have LLCs or the exact number of
individual LLCs (Smith et al., 2004). However, some research data suggest that LLCs are
effective in improving student outcomes in important areas. For example, Brower and
12
Inkelas (2010) indicated critical thinking, application of knowledge, commitment to civic
engagement, academic transition, and social transition as key areas. Organizations such
as the Association of American Colleges and Universities (ACC&U) have developed
initiatives such as Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP), which focus on
issues such as retention, first-year students, and LLCs, but only to a limited extent
(Brower & Inkelas, 2004). ACC&U’s LEAP initiative identified 10 high-impact
educational practices, including learning communities. However, LLCs were not
specifically mentioned. LCs, as defined by LEAP, “are to encourage integration of
learning across courses and to involve students with ‘big questions’ that matter beyond
the classroom” (Kuh, 2008, p. 10). LEAP also articulated LCs as students taking two or
more linked courses as a group (Kuh, 2008). There was no mention of students living
together as part of a community or program.
The literature surrounding LLCs often focuses on analyzing or referencing the
2004 and 2007 NSLLP (Brower & Inkelas, 2010; Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Leonard, 2007;
Inkelas, Soldner, Longerbeam, & Leonard, 2008; Inkelas, Vogt, Longerbeam, Owen, &
Johnson, 2006; Soldner & Szelenyi, 2008). The NSLLP focused on assessing LLCs’
impact on student outcomes such as intellectual growth, civic engagement, sense of
belonging, and enjoyment of challenging academic pursuits (Brower & Inkelas, 2010;
Inkelas & Associates, 2007). Additional literature regarding LLCs focuses on typology
and assessment of a variety of student outcomes (Wawrzynski & Jessup-Anger, 2010;
Inkelas et al., 2008) or has a practitioner-based focus on implementation and sustaining
LLCs (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011).
13
Brower and Dettinger (1998) summarized that LLCs are designed to do the
following:
Develop a sense of group identity, while recognizing individual
accomplishments as learners.
Provide a physical space for students and faculty to engage in intentional
learning activities.
Create a supportive and encouraging environment that helps new students
navigate the institution.
Integrate students’ social and academic experiences.
Foster connections among academic disciplines.
Provide the context for critical thinking skills, social cognition, creativity, and
civic, professional, and ethical responsibility.
Continually assess and evaluate processes, procedures, and intended
outcomes.
The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether or not first-year
freshman students in an LLC were retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman
students not in an LLC. In addition, if LLC participation is associated with improved
retention rates, further investigation may be warranted: would any association between
LLC participation and improved retention be accounted for by intermediate constructs,
such as those identified by Brown and Dettinger (1998)?
Hypotheses
The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether or not first-year
freshman students in an LLC are retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman
14
students not in an LLC. Although there are several different definitions and variations of
LLCs, the definition used for this study was based on the 2007 NSLLP: “programs in
which undergraduate students live together in a discrete portion of a residence hall (or the
entire hall) and participate in academic and/or extracurricular programming designed
especially for them” (p. 2). The hypothesis for this study was that first-year freshman
students in an LLC will be retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman students not
in an LLC. The associated research question is “What is the relationship between
retention and LLC status of first-year freshman?”
Importance of the Study
Contributions to research and literature. Through creating and sustaining
LLCs, institutions may be better able to provide unique opportunities for students that
combine their academic experiences with their living experiences. Prior research studies,
including those by Tinto (2000), Brower and Kettinger (1998), Kuh (2008), Eck, Edge,
and Stephenson (2007), and Garrett and Zabriskie (2003), focused on such areas as
developing autonomy, increasing connection with the institution, improving self-efficacy,
creating faculty-interactions, fostering peer-interactions, and raising academic
performance. Important as these issues may be, they do not directly answer the retention
question: are first-year freshman students in an LLC retained at a higher rate than those
who are not?
Institutions across the country appear to invest significant resources in the
retention of first-year students. Retention is an important topic of discussion, debate, and
even contention (Vostad, 2004). In particular, this study contributes to the research on the
15
effectiveness of LLCs regarding the rate at which first-year freshman students retain to
their second-year.
Who will benefit and be interested? By examining the results of this study,
university administrators, faculty, and housing staff may be able to better understand
whether LLCs have a positive impact on first-year freshman student retention. From
there, administrators, faculty, and housing staff may be able to make decisions
developing policies and procedures for eliminating, sustaining, and creating new LLCs.
Additionally, administrators and housing staff may be better able to understand the
qualities and characteristics of first-year freshman students who live in the LLCs, thus
being able to recruit new first-year freshman students to join them. This study may also
serve as a model for administrators, faculty, and housing staff to better understand the
characteristics of developing and implementing effective LLCs as a way to improve
student retention.
Summary. I have provided a brief overview of the calls for reform in the United
States higher education system. I identified living-learning communities (LLCs) as a
potential method of enacting change. I discussed theories of retention and LLCs as it
relates to the impacts of LLCs on retention. I also identified gaps in the previous
literature and explained how this research will contribute to the existing body of research.
16
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review
This literature review includes theories of retention, the history and structure of
LLCs, prior research, and an overview of LLCs today. Understanding theories of
retention helps to provide the context for the creation of LLCs. Reviewing the history and
structure of LLCs shows how institutions have applied the theories of retention to address
the specific needs of their students. Through a review of the literature, we may be able to
understand the importance of LLCs and how they exist today. From here we analyzed the
effectiveness of LLCs to support first-year students in developing peer connections,
faculty interactions, and academic engagement at a university. From these data, we may
determine whether first-year students participating in LLCs have better retention rates
than those who do not.
Theories of Retention
Researchers such as Astin (1977) and Tinto (1987) have studied retention for the
past 40 years. Tinto’s (1987) research provided us his model for “institutional departure,”
where individuals enter institutions of higher education with a given set of knowledge,
skills, abilities, and experiences. Then, individuals interact within that system either
positively or negatively, coming to a final decision of staying or leaving (Tinto, n.d,
1987, 1993, 2004). These interactions within the institution include academic
performance, faculty and staff interactions, extracurricular activities, and peer group
interactions. Building on this early research, one of Tinto’s subsequent areas of focus was
learning communities as a method to help support retention. He offered recommendations
for institutions to take action and create conditions where students can succeed. These
conditions included setting high expectations; providing clear and consistent advising;
17
establishing academic, social, and personal support; recognizing students as valued
members of the institution; and creating an environment that fosters and encourages
learning (Tinto, n.d, 2002). Institutions have attempted to create LLCs that provide
students with the opportunity to engage with faculty and peers inside and outside the
classroom. Many LLCs have dedicated advisors or faculty who work to advise students
specifically within the LLC. LLCs often also create a smaller sense of community that
supports members’ feelings of being valued members of the community (Schoem, 2004).
Astin’s (1993) “input-environment-outcome (I-E-O)” model has been a
significant conceptual model to LLC research, most notably the NSLLP 2004 and 2007.
According to the model, “inputs” refer to students and what they bring with them at the
time of initial entry into the institution (e.g., gender, grades, ethnicity, etc.).
“Environment” refers to the institutional experiences to which the student has access,
such as programs, policies, faculty, and peers. “Outcomes” refer to the student and what
they bring with them after being introduced to the environments (Astin, 1993). One area
of particular interest related to LLCs was Astin’s research on faculty/student interactions.
According to the results of Astin’s 1993 study, satisfaction with faculty had a positive
correlation with students’ academic performance. Additionally, Astin found that living
on-campus had a positive effect on student satisfaction with faculty; however, living off-
campus had a negative effect. Astin hypothesized the reason for these results had to do
with the proximity associated with the two types of living arrangements (Astin, 1993,
1999). LLCs maximize the benefits of proximity by housing students on-campus within a
dedicated residence hall. Based on Astin’s research focusing on student involvement,
many LLCs attempt to create environments with intentional faculty and peer interactions.
18
Thus, Tinto and Astin’s research programs legitimized the creation of LLCs in recent
years.
History of Living-Learning Communities
In the United States, the concept of LLCs can be traced back to the “social clubs”
at Oxford and Cambridge, which integrated a residential living component to students’
educational experience (Brower & Inkelas, 2010; Stier, 2014). Later manifestations can
be found at the earliest Ivy League institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton
(Brower & Inkelas, 2010). Each of these institutions created educational environments
that included not only classrooms but also eating commons, kitchens, libraries, and
sleeping quarters (Ryan, 1992). Focused on the development of the “whole” student,
these institutions created an all-inclusive learning and living environment. Students
attended lectures, studied, ate, slept, and socialized all in the same building (Ryan, 1992).
Additionally, tutors were housed in the same residence as their students, thus creating
early versions of what we know today as LLCs.
However, in the 1800s, United States higher education shifted away from the
colonial model to the German model of higher education. As part of the German model,
this meant students focused on more specialized professional or vocational areas of study,
and faculty focused on research and their own scholarship. This also meant shifting away
from the “communal” learning environment, and the living environment became
secondary to the academic priority (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011; Ryan 1992).
Powell (1981) credited Alexander Meiklejohn with the establishment of the first
LLC with the creation of the Experimental College at the University of Wisconsin from
1927-1932. Meiklejohn wanted to create a practical liberal arts program designed to teach
19
students how to think about relevant issues of their time. This concept included live-in
faculty, specifically designed curriculum, academic advising, and team-teaching
(Meiklejohn, 2001; Powell, 1981). Meiklejohn wanted to create an educational
environment that would effectively integrate students’ curricular, co-curricular, and
residential experiences (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011; Meiklejohn, 2001; Powell, 1981). The
Experimental College lasted only five years, but introduced new teaching techniques that
are still used today. Faculty and student affairs professionals still use terms introduced by
Meiklejohn, such as team-teaching, clustered courses, and student field experience in
undergraduate research (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011; Meiklejohn, 2001; Powell, 1981).
It was not until the 1960s and 1970s, with the dramatic growth of higher
education, that LLCs would again begin to make a broader appearance. Colleges and
universities expanded to record enrollments. This rapid expansion nearly doubled the size
of the United States higher education system (Smith et al., 2004). With such growth also
brought widespread innovation, experiments in pedagogy, curriculum, and new roles for
faculty and students (Smith et al., 2004). Joseph Tussman, a professor at the University of
California-Berkeley, would create the “Berkeley learning community,” which was based
on Meiklejohn’s Experimental College (Smith et al., 2004). At the same time (1965 to
1969), San Jose State College would create a similar program called the “Tutorial
Program.” These two programs employed a team-taught curriculum model, based on
primary texts and seminars, and lasted for an entire academic year (Smith et al., 2004).
Both the Berkeley learning community and Tutorial Program lasted four years, failing to
sustain their momentum after key faculty left their respective institutions. Although these
two programs focused on the curricular components instead of the residential one,
20
technically making them LCs instead of LLCs, one of the main challenges of sustaining
LLCs today remains the retention of key faculty or staff responsible for the initial design
and implementation of the program. In business, when departure of key staff leads to
problems in sustaining programs, it is known as a challenge with succession
management, and this same issue appears to occur in relation to LLCs.
As LLCs continued to change, The Evergreen State College, established in 1970
in Washington State, played an important role. The Evergreen State College’s curriculum
used a model of team-taught, yearlong integrated programs, focused around
interdisciplinary themes (Smith et al., 2004). Additionally, there were no faculty ranks,
titles, or departments. Faculty were compensated using a uniform pay scale, reappointed
based on team-teaching, and appointment to academic dean positions rotated throughout
the faculty (Smith et al., 2004). Through this new teaching and learning model, the
Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education was created
(Washington Center, n.d.). The Washington Center provided a database for resources,
established annual conferences, and became a leader in learning community initiatives
(Smith et al., 2004). The Washington Center focuses on the curricular types of learning
communities. LLCs are a subset of LCs, but there is almost no mention of LLCs in any of
the resources provided by the Washington Center. They provided resources for two- and
four-year institutions to create curriculum models such as linked or clustered courses.
Therefore, the Washington Center is geared toward supporting academic affairs
professionals rather than student affairs professionals; student affairs professionals are
more often involved with LLCs.
21
Structure of Living-Learning Communities
This section of the literature review helps to clarify the differences among the
various structures of LLCs. There does not exist a clear, specific, and universally held
definition of the LLC (see Appendix C for various LLC definitions). Institutions have
created and designated their communities under several different titles, such as living-
learning communities (LLCs), living-learning programs (LLPs), residential-learning
communities (RLCs), living-learning centers, theme houses, and residential colleges
(Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). One might classify LLCs as an instance of learning
communities (LCs) (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). For example, Gabelnick, MacGregor,
Matthews, and Smith (1990) provided the first outline of LC typologies and provided the
foundation for future typologies to be developed. Shapiro and Levine (1999), Lenning
and Ebbers (1999), and Smith et al. (2004) subsequently based their own classification
systems on the work of Gabelnick et al. (1990).
The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS, 2014)
provides housing and residence life programs (HRLP) with guidelines on the
development and structure of LLCs. According to CAS (2014), “guidelines are designed
to provide suggestions and illustrations that can assist in establishing programs and
services that more fully address the needs of students than those mandated by a
standard.” To create and develop a successful LLC, CAS (2014) suggests HRLPs should
explore LLC models that align with the institution’s mission, vision, and culture, ensure
proper resources are allocated before LLCs are implemented, develop a marketing
strategy, and establish clear roles and responsibilities for all LLC partners. Once the
LLCs are developed HRLPs should facilitate regular communication among all LLC
22
partners, ensure continued resource allocation, create mentorship opportunities, and
establish a strong assessment program, which may include evaluation of learning
outcomes, GPAs, and retention rates.
CAS (2014) suggests HRLPs should identify strong academic focused learning
outcomes to achieve desired results. HRLPs should also create LLCs that incorporate
credit-bearing courses specific to the LLC curriculum, provide opportunities to engage
with peers, staff and faculty members, and establish dedicated study spaces within the
residence hall to achieve desired learning outcomes.
The guidelines provided by CAS are helpful for HRLPs; however, they are not
specific to size or type of institution. Therefore, institutions may decide to create LLCs
that follow the CAS guidelines or develop their own independent structure.
One may propose the following types of learning communities and their
relationship to LLCs:
Linked courses. Linked courses, also referred to as paired courses, provide
students the opportunity to register for two consecutive courses where the instructors
coordinate their curricula. This “linking” through shared readings or assignments helps
students better understand the material. Linked courses provide the easiest and simplest
LC structure (Shapiro & Levine, 1999).
Clustered courses. Clustered courses are an expansion of linked courses.
Students have the opportunity to register for a series of courses throughout a semester or
year that are intentionally connected (Gabelnick et al., 1990; Inkelas & Soldner, 2011).
Shapiro and Levine (1999) combined the linked courses and clustered courses from
23
Gabelnick et al. to create “paired or clustered courses.” Paired or clustered courses follow
the model of linking two courses using a cohort or block-scheduling model.
Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs). FIGs use the clustered course model, but
focus solely on first-year students. FIGs help first-year students with the transition to
college by creating intentional connections to a variety of student support services. Many
FIGs employ peer advisors or mentors to help assist these first-year students with their
transition to the university (Gabelnick et al., 1990; Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). Shapiro and
Levine (1999) based their “cohorts in large courses” on the FIG and federated learning
community typology.
Federated learning communities and coordinated studies. Federated learning
communities are clustered courses organized around a particular topic such as business,
technology, or ethics. Students are provided an opportunity to enroll in a series of courses
that are related by the selected topic. A faculty member, who is not an instructor for any
of the courses, assists students with understanding and relating to the different course
curricula (Gabelnick et al., 1990; Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). Coordinated studies provide
faculty and students a more focused opportunity where students only take courses based
on a particular theme during a specified period of time. Then, the faculty of those courses
teach only topics related to the identified theme. Shapiro and Levine (1999) referred to
coordinated studies as “team-taught programs.”
Curricular learning communities. Subdivided into three categories, curricular
learning communities include: cross-curricular learning communities, curricular cohort
learning communities, and curricular area learning communities (Lenning & Ebbers,
1999; Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). Lenning and Ebbers (1999) interpreted all five of
24
Gabelnick et al.’s (1990) learning community typologies (linked courses, learning
clusters, freshman interest groups, federated learning communities, coordinated studies)
as “cross-curricular learning communities” (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). Lenning and
Ebbers used Gabelnick et al.’s (1990) description of linked courses as the basis for
describing cross-curricular learning communities as “purposely restructure(ing) the
curriculum to link together courses or course work so that students find great coherence
in what they are learning as well as increased intellectual interaction with faculty and
fellow students” (Gabelnick et al., 1990, p. 5). Curricular cohort learning communities
are those programs where students register for the same courses at the same throughout
an entire program (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). If students miss or drop out of a course
within their cohort, they must typically wait until the next cohort cycle to register.
Curricular area learning communities are described as traditional coursework focused on
a specific academic major. The method uses the traditional major model where juniors
and seniors often are enrolled in common courses to leverage interactions with peers and
faculty (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999).
Classroom learning communities. Classroom learning communities are further
subdivided into two categories: total-classroom learning communities and within-
classroom learning communities (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). Total-classroom learning
communities are based on the idea of the classroom being a learning community, such as
in elementary schools. Teachers work to create a sense of “family” within their classroom
and students view themselves as members (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). Within the context
of a college classroom, the challenges of creating a total-classroom learning community
25
are the timing and structure. In an effort to create a total-classroom learning community,
Lenning and Ebbers (1999) recommended that instructors:
Integrate the concept of democracy in their classrooms.
Create a caring learning environment that meets the “real” needs of the
students.
Helps to facilitate discussions rather than lecture.
Use innovative approaches involving sequential and developmental learning
activities.
Act as a change agent.
Within-classroom learning communities are created when intentional smaller
groups such as collaborative projects, group projects, and team learning are developed
from the larger overall class. The main focus with this concept of learning community is
to empower the students to engage in their own learning. This allows the instructor to
facilitate and support active learning rather than simply having students be passive
learners (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Inkelas & Soldner, 2011).
Special population or Student-type learning communities. Special population
learning communities, or student-type learning communities, begin to focus on the types
of students within the learning community rather than the structure of the learning
community. Love and Tokuno (1999) developed six types of learning communities based
on the following types of students:
Academically underprepared students
Students from underrepresented groups
Student with disabilities
26
Honors programs
Student with specific academic interests and
Residential students
Each of these learning communities would focus on the overall needs of those
within each group. For academically underprepared students, the LC would provide
resources to assist with academic advising, basic skills, and university navigation. For
underrepresented students, the LC would provide resources to assist with finding mentors
and supporting specific social and culture backgrounds (e.g., Hispanic Americans). For
students with disabilities, the LC would provide resources to assist with finding support
services, academic accommodations, and educating the campus community about
students with disabilities. For honors students, the LC would usually provide specific
courses and activities reserved only for honors students. For students with specific
academic interests (e.g., English, law, or engineering), the LC groups these students as a
cohort where they take the same classes (e.g. linked-course or clustered course).
Residential students are addressed more in depth in under the subsequent section
“Residence-based Programs (LLCs);” however, Love and Tokuno (1999) simply
classified this LC as being within the residence halls (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). These
types of learning communities break away from the assumption that students are entering
college as a homogeneous group. Rather, students are heterogeneous with different
interests, abilities, and needs (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). Student-type learning
communities allow for students to be divided into meaningful learning groups based on
needs, ability, and academic interest (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999).
27
Residence-based programs (LLCs). When researchers such as Gabelnick et al.
(1990) originally began creating their typologies for learning communities, they did not
include residence-based programs (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). It was not until later that
Shapiro and Levine (1999) included an LLC typology, and even then simply described
them as “adapt(ing) a particular curricular model (linked courses, clustered courses,
FIGs) to include a residential component” (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011).
Schoem (2004) proposed that LLCs encompass a wide variety of educational
initiatives based on individual college and university mission and goals. However, he
categorized LLCs as being in one of three categories: residential colleges, residential
learning communities, or residential education programs. The residential college model
dates back to the Oxford residential colleges in England, and then in the United States at
Harvard and Yale (Schoem, 2004). Even within the area of residential colleges, there are
a variety of models. Schoem (2004) offers the following definition of residential colleges:
“a multiyear residential academic program, sometimes degree granting or offering an
academic concentration, whose primary feature is that it provides substantial faculty
involvement with students through one or more means such as course, tutorials, advising,
or live-in arrangements” (p. 140). Residential learning communities are those LLCs that
integrate a curricular learning community model such as linked courses, clustered
courses, or FIGs (Laufgraben, Shapiro, & Associates, 2004; Schoem, 2004). The goal of
residential learning communities is to integrate the students’ living environment with
their academic experiences (Laufgraben et al., 2004). Residential education programs are
those LLCs that are not residential colleges and do not fit the framework of residential
learning communities (Schoem, 2004). These types of LLCs are often structured around a
28
common theme or area of interest such as international culture, world events, or
environmental sustainability (Schoem, 2004). Instead of being focused on an academic
curriculum, residential education programs focus on singular co-curricular activities such
as dinners, lectures, and discussions (Schoem, 2004).
While there is still an ongoing debate about the structure and definition of LLCs,
it is the living in residence aspect of the LLC, regardless of the exact title or specific
structure that separates the LLC from other learning communities (see Appendices B and
C for a listing of typologies and definitions). Many of the LLCs focus on helping support
undergraduate students’ transition to college by creating linkages between the academic,
co-curricular, and residential environments (Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Leonard, 2007;
Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). This partnership between the residence life area and academic
affairs provides opportunities for faculty and staff to engage students outside the
classroom and directly within the residence hall. In many cases, faculty teach courses
from classrooms specifically designed within the residence hall (Laufgraben et al., 2004).
In support of the LLC’s mission, the residence life staff develop activities such as study
sessions, programs, lectures, and seminars within the residence hall. The residence hall
provides an academically supportive environment outside the classroom where students
and faculty can engage in intellectual discussions, reflection, and discovery (Schoem,
2004). Often these interactions are linked with social and cultural concerns specific to the
unique population of the LLC (Schoem, 2004). Students are often better able to relate the
information provided in the classroom to real-life experiences. This begins to transform
the culture of learning from being only in the classroom to being a “never-ending series
of lectures, exams, quizzes, papers, and grades to a core component of one’s identity,
29
discussions, creativity, discovery, values, relationships, community, worldview, and life
and professional choices” (Schoem, 2004, p. 132).
Challenges of creating and sustaining living-learning communities. LLCs are
often recognized for their ability to provide a feeling of community, rich learning
environment, innovative teaching methods, and sense of pride for students and faculty
(Schoem, 2004). However, the lack of a universally agreed upon LLC structure and
definition, combined with a uniqueness of the variety of colleges and universities, often
result in LLCs not reaching their full potential (Schoem, 2004). LLCs are often
complicated to create and sustain because of the required commitment from a variety of
areas: housing, residence life, faculty and deans, and academic colleges (Laufgraben et
al., 2004; Shapiro & Levine, 1999). Additional challenges include the following:
allowing non-LLC members to live in the designated LLC hall/area; irregular faculty
involvement; lack of administrative and financial support; sustaining student engagement
and community building; assessment; and fear of risk taking and innovation (Inkelas &
Soldner, 2011; Schoem, 2004).
Institutional relationships, political environments, and lean budgetary times create
a difficult environment to create and sustain LLCs. Often within a single LLC, there are
varying levels of support from the administration, faculty, and student affairs staff.
Administrators may devote financial resources to the creation and sustainability of LLCs.
Faculty can decide their level of involvement and participation. Student affairs staff help
encourage student involvement through marketing and programming. The partnership
between academic and students affairs is important and should be based on shared
educational goals, trust, and mutual respect. Issues that may impact this relationship
30
include: control over physical space; budget allocation; hiring and evaluation processes
and procedures; teaching calendars and time commitment; and terminology associated
with the LLC (Schoem, 2004). Schoem (2004) noted there is often a lack of
understanding between the role of academic affairs and student affairs: faculty may not
be familiar with student affairs, and probably have not been inside a residence hall for
several years. On the other hand, according to Schoem (2004), student affairs staff
probably have not had the opportunity to teach courses or understand the life of a faculty
member. Created as individual programs, LLCs are not setup within the overall
institutional budget (Schoem, 2004). Often, individual academic departments or student
affairs departments, such as housing, will fund the LLCs. The challenge becomes
deciding how to allocate funds and how to sustain funding, especially in lean budgetary
times. Related to funding are faculty involvement and the reward structure of the
institution. In many cases, faculty volunteer their time working with the LLC. Working
with an LLC in not usually included in the faculty time and reward structure. Faculty
often volunteers their time because they enjoy working with students (Schoem, 2004).
Characteristics for successful living-learning communities. While there are
several challenges to creating and sustaining LLCs, there are several factors that help
contribute to their success, including director commitment, faculty involvement,
academic and student affairs partnerships, administrative champions, and program quality
(Schoem, 2004). Having a strong LLC director to oversee and direct the mission, vision,
and goals is an important component. The LLC director also involves faculty, fosters
relationships between academic and student affairs, and ensures program quality.
Involving faculty helps to create and sustain the academic link of the LLC. Faculty often
31
give the LLC “credit” within the academic environment, helping to raise program quality
and notoriety. Successful LLCs find a way to create effective partnerships between
academic affairs and student affairs. These partnerships focus on student success and
learning by navigating the political and institutional environments. Having senior
administrative support from someone like a provost, dean of students, or college dean
helps to align the objectives of the LLC with the institutions’ mission and vision. This
alignment often results in stable financial support from the institution or individual
college. Creating an LLC with these characteristics helps to develop a high standard of
program quality. Successful LLCs often create their own “brand” helping to recruit
additional faculty, staff, and students (see Appendix D for a list of examples of
successfully created LLCs) (Schoem, 2004).
Brower and Inkelas (2010) also credited successful LLCs as having the following
characteristics:
1. Creating a strong student affairs and academic affairs partnership by
a. Developing well-defined program objectives for faculty, staff, and
students.
b. Maintaining communication among all faculty, staff, and students.
c. Establishing a shared budget.
2. Identifying clear learning objectives with a strong academic focus by
a. Having at least one credit-bearing course specifically for LLC participants.
b. Establishing an intentional study area within the residence hall of the LLC.
32
c. Creating co-curricular activities that support the academic objectives of
the LLC such as internships, service learning, collaborative research, and
career-development workshops.
3. Capitalizing on the community setting to support learning whenever and
wherever by
a. Intentional programming, staff training, budgeting, student discipline, hall
governance, etc.
b. Purposeful design of the physical space (residence hall) to include study
lounges, faculty offices, faculty apartments, multipurpose rooms, etc.
c. Engaging faculty, staff, and students in multiple roles such as instructor,
mentor, advisor, and counselor.
d. Creating high and intentional engagement throughout all aspects of the
LLC.
e. Assist faculty with maximizing the use of the residence hall space (p. 42).
While creating and sustaining successful LLCs may be challenging, it is not
impossible. LLCs can be successful if there are intentional partnerships based on trust.
Additionally, LLCs need to create specific learning objectives focused on student
learning and development.
Benefits of living-learning communities. LLCs help to provide a unique and
intentional structure for both academic and social support. Students and faculty are often
paired into smaller groups allowing for more one-on-one interactions (Shapiro & Levine,
1999). Course curriculum is often integrated through linked or paired courses and
incorporated in students’ living environment through study groups, seminars, and
33
discussions. Often, LLCs are associated with academic gains such as critical thinking,
intellectual development, and aesthetic appreciation (Kuh, Douglas, Lund, & Ramin-
Gyurnek, 1994). The living environment provides opportunities for students to engage
with peers, thus reinforcing the values, attributes, behaviors, and skills needed to be a
successful member of the community (Shapiro & Levine, 1999). Many LLCs are
specifically designed to help students with their transition from high school to college.
CAS (2014) believes institutions with successful LLCs should report the
following outcomes related to student participation compared to traditional residence hall
students:
Smoother transition to college, both academically and socially.
Stronger sense of belonging, including feeling that the institution is less
overwhelming.
Increased first-to-second year retention.
Increased persistence toward graduation.
Higher levels of academic self-confidence.
Greater integration of students’ academic and non-academic lives.
Increased participation and engagement in academic and co-curricular
programs.
Increased involvement in volunteer opportunities and/or enrollment in service-
learning courses.
Greater likelihood of serving as a mentor for other students.
More frequent integration and application of knowledge from different
sources across contexts (e.g., other courses or personal experiences).
34
Universities and colleges nationwide have developed LLCs as a part of first-year
experience programs to provide resources such as academic advising, tutoring, and
mentoring (Laufgraben et al., 2004). It is not just students who benefit from participating
in LLCs. Faculty can benefit as well. They have the opportunity to engage and
collaborate with other faculty members. CAS (2014) notes that successful LLCs should
report increased involvement and opportunities for rewards and recognition for LLC
faculty and staff. Other outcomes for LLC faculty and staff include greater collaboration,
enhanced communication, and a better understanding of student development.
Research Studies of Living-Learning Communities
Research studies about LLCs are divided into two categories: outcome-oriented
and practice-oriented. Outcome-oriented studies focus on student outcomes using
quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research design. Practice-oriented studies
focus on the processes of establishing and operating an LLC using quantitative,
qualitative, or mixed-methods design.
Outcome-oriented studies. Inkelas and Soldner (2011) summarized several
empirical studies conducted between 1980 and 2010. Their research led them to
categorize several categories related to the LLC research (see Appendix E for a listing of
various LLC empirically-based research studies):
Performance, persistence, and attainment
Intellectual development
Faculty and peer interactions
College transition
Campus life and
35
Attitudes and beliefs
Additionally, the NSLLP consisted of two surveys conducted in 2004 and 2007.
This comprehensive longitudinal study was based on Astin’s (1993) “Input-Environment-
Outcome” model. The study classified inputs as gender, race/ethnicity,
citizenship/generational status, parental education, and high school achievement. The
environments consisted of academic class standing and financial aid, interactions with
peers and faculty, use of residence hall resources and residence hall climate, diversity,
and time spent on curricular and co-curricular activities. The study then focused on
assessing LLCs impact on student outcomes such as social and academic transition,
intellectual abilities and growth, confidence in academic, collegiate, and professional
success, alcohol use, diversity, civic engagement, sense of belonging, and grade point
average (Inkelas & Associates, 2007). Although these studies are based on empirical
data, they are not without their challenges. Inkelas and Soldner (2011) pointed out one of
the biggest challenges is that students self-select to participate in an LLC. Therefore, it is
nearly impossible to conduct a true experiment using random sampling. Additionally,
with the exception of the NSLLP, many of the research studies involve only a single
institution or LLC, thus making it challenging to draw generalized conclusions. However,
these studies do offer empirical data and when combined with the practitioner-based
studies provide institutions with a guide for creating and sustaining LLCs.
Mayhew, Dahl, and Youngerman’s (2015) Study of Integrated Living Learning
Programs (SILLP) picked up where the NSLLP left off. The SILLP pilot study, which
consisted of almost 3,000 responses from students from seven institutions across the
United States (Mayhew et al.). Using Astin’s (1993) I-E-O model as the theoretical
36
framework, the SILLP pilot study focused on student living-learning experiences and
student outcomes. The SILLP is an on-going study seeking to understand the influence of
living learning programs on the academic, intellectual, and social development of college
students.
Practice-oriented studies. Much of the literature involving LLCs tends to be
practitioner-based, citing “best practices” or “lessons learned” (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011).
The Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I)
has even developed an annual conference, the ACUHO-I Living-Learning Programs
Conference, where practitioners and administrators can share this information. Members
of ACUHO-I can search past conference presentations and related information offering a
treasure trove of best practices, lessons learned, and recommendations for creating and
sustaining LLCs. The focus of these resources is often to provide recommendations based
on the experience of LLCs created at individual institutions. Inkelas and Soldner (2011)
summarized many of the practitioner studies and offer six general practices for LLCs:
Establish a clear vision and objectives.
Solicit campus leadership and support.
Form academic and student affairs partnerships.
Seek and maintain faculty involvement.
Facilitate peer interaction and a healthy residence hall climate, and
Integrate and assess LLC activities.
These six general practices for LLCs outlined by Inkelas and Soldner (2011) align
with the characteristics for creating successful LLCs. Within these studies the researchers
may provide empirical data; however, the studies are often restricted to a single LLC or
37
institution (see Appendix E for a listing of LLC studies and their focus). Inkelas and
Soldner (2011) also pointed out a few critiques of the practitioner-based studies: lack of
specific or precise definition of an LLC, lack of comprehensive LLC typology, and lack
of empirical data to support the “best practice” research. These critiques are not
surprising or new; however, they do provide a context for future researcher to consider
when developing future studies.
Living-Learning Communities Today
While the concept of LLCs has been around since the 1920s, many of the LLCs
we see today are relatively new. According to the NSLLP 2007 survey, only 16% of the
programs had been around for at least 10 years. However, 17% were in their first year
and 38% had only existed between two and four years (Soldner & Szelenyi, 2008). Most
LLCs today consist of an average of 50 students who live on a designated floor within a
residence hall. Due to the nature of LLCs being housed within a residence hall, most are
entirely or at least partially under the responsibility of student affairs (Soldner &
Szelenyi, 2008; NSLLP, 2007). Many LLCs involve collaboration between academic
affairs and student affairs involving components from each area (Jones, 2000). Residence
life staff members often handle the day-to-day operation of the LLCs with a faculty
member acting as director. Institutional expenditures on LLCs range from $5,000 to
$21,000. To help offset this cost, some institutions charge students additional fees for
participating in an LLC. However, most institutions charged the standard room rate based
on the type of residence hall or room type (Soldner & Szelenyi, 2008; NSLLP, 2007).
Institutions have created a variety of LLCs to focus on a number issues. Some LLCs are
geared toward specific academic programs such as engineering, honors, or science.
38
Others focus on meeting the needs of a specific group of student such as international,
Hispanic, Black, Asian, students with disabilities, transfer, first-year, or first-generation.
At other institutions, students create LLCs based on their interests. (see Appendix A for a
partial listing of institutions with the LLCs they offer).
Both outcome and practice-oriented studies tend to include demographic variables
such as race and gender as part of their descriptive statistics (Pascarella & Terenzini,
1980; Inkelas, et al., 2006; Wawrzynski & Jessup-Anger, 2010; and Baker, 2013). Some
research goes beyond simply describing race/ethnicity and gender as descriptive
statistics; such studies further analyze data by race/ethnicity and gender (Inkelas, et al.,
2006; Baker, 2013). Baker (2013) does not appear to base his research results related to
gender on specific theories. Rather, variables such as gender are studied to understand the
impacts of LLCs. Other research focused specifically on race/ethnicity or gender and the
impacts of LLCs (Jones, 2003; Brewley, 2010; Yao & Wawrzynski, 2013; Mann, 2013).
Yao and Wawrzynski (2013) used Astin’s input-environment-outcome (I-E-O) model to
understand the influence of LLCs on men’s awareness and appreciation of diversity. No
statistically significant results were found for men who participated in LLCs compared to
men who lived in traditional residence halls (Yao & Wawrzynski, 2013). Mann’s (2013)
research looked at the relationship of ethnic identity and LLCs. Gender was initially
analyzed but no statistically significant results were found and later dropped from further
analysis. Brewley’s (2010) research focused on the impacts of LLCs on specific ethnic
groups and found no statistically significant results.
Summary. This chapter provided a brief overview of the history and explanation
of the various structures of LLCs. It explained the benefits and challenges with creating
39
and sustaining LLCs. Additionally, it presented an overview of the types of research
studies conducted previously and concluded with an outline of how LLCs are
implemented at institutions today.
40
CHAPTER 3: Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not first-year freshman
students in an LLC were retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman students not in
an LLC. I conducted this study using archival data from a public, comprehensive, state
university located in the Pacific Northwest, which will be referred to with the pseudonym
“Pacific Northwest University” (PNU). This study used a quantitative approach that is
standard in scientific and educational research to test the hypotheses. These analyses
allowed me to test whether first-year freshman students participating in LLCs had better
retention rates than did those who did not participate in LLCs. According to the
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (2017), in fall 2014 PNU had a 79%
first-to-second-year retention rate for full-time, first-time, bachelor’s degree seeking
undergraduates. I also analyzed first-year freshman students’ rate of developing peer
connections, faculty interactions, and being academically engaged at PNU. The purposes
of these additional analyses were to better understand the relationships between retention
and the specific features of LLCs.
Participants
The student population selected for this study included only students who were
given the Skyfactor Making Achievement Possible (MAP)-Works First Year Fall
Transition Survey (MAP-Works). The criteria used to determine if students were given
MAP-Works included all full-time freshman students. A full-time freshman is defined as
being enrolled in an undergraduate program with more than seven credits, which included
classes where the credits were not counted toward the students’ grade point average for
41
the undergraduate degree. Excluded from the survey were students who were classified
by the University as English as a Second Language (ESL), Running Start, staff, campuses
other than the main campus, and on-line students.
The study participants were limited to those students who were assigned to live in
a residence hall and fully completed the (MAP)-Works survey. Excluded from the sample
were students assigned to live in on-campus apartments, living off-campus, and students
with incomplete survey data. In fall 2014, a total of 1,483 first-year freshmen were
provided the MAP-Works survey and 166 of the 1,483 had selected to participate in an
LLC. Of the 1,483 first year freshmen, excluded were 261 students who lived off campus,
35 who lived in on-campus apartments, 3 outliers who had no housing information, and
313 students with incomplete survey data.
The adjusted sample for the study included 871 first-year freshmen living in
residence halls during fall 2014 with 138 first-year freshman participating in an LLC.
There were two samples: an LLC group and a non-LLC group. Within the LLC group,
students had voluntarily selected to participate in one of the 11 LLCs: Flight Technology,
Business, Latino/Latina Studies, Education, Sustainability, International House,
Leadership, Music, Science, Civil Rights, or Honors.1 The participants within the sample
were 44.8% male and 55.2% female. Within the LLC group 42.8% male and 57.2%
female. Furthermore, 62.3% of the sample was White, 11.8% was Hispanic, 9.2% was
two or more races, 5.7% was Nonresident alien, 4.2% was Black/African American; and
3.1% was Asian, 1.5% Race/ethnicity unknown, 1.3% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander, and 0.8% American Indian or Alaska Native. The racial/ethnic composition of
the LLC group included: 62.3% White, 15.9% Hispanic, 8.0% two or more races, 1.4%
42
Nonresident alien, 4.3% Black/African American, 4.3% Asian, 2.2% Race/ethnicity
unknown, 1.4% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 0% American Indian or
Alaska Native. Also, 81.3% of students reported not having decided on a major and
18.7% reported having decided on a major. Within the LLC group 13.8% reported
declaring a major and within the non LLC group 19.6% reported declaring a major. (see
Appendix F for composition of gender and race/ethnicity of the LLC groups and non-
LLC.)
Instrumentation
PNU administered the Making Achievement Possible (MAP)-Works First Year
Fall Transition Survey (MAP-Works) assessment to all first-year freshmen students
during fall 2014. MAP-Works has been administered since 2009 at PNU, but only data
for 2014 academic year were sampled. The MAP-Works survey consisted of categorical,
scaled, and open-ended questions. The categorical questions allowed the respondent to
select from a predefined list of answers (male, female, other) or were yes/no closed-
ended questions. The scaled questions relied on a 7-point Likert scale from (1): strongly
disagree to (7): strongly agree. The open-ended questions were designed to encourage a
meaningful answer from the participant. The MAP-Works survey contained 201 total
questions. This archival study used three closed-ended and three scaled questions. (see
Table 1 for a list of the specific questions used from MAP-Works)
Data Collection
I selected PNU as a matter of convenience, but it offers the advantage of being
similar to many other institutions that make use of LLCs, allowing the results presumably
to generalize more readily to such institutions. I selected the department because I had
43
first-hand experience and knowledge of the LLCs and assessment methods used to
evaluate areas such as faculty and peer interactions and academic engagement. At PNU,
the department administered MAP-Works electronically to all first-year freshman in fall
2014. The department identified those students who had selected to participate in an LLC
through their office using Adirondack’s Housing Director Software (Adirondack
Solutions, Inc., 2016). The residence life staff reminded students to check their university
email and complete the survey. After the initial email with the survey information was
sent out to students, those failing to complete it were sent a follow-up email encouraging
them to do so.
Constructs
The study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of LLCs and determine their
impact on retention of first-year freshmen students. To examine the hypotheses, I
conducted a chi-square test to examine the relationship between retention and LLC status.
I also analyzed three intermediate constructs using t-tests. I used MAP-Works question
Q075, “on this campus, to what degree are you connecting with people who share
common interest with you” as the measure to understand peer connections. I used MAP-
Works question Q052, “to what degree are you the kind of person who communicates
with instructors outside of class” as the measure to understand faculty engagement. I used
MAP-Works question Q051 “to what degree are you the kind of person who participates
in class” as the measure to understand academic engagement.
Table 1 shows the variables (dependent and independent variables) used in this
study, along with information about their possible range. The dependent variable for this
study was retention. (Is a first-year student retained? Yes or No?) The independent
44
variable included from MAP-Works used to determine peer connections was connecting
with people who share common interests. The variable used to determine faculty
interactions was communication outside of class. The variable used to determine
academic engagement was participation in class. (See Table 1 for specific description of
each variable.)
Table 1
Definition and Operationalization of Constructs
2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall Transition SurveyFull variable name
SPSS variable name
Description of Variable (Question from MAP-Works)
Coding instructions Source
Identification number
ID Participate ID Whole number Provided as part of data set.
Sex Sex Sex of student as reported on survey
0=Male, 1=Female, 2=Other
As self-reported on the 2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall Transition
Race/Ethnicity Race Race/Ethnicity of student as reported on survey
0=Nonresident alien, 1=Race/ethnicity unknown, 2=Hispanic of any race, 3=American Indian or Alaska Native, 4=Asian, 5=Black or African American, non-Hispanic, 6=Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 7=White, non-Hispanic, 8=Two or more races
University data request: as self-reported on the 2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall Transition
Member of an LLC
LLC Member of an LLC as reported by the student
0=No, 1=Yes University data request from University Housing
Academic Engagement
Participation To what degree are you the kind of person who participates in class
1 to 7-Likert scale. 1=Not at all, 2, 3, 4=Half the time, 5, 6, 7=Always; 99=Not applicable
University data request: 2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall Transition Survey –Q051
45
2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall Transition SurveyFull variable name
SPSS variable name
Description of Variable (Question from MAP-Works)
Coding instructions Source
Faculty Interaction
Communication To what degree are you the kind of person who communicates with instructors outside of class
1 to 7-Likert scale. 1=Not at all, 2, 3, 4=Half the time, 5, 6, 7=Always; 99=Not applicable
University data request: 2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall Transition Survey –Q052
Peer Connections
Peers On this campus, to what degree are you connecting with people who share common interest with you
1 to 7-Likert scale. 1=Not at all, 2, 3, 4=Moderately, 5, 6, 7=Extremely; 99=Not applicable
University data request: 2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall Transition Survey –Q075
Student retained for fall 2015
Retained Enrolled as a full-time student for fall 2015
0=No, 1=Yes University Data Request
Data Analysis
To examine the hypotheses, I conducted linear regression to determine whether
retention depends on LLC status. I next examined the relationship between LLC status
and the various experience variables: peer connections, faculty interactions, and academic
engagement. Linear regression is an appropriate analysis because the goal of this research
is to determine a correlation between variables to predict retention. Linear regression
provides a simple way to model the ability to predict one variable (the dependent
variable) from another variable (the independent variable) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012).
The following regression equation was used: y = bx + a; where y = estimated dependent
variable, b = regression coefficient, c = constant, and x = independent variable. The t-test
was used to determine the significance of the predictor, and beta coefficients were used to
determine the magnitude and direction of the relationship (Statistics Solutions, 2013). I
used the t-test to examine the means of the LLC and non-LLC group.
I also used forward stepwise regression to predict retention from LLC status and
46
the experience variables. I wanted to first determine if retention depends on LLC status.
Then, I wanted to understand of the variables selected within peer connections, faculty
interactions, and academic engagement, which had the most impact related to LLC status.
A quantitative analysis method was the best suited for testing these hypotheses. Forward
stepwise regression allowed for creating a model starting with no a priori final set of
constructs. Then, I added individual constructs to determine the effect on the model (Dell
Inc., 2015). The construct with the smallest alpha was added first to the empty model.
Each step thereafter then added the construct with the smallest alpha in relation to the
constructs already present in the model (Dallal, 2012). Each construct added to the model
had a p-value < .05. The analysis stopped once constructs had a p-value > .05. This
allowed me to build a model and determine the effect of each construct as it was added.
When using any kind of statistical tests it is possible for a Type I or Type II error
to occur. In a Type I error, the null hypothesis is incorrectly rejected. Stated another way,
the model detects an effect that is not actually present. In a Type II error, the model fails
to detect an effect that is actually present. Additionally, the method of adding constructs
one at a time may not create the “best” possible model in terms of total amount of
variance predicted. The goal of the model was to intentionally focus on the specific
constructs closely related to retention and the student outcomes of peer connections,
faculty interactions, and academic engagement.
The strengths of using stepwise regression are the model is relatively easy to use
and understand, and it results in a parsimonious model that provides a reasonably optimal
prediction of the criterion (Hunt, 2011; Maxwell, 2009). I used SPSS Version 24.0
(International Business Machines, 2016) to analyze the data.
47
Finally, I calculated a table of correlations that included LLC status, peer
connections, faculty interactions, academic engagement, and retention. I set alpha at p
= .05 (two-tailed) for testing these correlations. The null hypothesis for my study was
there were no relationships between LLC status and peer connections, faculty
interactions, academic engagement, and retention. I reduced the number of such tests to
these four to minimize the risk of experiment-wise error rate (and thus reporting a
significant relationship when none in fact existed, also known as a Type I error). From
there, I was able to better understand the degree to which LLC status was associated with
these constructs. Specifically, this information helped me to determine if first-year
students in an LLC were retained at a higher rate than first-year students not in an LLC.
Delimitations
The purpose of this study was to understand whether or not participation in an
LLC resulted in improved retention rate in a higher education institution. I made a
number of decisions delimiting the possible sample. First, I selected first-year students. I
might have considered retention in any student population, but attrition tends to be a
special problem for many institutions among first-year students, so that was where I
placed my focus given constraints in resources. In addition, first-year students represent
the largest single cohort of students (of any single year) at the target institution, as well as
at most institutions, and relatively larger sample sizes are desirable. Second, I selected a
single, mid-sized comprehensive, public university. I did this for two reasons: I had
access to the data for the institution, so there was a strong argument from the perspective
of it being a convenience sample; a second and compelling argument is that this type of
institution is similar to that of many other institutions in the United States, and that I
48
assumed that the results might generalize well to the broader population educated through
those institutions. Third, I chose to not examine data from LLCs at other institutions in
this study. There were two reasons for this: I had neither the resources nor time to enlist
participation of other institutions; and there can be substantial variably in the design and
function of LLCs across institutions. I wanted to focus on a single LLC, describe it well,
and then test the hypothesis for that particular design of an LLC. My hope would be that
subsequent research, perhaps through use of meta-analyses, might “knit together” data
from multiple designs should it emerge that there exists substantial variability across LLC
design in retention based on LLC participation. Fourth, I decided to conduct a
quantitative study, and specifically one based on linear and multiple regression, because
such a methodology was consistent with the goal of testing hypotheses related to
prediction of one variable from another variable or variables; this method likewise
supported testing of the key hypothesis identified for the study. Any other methods that I
might use to achieve these goals would likely be both needlessly more complex as well as
possibly not deliver the most direct way to test the key hypothesis.
Limitations
This research study examined LLCs at a single, mid-sized comprehensive, public
university. As a result, generalizing the findings may not be as applicable to other types
of universities. However, the variety and flexibility of LLC structures allow for alignment
of program design with the unique needs and goals of each university. This makes LLCs
a viable choice for many types of colleges and universities (Buch & Spaulding, 2011).
Also, as noted above, subsequent research might serve to tease-apart any variability that
emerges between particular elements of LLC design and student retention.
49
CHAPTER 4: Results and Analysis
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not first-year freshman
students in an LLC were retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman students not in
an LLC. I conducted this study using archival data from PNU, a public, comprehensive,
state university located in the Pacific Northwest. I also analyzed intermediate constructs
of first-year freshman students’ rate of connecting with people who share common
interests, communication with faculty outside of class, and class participation. These
constructs were grouped into the following categories: developing peer connections,
engaging with faculty, and being involved academically at PNU. The purposes of these
additional analyses were to better understand the relationships between retention and the
specific features of LLCs.
Retention. Controlling for the descriptive variables of gender, race/ethnicity, and
major declaration, a Chi-square test for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction)
indicated no significant association between gender and LLC status, X2 (1, n = 871) = .18,
p = .67, phi = .02 or major declaration and LLC status, X2 (1, n = 871) = 2.265, p = .132,
phi = -.055. A Chi-square test for independence was used to determine if there was an
association between race/ethnicity and LLC status; however, 4 cells (22.2%) had an
expected count less than 5 when the minimum expected count was 1.11. (See Appendix F
for additional information related to the Chi-square tests.)
Analysis showed there were a higher percentage of students retained who were in
the LLC group (85.5%) compared to students in the non-LLC group (78.9%). The
retention percentage of 85.5% for the LLC group was also higher when compared to the
50
total population of 79.9%. However, a Chi-square test for independence (with Yates
Continuity Correction) indicated no significant association between LLC status and
retention, X2 (1, n = 871) = 2.801, p = .094, phi = .061. Therefore, it appears there is no
association between LLC status and retention. Table 2 provides a summary of the
analysis comparing the LLC group and non-LLC group with retention to fall 2015.
Using SPSS version 24, a forward stepwise linear regression model was
conducted to determine which variables best explained retention. However, none of the
variables (gender, race/ethnicity, LLC status, peer connections, faculty interactions, and
academic engagement) contributes to an effective multivariate model to explain retention.
51
Table 2
LLC Status and Retention for fall 2015LLC
TotalNo YesRetained for fall 2015 No Count 155 20 175
% within Retained for fall 2015
88.6% 11.4% 100.0%
% within LLC 21.1% 14.5% 20.1%% of Total 17.8% 2.3% 20.1%
Yes Count 578 118 696% within Retained for fall 2015
83.0% 17.0% 100.0%
% within LLC 78.9% 85.5% 79.9%% of Total 66.4% 13.5% 79.9%
Total Count 733 138 871% within Retained for fall 2015
84.2% 15.8% 100.0%
% within LLC 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%% of Total 84.2% 15.8% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic Significance
(2-sided)Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.202a 1 .074
Continuity Correctionb 2.801 1 .094Likelihood Ratio 3.417 1 .065Fisher's Exact Test .082 .044Linear-by-Linear Association
3.198 1 .074
N of Valid Cases 871a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 27.73.b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
52
Peer connections. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the
rate of developing peer connections between first-year freshman that were either in an
LLC or not in an LLC. I used MAP-Works question Q075, “on this campus, to what
degree are you connecting with people who share common interest with you” as the
measure to understand peer connections.
There was a significant difference in scores regarding level of connection with
students who share similar interests for the LLC group (M = 5.59, SD = 1.642) and non-
LLC group (M = 5.23, SD = 1.562) and; t (866) = -2.469, p = .014, two-tailed). The
magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = -.361, 95% CI: -.648 to
-.074) was small (eta squared = 0.007).
Based on the independent samples t-test, it appears the level of connection with
students who share similar interests was statistically significant. (see Appendix G, Figure
G1 for summary of t-test related to peer connections.)
Faculty interactions. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare
the level of faculty interactions outside the classroom for residential first-year freshman
who were either in an LLC or not in an LLC. I used MAP-Works question Q052, “to
what degree are you the kind of person who communicates with instructors outside of
class” as the measure to understand faculty interactions.
There was no significant difference in scores regarding the level of
communication with faculty outside the classroom for the LLC group (M = 4.87, SD =
1.552) and non-LLC group (M = 4.58, SD = 1.738) and; t (866) = -1.804, p = .072, two-
tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = -.287, 95% CI:
-.600 to .025) was small (eta squared = 0.004). Communication with faculty outside the
53
classroom does not appear to be a statistically significant measure between the LLC
group and non-LLC group. (see Appendix G, Figure G2 for summary of t-test related to
faculty interactions.)
Academic engagement. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to
compare the level of academic engagement for residential first-year freshman who were
either in an LLC or not in an LLC. I used MAP-Works question Q051 “to what degree
are you the kind of person who participates in class” as the measure to understand
academic engagement.
There was a significant difference in scores regarding the level of participation in
class for the LLC group (M = 5.83, SD = 1.187) and non-LLC group (M = 5.59, SD =
1.342) and; t (867) = -1.991, p = .047, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in
the means (mean difference = -.244, 95% CI: -.484 to -.003) was small (eta squared =
0.005). Based on the independent samples t-test, it appears the level of level of
participation in class was statistically significant. (see Appendix G, Figure G3 for
summary of t-test related to academic engagement.)
54
CHAPTER 5: Discussion
Introduction
Over the last 30 years, United States higher education has been in the spotlight of
critics calling for numerous reforms, including retention. Student retention is one of the
ways to measure whether institutions meet the broad areas of student success and
satisfaction (Levitz, Noel, & Richter, 1999). Retention also serves as one of the most
visible institutional performance indicators (Kahrig, 2005). Therefore, the calls for a
more seamless educational experience for undergraduate students to bridge their
academic and personal lives has led to the creation of living-learning communities at
colleges and universities throughout the country (Inkelas, Vogt, Longerbeam, Owen, &
Johnson, 2006, p. 40). The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not first-
year freshman students in an LLC were retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman
students not in an LLC.
I conducted this quantitative study using archival data from “Pacific Northwest
University” (PNU, a pseudonym), a public, and comprehensive, state university located
in the Pacific Northwest.
Interpretation of results
Retention. This study used Tinto's (1987, 1993) "model of institutional
departure" to understand LLCs impact on retention. PNU was an example of how an
institution, using Tinto’s model, created LLCs as a means to create conditions for student
success and improve retention. These conditions included setting high expectations;
providing clear and consistent advising; establishing academic, social, and personal
support; recognizing students as valued members of the institution; and creating an
55
environment that fosters and encourages learning (Tinto, n.d, 2002). Tinto (n.d., 1987,
1993, 2004) suggests students enter the institution with a given set of knowledge, skills,
abilities, and other experiences. Then, those individuals interact within that system either
positively or negatively, coming to a final decision of staying or leaving. These
interactions within the institution include academic performance, faculty and staff
interactions, extracurricular activities, and peer group interactions (Tinto, n.d, 1987,
1993, 2004). One would expect, based on Tinto’s theory, that LLCs would have had an
impact on retention. The results from this study show a different conclusion.
Neither LLC status nor the other predictors examined were associated with higher
retention. There was also no statistically significant difference between race/ethnicity or
gender and LLC status. The implications of the results indicate that LLCs at PNU, as
currently designed do not produce higher retention as suggested by Tinto. Therefore, as a
higher education practice, institutions will need to assess and evaluate LLC design as it
relates to the institutional mission and vision. From a higher education policy perspective
(investment and funding decisions), institutions may need to determine if LLCs are truly
a value-added practice.
Student Outcomes. Astin’s (1984) “input-environment-outcome (I-E-O)” model
was used as a conceptual framework to understand whether LLCs were indeed able to
reduce the major reasons why students may decide to leave. Intermediate variables were
analyzed to determine if there was a relationship between being part of an LLC and peer
connections, faculty interactions, and academic engagement. The results were mixed.
Peer connections and academic engagement had a statistically significant result, while
faculty interactions did not. The implications of these results suggest when designing
56
LLCs it is important to create environments focused on providing opportunities for peer
connections and academic engagement.
Peer Connections. This study used the MAP-Works question, “on this campus
(PNU), to what degree are you connecting with people who share common interest with
you” to measure the rate of peer connections. There was a statistically significant result
related to peer connections between the LLC group and non-LLC group. This is
consistent with the current literature (Astin, 1977; Astin 1993; Gabelnick, et al., 1990;
Tinto, 1999, Inkelas, et al., 2007; CAS, 2014) regarding this particular student outcome.
According to Tinto (1999), the frequency and the quality of peer connections have been
shown to be independent predictors of student retention (p 5). However, in this study
there was no statistical significance indicating peer connections to be an independent
predictor of student retention. The impact of PNU’s LLCs on peer connections were
significant, indicating the LLCs provide the opportunity for students to connect with
peers who share a common interest. This would seem logical since LLCs intentionally
group students who report sharing similar interests. If peer connections are not directly
impacting retention, institutions will need to assess and evaluate the value-added of LLCs
related to possible other student outcomes. Regarding peer connections, successful LLCs
should be able to report students having a smoother social transition to college, stronger
sense of belonging, greater integration of student’s non-academic lives, and a greater
likelihood of serving as a mentor (CAS, 2014). Colleges and universities may want to
understand if peer connections are important to the mission and vision of the institution,
then investigate the impacts of the associated student outcomes of peer connections on
student success related to their mission and vision. This would allow administrators,
57
faculty, and staff to determine if, when, where, and how to allocate appropriate resources
that would support LLCs and their ability to create peer connections.
Faculty Interactions. This study used MAP-Works question, “to what degree are
you the kind of person who communicates with instructors outside of class” to measure
the rate of faculty interactions. There was not a statistically significant result related to
faculty interactions between the LLC group and non-LLC group. This is contrary to the
current literature (Garrett & Zabriskie, 2003; Brower & Inkelas, 2010; Schoem, 2004);
that literature supports the idea that students in an LLC have increased rates of
interactions with faculty. This may provide an opportunity for PNU as well as other
institutions to assess and evaluate student-faculty interactions. Academic and student
affairs professionals may want to consider redesigning their LLCs to find ways to create
both formal and informal ways for students and faculty to interact (Garret & Zabriskie,
2003). Aside from the potential benefits to students such as a smoother academic
transition to college, higher levels of academic self-confidence, and increased integration
of knowledge, there are several potential benefits for faculty (CAS, 2014). The
implications for faculty include being able to work with and get to know students on a
more individualized level (Inkelas, 2000). This relationship helps to create a learning
environment where both students and faculty can benefit from each other.
The design and structure of PNU’s current LLCs suggests that faculty did not
create all of them. Student support offices that have full-time staff, but not faculty,
facilitate some of the LLCs. Therefore, LLC design at PNU may have been the reason for
getting a result that runs counter to the current literature.
58
Academic Engagement. This study used MAP-Works question, “to what degree
are you the kind of person who participates in class” to measure the rate of academic
engagement. There was a statistically significant result related to academic engagement
between the LLC group and non-LLC group. This is consistent with the current literature
(Pike, 1999; Stassen, 2003; CAS, 2014) regarding this particular student outcome. For
institutions that are seeking to renew their accreditation, this result is important because
they are often required to provide evidence and examples of learning outcomes (Inkelas,
Vogt, Longerbeam, Owen, & Johnson, 2006). University administrators may be able to
use LLCs as an example of successful academic engagement.
Conclusion. These findings are interesting for a several reasons. Based on the
NSLLP and SILLP pilot study (Mayhew et al., 2015), students participating in LLCs
report higher average scores regarding student outcomes such as critical thinking, social
integration, civic engagement and self-efficacy. However, it is unclear from these studies
if increased rates of student outcomes translate into increased retention. When
interpreting the results of this study, institutions will need to determine the purpose of
their LLCs. Is student retention the main goal? Or are student outcomes such as critical
thinking, social integration, civic engagement, and self-efficacy the main reason for
having LLCs? These results begin to challenge Tinto’s (1987, 1993) “model of
institutional departure” that states if students are able to engage academically, interact
with faculty, and develop peer connections then they are more likely to persist. This study
found students in an LLC had a statistically significant increase in academic engagement
and peer connections but where not retained at a higher rate. If retention is the main goal
for institutions, further investigation may be needed to better understand the reasons for
59
first-year students not being retained and if LLCs can be created to help students
overcome those reasons. If improving student outcomes are the main reason for LLCs,
institutions may need to think about being able to justify the benefits to institutional
stakeholders, especially in lean budgetary times and during the accreditation process.
Therefore, institutions may want to critically evaluate if LLCs should be established or
sustained on their campus.
Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Future Research
Limitations. This study only used a sample from a single, mid-sized
comprehensive, public university referred to as PNU. Therefore, generalizing the findings
may not be applicable to all types of institutions. The LLCs analyzed in this study may
not be representative of all types of LLCs nationally (Longerbeam, Inkelas, & Brower,
2007). The lack of specific standards when it comes to creating LLCs makes obtaining a
representative sample a challenge. Currently, CAS only provides institutions with
guidelines rather than standards when it comes to creating LLCs. As a result, this makes
obtaining a representative sample for comparison very difficult. This study did not focus
on comparing specific characteristics of each specific LLC. Instead, it generally
compared retention rates of first-year students in an LLC with those not in an LLC.
Specific factors such as self-selection into an LLC, socio-economic status, high school
GPA, and first-generation status were not used as part of the analysis in this study
(Inkelas & Soldner, 2011).
Recommendations. The results from this study indicate first-year student
retention is not improved by participating in an LLC. From a practical perspective, PNU
may want to determine if it will continue to invest resources in their LLCs, and to what
60
extent. Analysis of the intermediate constructs of peer connections and academic
engagement determined there was a statistically significant result between the LLC group
and non-LLC group. While retention is not improved, student outcomes such as peer
connections and academic engagement were positively impacted. Another consideration
might be to understand if there would be any benefit to sustaining or creating LLCs
designed to support the needs for underrepresented student populations? This study did
not find statistically significant results related to race/ethnicity or gender and LLC status.
However, further research might explore retention rates for underrepresented student
populations who participate in LLCs.
Institutions such as PNU might want to consider the specific impacts of LLCs in
an effort to justify their costs. LLCs are promoted as a high impact practice (Kuh, 2008);
however, the implications of this research suggest a need to assess and evaluate their
current design. The CAS (2014) guidelines for LLCs report that institutions with
successful LLCs should be able to report increased first-to-second year retention. Despite
the investment in resources, LLCs do not appear to result in improved retention, at least
at this single institution. Efforts at replication may wish to study other institutions.
This study examined first-year student retention from fall 2014 to the following
fall 2015. Expanding the sample size to include sophomore, junior, and transfer students
may provide additional insight to these student groups and LLC’s impact on retention
beyond the first year. Beginning in fall 2015, Pacific Northwest University began
administering the MAP-Works survey to all on-campus students. If this practice
continues, an additional study may enable comparing retention rates of students in an
LLC compared to those not in an LLC over span of four to six years. This would allow a
61
study of a cohort of students comparing retention rates from their first to second year and
persistence to graduation.
At any rate, if LLCs themselves do not provide improved retention of students in
higher education institutions, then how might they support the factors that do appear to
improve retention? What factors lead students to want to complete a degree at a higher
education institution? What factors lead students to want to return to their institution, and
how can LLCs positively impact this?
62
REFERENCES
Adirondack Solutions, Inc. (2016). The housing director (Version 4.1.0) [computer
software]. Available from http://www.adirondacksolutions.com/THD/
American Association for Higher Education, American College Personnel Association, &
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (1998). Powerful
partnerships: A shared responsibility for learning. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/cwis/saase/forms/powerful_partnerships.pdf
American College Personnel Association. (2008). The student learning imperative.
Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/student-learning-imperative-implications-
student-affairs
Arms, J. H., Cabrera, A. F., & Brower, A. M. (2008). Moving into students’ spaces: The
impact of location of academic advising on student engagement among undecided
students. NACADA Journal, 28(1), 8-18.
Association of College and University Housing Officers-International. (n.d.). Living-
learning programs conference. Retrieved from http://www.acuho-i.org/events/llp
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A development theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529. Retrieved from
https://www.middlesex.mass.edu/ace/downloads/astininv.pdf
Baker, A. R. (2013). Do residential-only learning communities affect measures of first-
year student success and faculty interaction (Doctoral dissertation). Available
63
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3612913). Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1509130744?accountid=40667
Beckett, A. K. (2006). Relationship between participation in a residentially-based
freshman interest group and degree attainment (Doctoral dissertation). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3284760). Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305322637?accountid=40667
Blimling, G. S. (1998). The benefits and limitations of residential colleges: A meta-
analysis of the research. In. F. King Alexander & Don E. Robertson (Eds.),
Residential colleges: Reforming American higher education (pp. 39-76). Murray,
Kentucky: Oxford International Round Table and Murray State University Press.
Borst, A. J. (2011). Evaluating academic and student affairs partnerships: The impact of
living-learning communities on the development of critical thinking skills in
college freshmen (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global. (Order No. 3461086). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/879635991?accountid=40667
Bewley, J. L. (2010). Living-learning communities and ethnicity: A study on closing the
achievement gap at regional university (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3417733). Retrieved from
http://libweb.ben.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libweb.ben.edu/
docview/746481549?accountid=40667
Brower, A. M., & Dettinger, K. M. (1998). What "is" a learning community? Toward a
comprehensive model. About Campus, 3(5), 15-22.
64
Brower, A. M., & Inkelas, K. K. (2010). Living-learning programs: one high-impact
educational practice we now know a lot about. Liberal Education, 96(2), 36-43.
Buch, K., & Spaulding, S. (2011). The impact of a psychology learning community on
academic success, retention, and student learning outcomes. Teaching of
Psychology, 38(2), 71-77. doi:10.1177/0098628311401589
Central Washington University. (n.d). Orientation: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved
August 7, 2016, from http://www.cwu.edu/orientation/frequently-asked-questions
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2014). Housing and
residential life programs CAS standards and guidelines. Retrieved from
http://standards.cas.edu/getpdf.cfm?PDF=E86C866B-C486-7362-
C0A9C712A36B8AA7
Dallal, G. E. (2012). The little handbook of statistical practice. Retrieved from
http://www.jerrydallal.com/lhsp/simplify.htm
Dell, Inc. (2015). General regression models. Statistics-textbook. Retrieved March 11,
2016, from http://documents.software.dell.com/Statistics/Textbook/General-
Regression-Models
Eck, J. C., Edge, H., & Stephenson, K. (2007). Investigating types of student engagement
through living-learning communities: The perspective from Rollins College.
Assessment Update, 19(3), 6-8.
Edwards, K., & McKelfresh, D. A. (2002). The impact of a living learning center on
students’ academic success and persistence. Journal of College Student
Development, 43(3), 395-402.
Gabelnick, F. (1997). Educating a committed citizenry. Change, 29(1), 30.
65
Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R. S., & Smith, B. L. (1990). Learning
communities: Creating connections among students, faculty, and disciplines. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garrett, M., & Zabriskie, M. (2003). The influence of living-learning program
participation on student-faculty interaction. Journal of College and University
Student Housing, 32(2), 38-44.
Hunt, L. (2011). Predictors of student outcomes in developmental math at a public
community and technical college (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Marshall
Digital Scholar in Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Retrieved from
http://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=etd
Inkelas, K. K. (2000). Participation in living-learning programs at the University of
Michigan: Benefits for students and faculty (Report No. 15). The University of
Michigan: The Center for Research on Learning and Teaching.
Inkelas, K. K., & Associates. (2007). National study of living-learning programs: 2007
report of findings. College Park, MD: Authors. Retrieved from
http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/8392/2007%20NSLLP%20Final
%20Report.pdf;jsessionid=F41BC6F94605505050A6D976C398321F?
sequence=1
Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Brown-Leonard, J. (2006). Living-learning
programs and first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to
college. Research in Higher Education, 48(4), 403-434.
66
Inkelas, K. K. & Soldner, M. (2011). Undergraduate living-learning programs and
student outcomes. In J. Smart & M. Paulsen (Eds.), Handbook of Theory and
Research (Vol. 26, pp. 1-56). New York, NY: Springer.
Inkelas, K. K., Soldner, M. Longerbeam, S. D., & Leonard, J. B. (2008). Differences in
student outcomes by types of living-learning programs: The development of an
empirical typology. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 495-512.
Inkelas, K. K., Vogt, K. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Owen, J., & Johnson, D. (2006).
Measuring outcomes of living-learning programs: Examining college
environments and student learning and development. Journal of General
Education, 55(1), 40-76.
Inkelas, K. K., & Weisman, J. L. (2003). Different by design: An examination of student
outcomes among participants in three types of living-learning programs. Journal
Of College Student Development, 44(3), 335-68.
International Business Machines. (2016). Statistical package for the social sciences
(Version 22) [computer software]. Available from
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21646821
Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Brown-Leonard, J., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-
Kenyon, H., et al. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year
undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student
Development, 48(5), 525-542.
Jones, J. B. (2000). A study of the effects that multiple living learning programs have on
residence hall students at a large research university (Doctoral dissertation).
67
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 9980621).
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304628513?accountid=40667
Jones, J. B. (2003). Effects of residential learning communities, on -campus housing, and
gender on students' perception of their living environment (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (288090910). (Order
No. 3080229). Retrieved from
http://libweb.ben.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libweb.ben.edu/
docview/288090910?accountid=40667
Kahrig, T. (2005). An evaluation of the residential learning communities program at
Ohio University: An analysis of student involvement, satisfaction, academic
success, and retention (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3197298). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/305423461?accountid=40667
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities. (1997).
Returning to our roots: The student experience. Washington, D. C.: National
Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.aplu.org/library/returning-to-our-roots-the-student-experience/file
Kohl, J. L. (2009). The association of critical thinking and participation in living and
learning programs: Residential honors compared to civic/social leadership
programs and non-participation in living and learning programs (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No.
3391377). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304923887?
accountid=40667
68
Kraemer, H. C. (2014). Cronbach’s alpha. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online.
California: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118445112.stat06959
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to
them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges
and Universities.
Kuh, G. D., Douglas, K. B., Lund, J. P. & Ramin-Gyurnek, J. (1994). Student learning
outside the classroom: Transcending artificial boundaries (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No, ED394443). Washington, DC: George Washington
University. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED394443
Laufgraben, J. L., Shapiro, N. S. & Associates. (2004). Sustaining and improving
learning communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lenning, O. T., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). The powerful potential of learning communities:
Improving education for the future. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(6).
Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of
Education and Human Development.
Levitz, R. S., Noel, L. & Richter, B. J. (1999). Strategic Moves for Retention Success.
New Directions for Higher Education, 1999(108), 31–49. doi: 10.1002/he.10803
Longerbeam, S. D., Inkelas, K. K. & Brower, A. M. (2007). Secondhand benefits:
Student outcomes in residence halls with living-learning programs. Journal of
College and University Student Housing, 43(2), 20-30.
Longwell-Grice, R., & Longwell-Grice, H. (2008). Testing Tinto: How do retention
theories work for first-generation, working-class students? Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(4), 407-420.
69
Love, A. G., & Tokuno, K. A. (1999). Learning community models. In J. H. Levine
(Ed.), Learning communities: New structures, new partnerships for learning.
Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and
Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.
Mann, D. S. (2013). The relationship between ethnic identity and residence hall
preference (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global. (Order No. 3602147). Retrieved from http://libweb.ben.edu/login?
url=http://search.proquest.com.libweb.ben.edu/docview/1468679448?
accountid=40667
Maxwell, K. (2009). Logistic regression analysis to determine the significant factors
associated with substance abuse in school-aged children (Master’s thesis).
Available from the department of Mathematics and Statistics at ScholarWorks at
Georgia State University. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/math_theses/67
Meiklejohn, A. (2001). The experimental college. Madison, WI: The University of
Wisconsin.
National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). The Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS). Retrieved March 3, 2016, from
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/index.asp?id=772
National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). The Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS). Retrieved January 10, 2017, from
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/InstitutionProfile.aspx?unitId=adaeafb3adb2
70
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (2010). First-year
retention: Retention rates - first-time college freshmen returning their second
year. Retrieved from http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?
submeasure=223&year=2010&level=&mode=policy&state=0
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2014). Report: Snapshot report-
persistence-retention. Retrieved from
https://nscresearchcenter.org/snapshotreportpersistenceretention14/Pascarella, E.
T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Student-faculty and student-peer relationships as
mediators of the structural effects of undergraduate residence arrangement.
Journal of Educational Research, 73(6), 344-353.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Student-faculty and student-peer
relationships as mediators of the structural effects of undergraduate residence
arrangement. Journal of Educational Research, 73(6), 344-53.
Pasque, P. A., & Murphy, R. (2005). The intersections of living-learning programs and
social identity as factors of academic achievement and intellectual engagement.
Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 429-441.
Pike, G. R. (1999). The effects of residential learning communities and traditional
residential living arrangements on educational gains during the first year in
college. Journal of College Student Development, 40(3), 269-284.
71
Powell, J. W. (Ed.). (1981). The experimental college. Madison, WI: The University of
Wisconsin.
Purdie, I. I., J. R., (2007). Examining the academic performance and retention of first-
year students in living-learning communities, freshmen interest groups and first
year experience courses (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3322736). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304841776?accountid=40667
Ryan, M. B. (1992). Residential colleges. Change, 24(5), 26-35.
Schoem, D. (2004). Sustaining living-learning programs. In J. L. Laufgraben & N. S.
Shapiro (Eds.), Sustaining and improving learning communities. San Francisco:
Wiley.
Schroeder, C. C. (1994). Developing learning communities. In C. C. Schroeder and
others (Eds.), Realizing the educational potential of residence halls. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical guide
to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R.S., & Gabelnick, F. (2004). Learning
communities: Reforming undergraduate education. San Francisco: Wiley.
Smith, T. L. (2008). The impact of residential community living learning programs on
college student achievement and behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3320200). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/89210063?accountid=40667
72
Soldner, M. & Szelenyi, K. (2008). A national portrait of today’s living-learning
programs. The Journal of College and University Student Housing, 35(1), 14-31.
Stassen, M. A. (2003). Student Outcomes: The Impact of Varying Living-Learning
Community Models. Research In Higher Education, 44(5), 581-613.
Statistics Solutions. (2013). Data analysis plan: Linear Regression [WWW Document].
Retrieved from http://www.statisticssolutions.com/academic-solutions/member-
resources/member-profile/data-analysis-plan-templates/data-analysis-plan-linear-
regression/
Stier, M. M. (2014). The relationship between living learning communities and student
success on first-year and second-year students at the University of South Florida
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(Order No. 3617192). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1527018117?accountid=40667
Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984).
Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education.
(Stock No. 065-000-00213-2). Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Swail, W. S. (2004, June). The art of student retention: A handbook for practitioners and
administrators. Paper session presented at the 20th Annual Recruitment and
Retention Conference of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Austin,
Texas.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
73
Tinto, V. (n.d.). Student success and the building of involving educational communities.
Retrieved from https://vtinto.expressions.syr.edu/?page_id=36
Tinto, V. (n.d.). Tinto's theoretical model of suicide and the study of departure from
higher education. [PDF document]. Retrieved from
http://www.bttop.org/sites/default/files/public/pictures/Tinto'sPresentation.pdf
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition,
(2nd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of
student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599-623.
Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college.
NACADA Journal, 19(2), 5-9.
Tinto, V. (2000). What have we learned about the impact of learning communities on
students? Assessment Update Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher
Education, 12(2) 1-2, 12.
Tinto, V. (October, 2002). Enhancing student persistence: Connecting the dots.
Presentation at the Optimizing the Nation’s Investment: Persistence and Success
in Postsecondary Education Conference, Madison, Wisconsin. Retrieved from
https://vtinto.expressions.syr.edu/?page_id=36Tinto, V. (2004, July). Student
retention: What next? Presentation at the National Conference on Student
Recruitment, Marketing, and Retention, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
https://vtinto.expressions.syr.edu/?page_id=36
74
Tinto, V., & Pusser, B. (2006). Moving from theory to action: Building a model of
institutional action for student success. National Postsecondary Education
Cooperative, 1-51.
Vostad, J. J. (2004). Why living-learning community students decide to return for their
second year of college: Academic and social integration (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3138440).
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305122150?accountid=40667
Washington Center. (n.d.). The national resource center for learning communities.
Retrieved February 22, 2016, from http://www.evergreen.edu/washingtoncenter/
Wawrzynski, M. R. & Jessup-Anger, J. E. (2010). From expectations to experiences:
Using a structural typology to understand first-year student outcomes in
academically based living-learning communities. Journal of College Student
Development, 51(2), 201-217.
Wawrzynski, M. R., Jessup-Anger, J. E., Stolz, K., Helman, C., & Beaulieu, J. (2009).
Exploring students' perceptions of academically based living-learning
communities. College Student Affairs Journal, 28(1), 138-158.
Yao, C.W., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2013). Influence of academically based living-
learning communities on men’s awareness of and appreciation for diversity.
Journal of College & University Student Housing, 39(2), 32-47.
75
Footnotes
1 Pseudonyms were used to help protect the specific identity of the individual
LLCs and identity of the institution.
76
Appendix A: Colleges and Universities with LLCs
Colleges and universities around the country have created LLCs, with structured as
partnerships between the housing/residence life offices and various academic
departments. Most LLCs are advertised to students as an opportunity to live and connect
with peers who have a common interest, develop relationships with faculty both inside
and outside the classroom, assist with navigating the institution, and helping with the
transition to college. Refer to Table A1 for a brief listing of institutions with LLCs.
Table A1
Colleges and Universities with LLCs
Institution Website LLCs Offered*University of Minnesota http://
www.housing.umn.edu/involvement/llc
30+ interest-specific (e.g. Honors, Biology, ROTC, STEM)
University of Denver http://www.du.edu/livinglearning/
Creativity & Entrepreneurship, Environmental Sustainability, International Social Justice, Wellness
Central Washington University
http://www.cwu.edu/housing/living-learning-communities
11+ (e.g. Aviation, Casa Latina, Leadership, Business)
The University of Utah http://housing.utah.edu/options/living-learning-communities/
Honors, Fine Arts, Law, Social Justice, Business, Sustainability
Dartmouth https://www.dartmouth.edu/livinglearning/
Dartmouth Entrepreneurial Network, Design your Own, Triangle House
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
http://www.housing.illinois.edu/living-options/living-learning-communities
Global Crossroads, Health Professions, Honors, Sustainability
Miami University http://miamioh.edu/student-life/residence-life/living-learning-communities/llc-options/index.html
Education, Emerging Leaders, First Year Research, Global Connections
77
78
East Tennessee State University
http://www.etsu.edu/students/housing/llc.aspx
Honors, First Year Experience, Pre-Health, Sophomore Experience
Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota
http://www.smumn.edu/undergraduate-home/student-life/office-of-student-life/living-learning-communities
Arts, Wellness, Athletes
University of Southern Maine
https://usm.maine.edu/reslife/living-learning-communities
Honors, Leadership and Service, Environment & Sustainability
University of California Santa Barbara
http://www.housing.ucsb.edu/residence-halls/living-learning-communities
Global Living Experience, First Generation, Outdoor Adventure, Substance-Free
University of Connecticut http://lc.uconn.edu Arts, Humanities, Innovation, Leadership
Kent State University https://www.kent.edu/housing/living-learning-communities
ROTC, Business, Honors, International Village Experience
Truman State University http://www.truman.edu/residence-life/community-connections/living-learning-communities/
Pre-Med, Service Learning, Romance Languages, Sustainability, Transitions
Note: Only a few of the LLCs for each institution are listed due to the large variety and complexity of each institutions LLC structure. This list serves only as an example of the LLCs offered to students at each institution and does not represent all institutions with LLCs. Additionally, the list was created from conducting a Google search using the term “Living Learning Communities” and the institutions listed are in no way being endorsed or receiving any benefit.
79
Appendix B: Learning Community Typologies
While learning communities have, in essence, been around since the 1920s and possibly
earlier, it has been in the last 25 years that researchers have started to categorize LCs into
different typologies. It has only been in the past two decades that LLCs have been
thought of as their own separate typology. Refer to Figure B1 for a listing of typology by
researcher.
Figure B1
LC Typologies
Gabelnick et al. (1990)
Shapiro & Levine (1999)
Lenning & Ebbers (1999)
Smith et al. (2004)
Linked courses Paired or clustered courses
Curricular learning communities
a. Cross-curricular
b. Curricular cohort
c. Curricular area
Linked or clustered courses
Learning clusters Cohorts in large courses or first-year groups
Classroom learninga. Total-
classroomb. Within-
classroom
Team-taught courses
Freshman interest groups (FIGs)
Team-taught courses Student type Curricular cohort programs
Coordinated studies Residence-based programs
Residential learning communities
a. Residential colleges
b. Residential FIGs
c. Honorsd. Academic
themes
Living-learning communities
Note. Adapted from “Comparison of learning community typologies” by K. K. Inkelas and M. Soldner, 2011, Handbook of Theory and Research, 26, p. 7. Copyright 2011 by Springer Science + Business Media B. V. With permission of Springer
80
Appendix C: Living-Learning Community Definitions
As researchers have specifically identified LLCs as their own unique typology a variety
of definitions for LLCs have also emerged. Figure C1 helps to show the progression of
LLC definitions over the past 25 years.
Figure C1
Definitions of Living-Learning Communities
Gabelnick et al.(1990)
Schroeder(1994)
Schoem(2004)
Inkelas & Associates
(2007)Any one of a variety of curricular structures that link together several existing courses, or actually restructure the material entirely, so that students have opportunities for deeper understanding and integration of the material they are learning, and more interaction with one another and their teachers as fellow participants in the learning enterprise.
Learning communities are fostered by commonality and consistency of purpose, shared values, and transcendent themes.
Living-learning programs are defined broadly as programs organized to introduce and integrate academic and social learning in residence hall settings through faculty involvement with the goal of an enriched learning experience for all participants.
Programs in which undergraduate students live together in a discrete portion of a residence hall (or the entire hall) and participate in academic and/or extracurricular programming designed especially for them.
81
Appendix D: Successfully Created LLC
Since the 1960s and 1970s, several colleges and universities have addressed the need to
help students transition to the institution, create a sense of community, and take an active
role in their learning. Figure D1 provides a list of institutions and their successful LLCs.
These institutions have been able to address and overcome challenges and sustain their
LLCs.
Figure D1
Examples of Successful LLCs
Institution Name of LLC WebsiteUniversity of Maryland at College Park
College Park Scholars
www.scholars.umd.edu
University of Wisconsin-Madison Bradley Learning Community
www.housing.wisc.edu/bradley
University of Michigan The Residential College
www.rc.lsa.umich.edu
Indiana University Collins Living-Learning Program
www.indiana.edu/~llc/
University of Missouri at Columbia
Freshman Interest Group (FIG) Program
http://reslife.missouri.edu/lc-fig
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Unit One http://housing.illinois.edu/living-options/living-learning-communities/unit-one
St. Lawrence University First-Year Program
www.stlawu.edu/fyp
University of Southern Maine Russell Scholars Program
https://usm.maine.edu/rscholar
Bowling Green State University (BGSU)
Chapman Learning Community
http://www.bgsu.edu/residence-life/learning-and-theme-communities/chapman-community-at-kohl.html
Note: See Laufgraben & Shapiro, 2004, for additional information outlining why each of these LLCs have been successful.
82
Appendix E: LLC Research Studies
Several empirically based research studies related to LLCs have been conducted between
1980 and 2010. Depending on the study there are varying degrees of support regarding
the impacts of LLCs on the areas of performance, persistence, and attainment, intellectual
development, faculty and peer interactions, college transition, campus life and attitudes
and beliefs. Figure E1 provides an overview of the various studies conducted and their
focus.
Figure E1
Empirically-Based LLC Research Studies
Authors Title of Study Focus of StudyPascarella & Terenzini, 1980
Student-faculty and student-peer relationships as mediators of the structural effects of undergraduate residence arrangement
First-year students GPA and LLC participation
Edwards & McKelfresh, 2002
The impact of a living learning center on students’ academic success and persistence
Academic performance and natural science LLC participation
Stassen, 2003 Student outcomes: the impact of varying living-learning community models
The effect of three distinct LLC models on a variety of student experience and academic performance outcomes.
Pasque & Murphy, 2005 The intersections of living-learning programs and social identity as factors of academic achievement and intellectual engagement
The effect of living LLCs relating to social identity on academic achievement and intellectual engagement
Purdie, 2007 Examining the academic performance and retention of first-year students in living-learning communities, freshmen interest groups and first year experience courses
The relationship between first-year students compared to non-participants in LLCs, FIGs, and first-year experience courses
83
Beckett, 2006 Relationship between participation in a residentially-based freshman interest group and degree attainment
The relationships between residentially-based FIGs and degree attainment related to socioeconomic status
Pike, 1999 The intersections of living-learning programs and social identity as factors of academic achievement and intellectual engagement
Understanding impacts of LLCs on academic achievement and intellectual engagement
Inkelas et al., 2006 Measuring Outcomes of Living-Learning Programs: Examining College Environments and Student Learning and Development
Relationship between LLCs and intellectual development
Eck et al., 2007 Investigating Types of Student Engagement through Living-Learning Communities: The Perspective from Rollins College
Relationship between LLCs and student engagement
Kohl, 2009 The association of critical thinking and participation in living and learning programs: Residential honors compared to Civic/Social leadership programs and non-participation in living and learning programs
Relationship between LLCs and critical thinking
Garrett & Zabriskie, 2003 The influence of living-learning program participation on student-faculty interaction
LLCs and faculty interaction
Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Brown-Leonard, 2006
Living-learning programs and first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college
LLCs and college transition
Inkelas & Weisman, 2003 Different by Design: An Examination of Student Outcomes among Participants in Three Types of Living-Learning Programs
LLCs and campus life
84
Johnson, et al., 2007 Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups.
LLCs and campus life related to a sense of belonging
Arms, et al., 2008 Moving into students’ spaces: The impact of location of academic advising on student engagement among undecided students
LLCs and student engagement
Note: See Inkelas and Soldner, 2011, for additional information summarizing the studies included in Figure E1.
85
Appendix F: Participant Study Descriptive Statistics
The participants within the sample were 44.8% male and 55.2% female. In the
non-LLC group the sample were 45.2% male and 54.8% female. In the LLC group the
sample were 42.8% male and 57.2% female. Table F1 shows the percentage allocations
for the entire sample, non-LLC group, and LLC group.
Table F1
Gender and LLC StatusLLC
TotalNo YesSex Male Count 331 59 390
% within Sex 84.9% 15.1% 100.0%% within LLC 45.2% 42.8% 44.8%% of Total 38.0% 6.8% 44.8%
Female Count 402 79 481% within Sex 83.6% 16.4% 100.0%% within LLC 54.8% 57.2% 55.2%% of Total 46.2% 9.1% 55.2%
Total Count 733 138 871% within Sex 84.2% 15.8% 100.0%% within LLC 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%% of Total 84.2% 15.8% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic Significance (2-
sided)Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .271a 1 .602Continuity Correctionb .183 1 .669Likelihood Ratio .272 1 .602Fisher's Exact Test .641 .335Linear-by-Linear Association
.271 1 .603
N of Valid Cases 871
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 61.79.b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
86
Symmetric Measures
ValueApproximate Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .018 .602
Cramer's V .018 .602N of Valid Cases 871
The race/ethnicity composition of the sample was 62.3% White, 11.8% Hispanic,
9.2% two or more races, 5.7% nonresident alien, 4.2% Black/African American; 3.1%
Asian, 1.5% unknown, 1.3% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 0.80%
American Indian or Alaska Native. Table F2 shows the percentage allocations for the
entire sample, non-LLC group, and LLC group.
87
Table F2
Race/Ethnicity and LLC StatusLLC
TotalNo YesRace/Ethnicity Nonresident alien Count 48 2 50
88
% within Race/Ethnicity
96.0% 4.0% 100.0%
% within LLC 6.5% 1.4% 5.7%% of Total 5.5% 0.2% 5.7%
Race/ethnicity unknown
Count 10 3 13% within Race/Ethnicity
76.9% 23.1% 100.0%
% within LLC 1.4% 2.2% 1.5%% of Total 1.1% 0.3% 1.5%
Hispanic of any race
Count 81 22 103% within Race/Ethnicity
78.6% 21.4% 100.0%
% within LLC 11.1% 15.9% 11.8%% of Total 9.3% 2.5% 11.8%
American Indian or Alaska Native
Count 7 0 7% within Race/Ethnicity
100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
% within LLC 1.0% 0.0% 0.8%% of Total 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%
Asian Count 21 6 27% within Race/Ethnicity
77.8% 22.2% 100.0%
% within LLC 2.9% 4.3% 3.1%% of Total 2.4% 0.7% 3.1%
Black or African American, non-Hispanic
Count 31 6 37% within Race/Ethnicity
83.8% 16.2% 100.0%
% within LLC 4.2% 4.3% 4.2%% of Total 3.6% 0.7% 4.2%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Count 9 2 11% within Race/Ethnicity
81.8% 18.2% 100.0%
% within LLC 1.2% 1.4% 1.3%% of Total 1.0% 0.2% 1.3%
White, non-Hispanic
Count 457 86 543% within Race/Ethnicity
84.2% 15.8% 100.0%
% within LLC 62.3% 62.3% 62.3%
89
% of Total 52.5% 9.9% 62.3%Two or more races Count 69 11 80
% within Race/Ethnicity
86.3% 13.8% 100.0%
% within LLC 9.4% 8.0% 9.2%% of Total 7.9% 1.3% 9.2%
Total Count 733 138 871% within Race/Ethnicity
84.2% 15.8% 100.0%
% within LLC 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%% of Total 84.2% 15.8% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic Significance
(2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 10.574a 8 .227Likelihood Ratio 13.240 8 .104Linear-by-Linear Association
.031 1 .860
N of Valid Cases 871a. 4 cells (22.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.11.
Symmetric Measures
ValueApproximate Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .110 .227
Cramer's V .110 .227N of Valid Cases 871
Participants within the sample who reported not having decided on a major
composed 81.3% and 18.7% reported having decided on a major. Table F3 shows that for
those having decided on a major within the LLC group was 13.8% compared to 19.6% in
90
the non-LLC group. Also, those who reported not having decided on a major within the
LLC group was 86.2% compared to the 80.4% in the non-LLC group.
91
Appendix G: Retention factors and LLC status
Figures G1, G2, and G3 provide a summary of the independent-samples t-tests for
the intermediate constructs of peer connections, faculty interactions, and academic
engagement.
Figure G1
Peer Connections t-test results
Group Statistics
LLC N MeanStd.
DeviationStd. Error
MeanPeer connection No 730 5.23 1.562 .058
Yes 138 5.59 1.642 .140
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)Mean
DifferenceStd. Error Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Peer connection
Equal variances assumed
1.086 .298 -2.469
866 .014 -.361 .146 -.648 -.074
Equal variances
not assumed
-2.386
186.815 .018 -.361 .151 -.659 -.063
92
Figure G2
Faculty Interactions t-test results
Group Statistics
LLC N MeanStd.
DeviationStd. Error
MeanCommunication with instructor outside of class
No 731 4.58 1.738 .064
Yes 137 4.87 1.552 .133
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)Mean
DifferenceStd. Error Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Communication with instructor outside of class
Equal variances assumed
3.748 .053 -1.804
866 .072 -.287 .159 -.600 .025
Equal variances
not assumed
-1.949
205.343
.053 -.287 .147 -.578 .003
93
Figure G3
Academic Engagement t-test results
Group Statistics
LLC N MeanStd.
DeviationStd. Error
MeanParticipation in class No 731 5.59 1.342 .050
Yes 138 5.83 1.187 .101
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)Mean
DifferenceStd. Error Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Participation in class
Equal variances assumed
3.713 .054 -1.991
867 .047 -.24s4 .122 -.484 -.003
Equal variances not assumed
-2.164
208.768 .032 -.244 .113 -.466 -.022
94
