Living-Learning Communities That Work : A Research-Based Model for Design, Delivery, and Assessment [1 ed.] 9781620366028

Citation preview

L I V I N G - L E A R N I N G C O M M U N I T I E S T H AT W O R K

Kurotoschi.indb i

25-05-2018 20:31:08

Kurotoschi.indb ii

25-05-2018 20:31:10

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK A Research-Based Model for Design, Delivery, and Assessment

Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas, Jody E. Jessup-Anger, Mimi Benjamin, and Matthew R. Wawrzynski Foreword by Jillian Kinzie Afterword by Jon Dooley and Peter Felten

Copublished with

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Kurotoschi.indb iii

25-05-2018 20:31:13

COPYRIGHT © 2018 BY STYLUS PUBLISHING, LLC. Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC. 22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, Virginia 20166-2019 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, recording, and information storage and retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Inkelas, Karen Kurotsuchi, author. | Jessup-Anger, Jody, 1975- author. | Benjamin, Mimi, 1967- author. | Wawrzynski, Matthew R., author. Title: Living-learning communities that work : a research-based model for design, delivery, and assessment / Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas, Jody Jessup-Anger, Mimi Benjamin, and Matthew R. Wawrzynski. Description: Sterling, Virginia : Stylus Publishing, LLC, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2017041936 (print) | LCCN 2017061564 (ebook) | ISBN 9781620366028 (Library networkable e-edition) | ISBN 9781620366035 (Consumer e-edition) | ISBN 9781620366011 (pbk. : acid free paper) | ISBN 9781620366004 (cloth : acid free paper) | ISBN 9781620366035 (consumer e-edition) Subjects: LCSH: Education, Higher--Aims and objectives--United States. | Education, HIgher--United States--Evaluation | Interdisciplinary approach in education--United States. | Group work in education--United States. Classification: LCC LA227.4 (ebook) | LCC LA227.4 .I57 2018 (print) | DDC 378.1/7--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017041936 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-600-4 (cloth) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-601-1 (paperback) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-602-8 (library networkable e-edition) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-603-5 (consumer e-edition)

Printed in the United States of America All first editions printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute Z39-48 Standard.

Bulk Purchases Quantity discounts are available for use in workshops and for staff development. Call 1-800-232-0223. First Edition, 2018

Kurotoschi.indb iv

25-05-2018 20:31:14

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

vii

Jillian Kinzie ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1

2

3

4

5

6

xiii

INTRODUCTION TO LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

1

BEST PRACTICES MODEL FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

17

BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

27

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT Intellectual Hub of the Program

49

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT Reinforcing Goals and Objectives

65

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID The Final, Yet Crucial, Components

83

7

LOGISTICS AND COSTS OF LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

111

8

SUSTAINABILITY AND CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

127

AFTERWORD

143

Jon Dooley and Peter Felten APPENDIX

151

REFERENCES

157

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

167

INDEX

171

v

Kurotoschi.indb v

25-05-2018 20:31:14

Kurotoschi.indb vi

25-05-2018 20:31:14

FOREWORD

M

y most memorable teaching experience was in an interdisciplinary living-learning program at Miami University. Students participated in an integrated program of courses and cocurricular learning experiences. Classes were small, discussion-oriented, and held in the residence halls. Informal learning activities were linked to formal course topics, and students were actively involved in peer teaching and in governing the curriculum and community life. As a faculty member, I enjoyed the intensity of linking disciplines and helping students develop habits of connection-making and respected the deep community that developed among the students and between students and faculty. Although sometimes the challenges of community life, including residential conflicts, spilled into the classroom, the structure greatly facilitated a powerful learning experience. Growing out of my favorable experience, I’ve continued to study and advocate for learning communities as an effective approach to enriching the undergraduate experience. Living-learning communities (LLCs)—with their focus on shared academic and cocurricular learning experiences for students living together in a residence hall—provide a distinctive environment in which students benefit from a unified living and learning experience explicitly organized to enrich learning and development. Although living on campus is a defining aspect of the collegiate experience in terms of building community and helping students establish a solid social and academic foundation, LLCs are distinct, structured learning environments that emphasize the intentional integration of academic and residential experiences. Research has identified common characteristics of LLCs and produced useful thematic typologies of goals and student learning outcomes. However, considerable variation in organizational structure, programmatic integration, quality, and student outcomes has also been found. To establish a stronger, more unified basis for designing and delivering effective LLCs, scholars Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas, Jody E. Jessup-Anger, Mimi Benjamin, and Matthew R. Wawrzynski collaborated on the development of a comprehensive empirical framework for achieving the integrating potential of LLCs. This book offers a thorough introduction to the framework and expounds on best practices in LLCs. vii

Kurotoschi.indb vii

25-05-2018 20:31:14

viii

FOREWORD

The introduction of a comprehensive empirical framework for LLCs arises at a time when the press to enhance collegiate quality and increase student success has inspired colleges and universities of all types to turn to an array of approaches to improve. Many are implementing high-impact practices (HIPs), activities such as learning communities, first-year seminars, and service-learning—all of which are positively associated with learning, retention, and completion; others are adopting “guided pathways” to create more clearly structured and educationally coherent program routes to student end goals, with built-in progress-monitoring, feedback, and support along the way. Still others are investing in a range of programs focused on the critical first college year that promote a sense of belonging, including bridge programs and extended orientation activities that connect students to each other and the institution. Common to all these approaches is the attention to enriching student learning and enhancing educational clarity and coherence. As an identified HIP with a venerable history of fostering belongingness and increasing retention and academic and social cohesion, LLCs modeled on best practices appear to offer a solution to many contemporary concerns in higher education. Today’s higher education environment also demands more empirical evidence about the effectiveness of interventions to support student success. Institutional leaders need to know what works for LLC design and what it takes to maximize the potential of LLCs to enhance student learning. Toward this end, Living-Learning Communities That Work: A Research-Based Model for Design, Delivery, and Assessment provides a broad framework for taking stock of LLC practice and for designing LLCs that are maximally effective. More specifically, this book thoughtfully combines research and field-tested practice to document the essential components for best practices in living-learning communities and presents them as a clear blueprint—the LLC best practices model—for LLC design. Like a good blueprint, the LLC best practices model offers an instructive map with directions to a final destination. A blueprint containing all of the information needed to build or make an effective LLC is a much-needed resource for institutional leaders and educators who seek to enact the educational reform LLCs are positioned to deliver. The exposition of the LLC best practices model is the central focus of this book. The model depicts building blocks in four levels of a pyramid—the foundational infrastructure, then the academic environment components, cocurricular elements comprising the next tier, and finally the pinnacle of intentional integration. It is important to note the authors have identified the placement of the levels and blocks on the pyramid as critical. For example, if the first level rests on a weak collaboration between academic affairs and

Kurotoschi.indb viii

25-05-2018 20:31:14

FOREWORD

ix

housing on the goals and outcomes of the LLC, it makes it difficult to build on the second level of academic environment, including courses for credit and academic support. The pinnacle of integration can be reached only if the other blocks in the pyramid are aligned. Chapter 2 includes a helpful overview of the best practices model and also offers illustrative cautionary examples of misaligned and improperly built models. The next four chapters describe the four levels of the pyramid and offer practical and, in many cases, unique examples of programs and policies drawn from LLC research and field-tested practice. The robust, creative examples of LLC best practices and the documented student outcomes featured in this book combine to make a convincing argument for the value of LLCs. Given this evidence, I am willing to assert that LLCs should be implemented at all 4-year residential institutions, particularly large enrollment institutions. Yet LLCs are still a relatively rare experience for students. Results over the last 12 annual administrations of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), which asks students to report their participation in a learning community or a formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together, indicates only about 15% of first-year students participate across all institutional types, with slightly higher participation rates (about 20%) at large doctoral and master’s-level institutions. Participation data for the more residential definition of LLCs are harder to pinpoint. However, the Association of College and University Housing Officers–International (ACUHO-I, 2014) lists about 125 colleges and universities with multiple LLCs in its database. Efforts to determine participation rates or to even develop an accurate count of the number of LLCs are hampered by variations in definitions and the lack of a reliable registry for LLCs. Gaining a better count would help track LLCs, and as Henscheid (2015) asserts, would also be aligned with efforts to improve the quality of LLC practice. Assessment is important to creating and maintaining high-quality LLCs. Accordingly, the authors portray it as the mortar that holds the LLC best practices model together. The assessment plans for LLCs must evaluate all aspects and components of the program and assess the extent to which the academic and cocurricular experiences align with the goals and objectives in the infrastructure. A very useful inventory to help LLC stakeholders identify strengths and areas for improvement at all four levels of the pyramid in the best practices model is provided in chapter 6. Although several useful examples of assessing the effectiveness of program activities are offered, I want to amplify the strategic importance of learning outcomes assessment in LLCs. The assessment of student learning outcomes, such as problem-solving or integrative and interdisciplinary learning, is needed. More precisely, although

Kurotoschi.indb ix

25-05-2018 20:31:14

x

FOREWORD

individual courses in LLCs might have specified learning outcomes, it is important to identify the outcomes in connection with a residential experience. LLC learning outcomes must be specified and assessment efforts must make the LLC’s contribution to learning outcomes explicit. As an organizational structure to enrich undergraduate education, LLCs are beneficial. Yet they are not without their challenges in terms of implementation. Chapter 7 addresses the critical issues of logistics and costs for implementing the best practices model. The issues of sustainability and assuring high-quality experiences are taken up in chapter 8. Here the authors mention the important consideration of ensuring equity of access to LLCs for all student populations and also address faculty recruitment and rewards as well as the need for institutional champions who support the programs. From an equity lens, one of the more compelling outcomes associated with LLCs is the contribution they make to supporting the success of specific student populations, particularly historically underserved students. For example, LLCs for women in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math) have been found to provide a supportive environment and enhance the quality of students’ peer and faculty interactions (Soldner, Rowan-Kenyon, Inkelas, Garvey, & Robbins, 2012), and LLCs targeted to historically underrepresented students offer participants some benefit in terms of fostering supportive relationships with peers and academic success (Nosaka & Novak, 2014). Such programs deserve institutional investment and support. Even more important, although other HIPs, such as study abroad and internships have significant gaps in racial-ethnic student participation, NSSE data on learning community participation generally show no racial-ethnic difference and only a slightly lower rate of participation among first-generation students. The effectiveness of LLCs for targeted student populations, as well as the overall issues of equity in access, quality, and success must continue to be monitored. Looking back on the positive experience I had in an LLC has made me appreciate even more the importance of LLCs as sites for students to regularly connect the curriculum and cocurriculum and make connections among ideas and experiences. Reviewing the best practices model in this book has also highlighted for me that the level of integrative learning students experienced was only achieved because of the intentional and aligned activities built into the LLC design and implementation. The LLC worked because housing professionals and student affairs practitioners in the first-year program, peer educators, and faculty and academic affairs administrators collaborated, and we made the linkages between living and learning explicit. I cherish my LLC experience and hope others can create equally effective models.

Kurotoschi.indb x

25-05-2018 20:31:14

FOREWORD

xi

Living-Learning Communities That Work: A Research-Based Model for Design, Delivery, and Assessment provides a much-needed LLC model that promises a unified living and learning experience. Despite LLCs’ respected history in American higher education and identification as a HIP, tight fiscal contexts and the press of accountability have continued to make it necessary for institutional leaders to demonstrate with evidence the value of LLCs, and in particular their contribution to contemporary concerns about student retention, learning, and success. Even more important, as institutional leaders face heightened expectations to report on the return on investment for campus housing and make the case for the value of living on campus, it is essential to focus on the LLC practices that make the greatest difference for student learning and success. Information about LLCs as a worthwhile structure for campus housing must be more widely promoted among housing professionals and senior academic officers. The LLC best practices model in this book provides needed resources to institutions and LLC practitioners interested in designing and delivering LLCs that work better for all our students. Jillian Kinzie Associate Director, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, and NSSE Institute Senior Scholar, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA)

Kurotoschi.indb xi

25-05-2018 20:31:14

Kurotoschi.indb xii

25-05-2018 20:31:14

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

L

ooking back on how this project came to be, we literally can look to the back of the book. In the afterword, Jon Dooley and Peter Felten describe the initial meeting during which the best practices pyramid model was revealed. Karen, Jody, and Mimi were 3 of 11 participants at a think tank on residential learning communities, hosted by Elon University’s Center for Engaged Learning. As we discussed the current state of research on these programs and pondered the future, Karen commented that she had a best practices model on her computer from the National Study of Living-Learning Programs, which she led for 10 years. When she turned her computer around to the group to share the model, Jody proclaimed, “Karen, that’s a book!” Within weeks of returning home from the think tank, Jody and Karen discussed the idea of using the model as the centerpiece for a book on the design, delivery, and assessment of LLCs. They reached out to Mimi and Matt, and a little over 2 years later, a book was completed. While it sounds simple, the process of creating this book was anything but—we had incredible support along the way. Although there are individuals who were helpful to us on our home campuses (and in our homes), some people deserve group thanks. First, Peter Felten, Jon Dooley, Jessie Moore, and the Center for Engaged Learning at Elon University brought the three of us together through the think tank and sparked a project that they probably had not imagined. We are grateful that the seed of this book was planted because of their invitation. Jon and Peter graciously agreed to write the afterword, and we also express our gratitude to Jillian Kinzie, another think tank participant, for her willingness to write the foreword. David Brightman of Stylus Publishing took on this project and provided important guidance along the way, for which we are thankful. And, now, we all wish to individually thank those who have been instrumental in supporting our work.

Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas After almost two decades of studying LLCs, I find myself indebted to so many people who provided me invaluable support over the past 18 years. At the University of Michigan, where the impetus for studying LLCs first took shape, xiii

Kurotoschi.indb xiii

25-05-2018 20:31:14

xiv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Mary Hummel and Bill Zeller, who provided endless encouragement in my very first research study on LLCs. Two of my earliest partners were Aaron Brower and Scott Crawford, who helped me transform a small, single-institution study into the National Study of Living-Learning Programs (NSLLP). Aaron also became a mentor to me, while Scott and his staff at Survey Sciences Group ran the online engine that powered the NSLLP into a study with over 50,000 participants and 50 institutions. I was also privileged to have worked with an army of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers at the University of Maryland over the years, who helped me with statistical analysis, qualitative coding, report writing, conference presentations, manuscript preparation, and everything else in between. My profound gratitude to Patty Alvarez, Jeannie Brown Leonard, Zaneeta Daver, Marybeth Drechsler, Julie Choe Kim, John Fink, Jay Garvey, Dawn Johnson, Zakiya Lee, Nicole Long, Susan Longerbeam, Michele Mackie, Graziella McCarron, Claire Robbins, Heather Rowan-Kenyon, Katalin Szelenyi, Kristin Vogt, Jennifer Weisman, and Chris Corces Zimmerman. Extra-special thanks, however, must go to Matt Soldner, whose contributions to the success of the NSLLP are incalculable and whose talents are limitless. When a project includes the participation of over 50 universities, one gets to meet faculty and staff from around the country who work with LLCs of all shapes and sizes. Although there are too many to name, I am indebted to all of the people who gave their time and energy to helping us collect data on their campuses. Without you, there would be no NSLLP. To Jody, Mimi, and Matt, thank you for giving me the necessary push to get the best practices model off my laptop and into print. I continue to thank my lucky stars to have been invited to Elon and to have met such talented people. Finally, my deepest gratitude to my family, Dan and Sonya, who make living and learning every day the greatest gift of all.

Jody E. Jessup-Anger I owe a debt of gratitude to everyone connected to LLCs at both Colorado State University and Michigan State University, as they exposed me to the concept of thoughtful community design and provided candid discussion about what seemed to work well in these communities—which to this day serves as a foundation for my research. Thanks to Matt Wawrzynski, who took me on as a research assistant during my first year in graduate school and provided me guidance and freedom to explore interesting questions. In addition, I am grateful for the discussions with current and former research assistants Brianne Johnson, Lizzie Kerrick, Megan (Smith) Armstrong, Courtney Howell, Sami Boynton, and Noreen Siddiqui, which helped shape the work for this book and other projects related to LLCs. Thanks also go to colleagues

Kurotoschi.indb xiv

25-05-2018 20:31:14

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xv

at Marquette University who inquired about the book as it came to fruition. Finally, thanks to my parents and to Eric, Olivia, and Sydney Jessup-Anger, who provided both necessary support for and distraction from this project and who make everything in life more enjoyable.

Mimi Benjamin I am particularly grateful to Brianna Rojas, my former graduate assistant in the Student Affairs in Higher Education (SAHE) Department at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP), who helped in more ways than I can count. From assisting with literature searches to reviewing the entire manuscript for missing references, Brianna was invaluable to the process. My appreciation also goes out to learning community colleagues who introduced me to the concept of learning communities and offered initial opportunities to be engaged in these programs at Iowa State University, particularly Ginny Arthur, Doug Gruenewald, Corly Blahnik, and Kurt Earnest. I also want to express my gratitude to John H. Schuh, who offered me a chance to return to learning community literature and practice when he asked me to edit the New Directions for Student Services book on learning communities. Thanks also go to my colleagues in IUP’s SAHE Department for their support as I engaged in this process. Finally, I am forever grateful to my husband, Mike Howland, for his continued encouragement and support in all of life’s adventures.

Matthew R. Wawrzynski I am grateful for the many students and student affairs professionals who introduced me to a number and variety of LLCs at Loyola College (now Loyola University), University of Maryland, Indiana University, and Michigan State University, where I worked as a student affairs practitioner or faculty member. The many talented graduate students (Jody Jessup-Anger, Jacqueline Beaulieu, Kyle Heys, Christopher Jensen, Katherine Madden, and Christina Yao) with whom I was able to work were instrumental in advancing a body of literature on LLCs cited throughout this book. Thousands of students completed surveys or participated in focus groups all for the sake of helping a team of researchers better understand their experiences in LLCs; without their willingness to participate, our current understanding of LLCs would be impossible. The weekly meetings I had with Nancy Lange and Cindy Helman in the Department of Residence Life at Michigan State University were instrumental in shaping a research agenda focused on residential colleges and LLCs. Korine and Jasper Wawrzynski serve as constant reminders that there is more to life than research.

Kurotoschi.indb xv

25-05-2018 20:31:14

Kurotoschi.indb xvi

25-05-2018 20:31:14

1 INTRODUCTION TO LIVINGLEARNING COMMUNITIES

T

he concept of the living-learning community (LLC), or a group of students who live together in the same on-campus building and share similar academic or special interests, is not a new one. Indeed, its roots can be found in the beginnings of American higher education itself. But its recent popularity—with one study noting over 600 LLCs currently in existence (Inkelas, 2007)—is part of an ongoing, changing, and sometimes contentious debate about both the purposes and failures of a college education. In 2007, the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) named learning communities a high-impact practice (HIP) because of the potential of these communities to provide coherence to and ultimately improve undergraduate education (Kuh, 2008). Although there is variation in thematic and organizational type, LLCs typically group students together in a residence hall, offer a shared academic experience, and provide cocurricular learning activities for student engagement with peers (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). Institutional leaders have demonstrated a commitment to providing LLCs, but they currently do so primarily with anecdotal information to guide their work. As a result, there is substantial variation in organizational structure, collaboration, academic and social environments, programmatic integration, student outcomes, and overall quality related to LLC participation. Despite increasing interest in LLCs as a way to improve undergraduate education and a growing research foundation, there is no comprehensive, empirically based resource that supports the development, delivery, and assessment of LLCs. Existing work on LLCs is typically encapsulated as a subset of the broader learning community (i.e., nonresidentially based) literature and thus rarely gets adequate attention. The existing paucity of LLC literature has led to a broad, largely anecdotal overview of how to create these communities. This book addresses these gaps in the literature by providing 1

Kurotoschi.indb 1

25-05-2018 20:31:14

2

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

a deeper discussion of the origins of LLCs, their role in improving undergraduate education and other contemporary problems they are thought to address, the way they fit into the HIP landscape, and a synthesis of current research. Furthermore, this book offers an empirically based framework for LLC development and empirically based discussion of best practices related to each element of the framework. However, it is critically important to begin by recounting the history of LLCs in American higher education: how they have been conceived, how they have been criticized, and how they have been reinvented.

Brief History of Learning Communities and LLCs The LLC “story” begins with the development of the broader and more curricularly based learning community. Although learning communities take a number of different structures (Gabelnick, MacGregor, Matthews, & Smith, 1990; Inkelas, Soldner, Longerbeam, & Leonard, 2008; Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Lenning, Hill, Saunders, Solan, & Stokes, 2013; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith, MacGregor, Matthews, & Gabelnick, 2004; Smith & Williams, 2007), the foundation for all of these learning community formats is shared. Names such as Dewey, Meiklejohn, Tussman, and Cadwallader are commonly referenced within the history of learning communities as their approaches to education and attempts at structuring intentional learning experiences undergird the current enactment of learning community programs. Core concepts of education espoused by John Dewey were elements of early learning communities and remain important considerations in today’s programs. Recognizing learning as a social process, Dewey saw students and teachers as partners in learning. Additionally, his emphasis on democracy was a focus for future learning community programs, such as the program founded by Alexander Meiklejohn. Meiklejohn’s Experimental College, an LLC focused on democracy, operated at the University of Wisconsin from 1927 to 1932. Ideas about the effectiveness of learning in community, the importance of integration of multiple knowledge vantage points, the benefits of active learning, and the need for holistic learning that includes both the in-class and out-ofclass experiences of students were some of the elements of the Experimental College reflected in learning communities today (Smith & Williams, 2007). Following a period when higher education’s focus shifted from teaching to research and graduate education, learning communities resurfaced. With the expansion of higher education in the 1960s and 1970s, a renewed interest in educational innovation led to new learning community efforts such as those spearheaded by Joseph Tussman at the University of California, Berkeley, from

Kurotoschi.indb 2

25-05-2018 20:31:14

INTRODUCTION TO LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

3

1965 to 1969 and Mervyn Cadwallader’s similar program at San Jose State College during the same period. Like Meiklejohn’s Experimental College, Tussman’s and Cadwallader’s programs focused on democracy. Tussman, a former student and friend of Meiklejohn, was influenced by his mentor’s experiment in Wisconsin and encouraged the integration of course content and multiple perspectives recommended by Meiklejohn. Community was a key element of these initiatives, which also had a physical space near the campus. Although Cadwallader’s Tutorial Program incorporated the focus on democracy, a central element of the program was team-teaching in a coherent curriculum, an approach Cadwallader took with him when he moved to the State University of New York College at Old Westbury to institute a similar program there. Unfortunately, this was a tumultuous time at the institution, which shut down the following year (Smith et al., 2004). The sustainability of learning communities was as much a problem in their early iterations as it is today. Often reliant on a single champion to usher the curriculum and organizational structure into the collegiate environment, these communities faded when the community’s champion left the institution or moved on to other projects. To expect a learning community to sustain itself without adequate structure, support, or resources is not realistic nor sufficient for postsecondary institutions. Whereas early learning communities were created as a result of pedagogical beliefs by individuals who championed them into the university environment, a national cry for undergraduate educational change arose in the 1980s and 1990s, reinvigorating the learning community approach. As a result of the need for innovative and reformed undergraduate education, heralded by national reports such as A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (United States National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), the Returning to Our Roots series of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (2001), and Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College (Association of American Colleges & Universities, 2002), learning communities resurfaced in the late 1980s (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999) and have proliferated ever since that time. Many of these reports provided recommendations for improvements to the undergraduate experience that could be implemented through learning community structures. Some even specifically suggested the designing of learning communities (Fink & Inkelas, 2015) in the spirit of the early communities highlighted previously. Since the 2008 AAC&U publication High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access, and Why They Matter, in which learning communities were categorized a HIP, greater attention has been paid to ways to incorporate this construct into undergraduate education. A variety of

Kurotoschi.indb 3

25-05-2018 20:31:14

4

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

learning communities, many of which are modeled on the historical communities mentioned previously, exist, and some of them involve students living in proximity to other learning community students in the same residence hall with the intent of capitalizing on that common location. On-campus housing has a history of its own in the United States, shifting from the learning-community-like experiences during the earliest founding of higher education institutions, through the dormitory phase, to today’s attempts at creating intentional academically supportive environments.

Residential Learning Communities Residential learning communities were actually the first learning communities. Early residential experiences in higher education, mirroring what are now called LLCs, were transplanted from England in the form of the Oxford and Cambridge residential college models. In this “collegiate model” (Blimling, 2015, p. 3), students lived, ate, and studied with their peers as well as faculty members, experiencing a holistic university experience similar to the objectives of today’s LLCs. Then, with the rise of the Germanic model of education focused primarily on research and graduate education in the 1900s, a more “impersonal approach” (Blimling, 2015, p. 5) followed. During this time, attention to the “living” element of the student experience changed as faculty viewed students as adults and preferred resources to be focused on academic as opposed to residential spaces. Because students needed places to live, dormitories were constructed in order “to house and feed students and to maximize the number of beds constructed for the dollars available, with little or no regard for the quality of students’ educational experiences and personal development. Dormitories were designed for low-cost maintenance, not livability” (Frederiksen, 1993, p. 172), and most were clearly not designed with academic integration in mind. The “student development approach” (Blimling, 2015, p. 13) and the “student learning approach” (Blimling, 2015, p. 17) emerged as dormitories eventually transitioned to residence halls, “designed to provide students with low-cost, safe, sanitary, and comfortable living accommodations and to promote students’ intellectual, social, moral and physical development” (Frederiksen, 1993, p. 175). Residence halls were operated by staff informed by student development literature, with later additional emphasis on student learning (Blimling, 2015). Thus, the transition to residence halls marked renewed recognition of the integration of living and learning for students residing on campus. This refocusing on students’ combined in- and out-of-class experiences has resulted in attention to intentional environmental elements of living on campus.

Kurotoschi.indb 4

25-05-2018 20:31:14

INTRODUCTION TO LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

5

Although the current philosophy of residence halls situates them as venues for student growth and development as opposed to solely places where students reside, not all residence halls share the same resources and characteristics as LLCs. Schuh (1999) defined living-learning centers as “specific interventions designed to tie living in a residence unit (floor, hall, wing) to a specific program sponsored by the institution” (p. 12). Thus, LLCs are more than theme housing, a residential environment with its own types of benefits for students. Additionally, LLCs require more than simply acknowledging the academic within the residential experience, instead calling for the intentional integration of the two. For the purposes of this book, we define LLCs as cohorts of students intentionally grouped together in a residence hall who have a shared academic experience along with cocurricular learning activities for engagement with their peers (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). This definition distinguishes LLCs from theme and other special-interest housing because of the intentional emphasis on academic content within the LLC.

Continuing Challenges LLCs Can Address Learning communities remain relevant in higher education because educational issues addressed by previous learning communities still exist today. Gabelnick and colleagues (1990) stated, “In a time of widespread criticism of higher education, learning communities constitute an unusual reform effort because of their focus on the structural features of our institutions and our curriculum as both the problem and the solution” (p. 5). Following numerous national reports in the 1980s and 1990s calling for educational reform, concerns in the 1990s surfaced regarding educational quality and standards, accountability, attrition, student learning (and what they were not learning), curricular coherence and rationale, declining rewards for and valuing of faculty teaching, and the growing diversity of student demographics (Gabelnick et al., 1990). In the 1998 About Campus article “Why Learning Communities? Why Now?” Hutchings noted learning communities can address philosophical, research-based, and pragmatic concerns in higher education. Philosophically, “a fundamental revolution in epistemology” (Hutchings, 1998, p. 7) led to the recognition of knowledge as socially constructed and belief in the educational benefits of active and collaborative learning, which are hallmarks of learning communities. Additionally, Hutchings (1998) highlighted research on student development, student learning outcomes, and motivation and cognition, suggesting learning communities attentive to these elements may lead to important gains. Finally, learning communities provide opportunities for developing talents such as

Kurotoschi.indb 5

25-05-2018 20:31:14

6

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

independence and citizenship that are needed in and outside the workplace, helping colleges and universities achieve their missions. Higher education scholars believed organizational aspects of colleges and universities were hurdles in the educational process. Gabelnick and colleagues (1990) noted: The learning community reform effort is distinctive in its focus on structural barriers to educational excellence, pointing to the structural characteristics of many colleges and universities as major impediments to effective teaching and learning. Large, impersonal, bureaucratic, and fragmented, the American college is often an educational community only in theory. (p. 9)

Tinto (1998) touted community as a primary factor in student persistence, noting students who are involved and integrated tend to persist. He also indicated involvement in the first year matters most—“especially during the first ten weeks when the transition to college is not yet complete and personal affiliations are not yet cemented” (Tinto, 1998, p. 169). Tinto’s suggestions for restructuring higher education organizations reflect elements of learning communities, including active and integrated learning. In fact, Tinto recommended outright that learning communities be part of the solution to the issues of student learning, persistence, and citizenship. These structures encourage staff and faculty collaboration, bringing the two aspects of the student experience together with a focus on shared goals. Although Tinto noted that learning communities, as he termed them, are well suited for commuter students, the components of these programs can be applied to residential students as well. Considering the “ideal” academic experience, Gabelnick and colleagues (1990) remarked, The vision of the collegiate learning community refers to an idealized version of the campus of the past, where students and faculty shared a close and sustained fellowship, where day-to-day contacts reinforced previous classroom learning, where the curriculum was organized around common purposes, and the small scale of the institution promoted active learning, discussion and individuality. (p. 9)

Thus, higher education returned to its past to address its present. The collegiate model exemplified in the early colonial colleges was now being recommended as a way to fortify undergraduate education some 300 years later. LLC structures provided opportunities to create desirably smaller learning environments (Fink & Inkelas, 2015) that are more personalized and connect the students with each other and with the institution.

Kurotoschi.indb 6

25-05-2018 20:31:15

INTRODUCTION TO LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

7

At the core of learning community programs is integration—of multiple disciplines or subject areas, of academics with cocurricular experiences, of academic experiences with residential experiences. This book focuses on the possible integration between students’ academic and cocurricular experiences through the use of the residential environment, known as LLCs.

Introduction to Studies of LLCs Before we turn to a description of contemporary LLCs, it is important to briefly summarize the research studies this book relies on in its assertions, especially because this book is the first of its kind to rely on empirical data in the development of LLC best practices. Although there have been a number of single-institution and/or single-program studies of LLCs, this book used data from several multi-institutional or national studies in addition to a comprehensive, single institution study. These studies included (a) the National Study of Living-Learning Programs (NSLLP), a 10-year mixed methods project that included, in total, nearly 50,000 undergraduates, 60 postsecondary institutions, and over 600 LLCs; (b) a comprehensive, mixed methods study of LLCs at a 4-year public land-grant university that boasts a long history of well-established, academically based LLCs; and (c) a multisite case study of social justice–themed LLCs located within 3 private Catholic postsecondary institutions in different regions in the United States. For more information about each of these studies and their methodologies, please refer to the Appendix.

A Profile of Contemporary LLCs The NSLLP provided an important contribution to the LLC literature by offering a national portrait of these communities that indicated the diversity of LLC types and their characteristics (e.g., size, financing, organizational structure).

Typologies of LLCs Although LLC history contains specific examples of programming archetypes, such as the “Oxbridge”-based colonial college models and early twentieth-century reformer models such as Meiklejohn’s Experimental College, the explosive growth of LLCs on college campuses in the 1990s and early 2000s included a variety of programmatic themes and types. What resulted was a panoply of LLCs varying from institution to institution—or

Kurotoschi.indb 7

25-05-2018 20:31:15

8

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

even from program to program within the same institution. A few authors have created models to categorize the different LLC offerings. For example, Smith and Williams (2007) highlighted a continuum of residential intensity for learning communities, from no residential program (“no intensity”) to dedicated residence hall space where students live together, faculty have offices, and classes and other learning community activities may take place. Schoem (2004) categorized LLCs into three types: residential colleges, residential learning communities, and residential education programs, each reflecting a different degree of programming intensity. Although residential colleges may be degree-granting units within the institution, residential learning communities might include connected academic experiences, with residential education programs having the least in- and out-of-class integration but nonetheless providing academic initiatives within the residential setting. Finally, Zeller, James, and Klippenstein (2002) categorized residence-based programs into five types: (a) residential colleges, (b) livinglearning centers, (c) theme housing, (d) residential learning communities, and (e) the freshman year experience. Several of these categories are similar to Schoem’s typology, with the addition of living-learning centers, which were characterized by student housing having a strong partnership with a traditional academic unit, such as foreign language programs. Theme housing, another addition, simply grouped students with similar interests or hobbies in a common living space, but these programs typically offered no academic or disciplinary content. Finally, freshman year experience programs focused on helping students make a successful transition from home to college via residence hall programming. However, Inkelas and her team (2007) provided the most comprehensive typologies of LLCs, using empirically driven data from the NSLLP. First, using information collected from over 600 LLCs, Inkelas and associates developed a thematic typology of LLCs based on (a) program name, (b) program goals and objectives, and (c) stated learning outcomes. The researchers culled the over 600 programs into 41 types in total, which were further combined to form 17 primary categories (in alphabetical order): 1. Civic/Social Leadership Programs: Focusing on public service, programs in this category included (a) civic engagement programs, (b) environmental sustainability programs, (c) leadership programs, and (d) service-learning and social justice programs. 2. Cultural Programs: Emphasizing cultural appreciation and tolerance, of the following types: (a) international/global programs, (b) language programs, and (c) (domestic) multicultural/diversity programs.

Kurotoschi.indb 8

25-05-2018 20:31:15

INTRODUCTION TO LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

9

3. Disciplinary Programs: Concentrating on a specific discipline or academic major, such as (a) agriculture, (b) business, (c) communication or journalism, (d) education, (e) engineering and computer science, (f ) general science, (g) humanities, (h) interdisciplinary studies, (i) law or criminal justice, (j) mathematics, or (k) the social sciences. 4. Fine and Creative Arts Programs: Promoting interest and appreciation in artistic endeavors, such as music, art, architecture, film, poetry, photography, and cooking. 5. General Academic Programs: Providing general academic support not tied to a specific discipline or type of student. 6. Honors Programs: Offering an academically enriched environment for preidentified academically talented students. 7. Leisure Programs: Centering on recreational activities, such as (a) general leisure pursuits (e.g., playing card games); (b) local community exploration, particularly at universities in urban centers; and (c) outdoor recreation, such as sporting or wilderness pursuits. 8. Political Interest Programs: Discussing political issues, typically through media outlets. Public service, however, was not a feature of this type of programming, unlike civic/social leadership programs. 9. Research Programs: Providing students an opportunity to participate in faculty-guided research or peer/team projects while also living together. 10. Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) Programs: Offering shared living space for students participating in ROTC programs. 11. Residential Colleges: Attempting to provide a traditional liberal arts living experience, usually in programming that spanned multiple years. 12. Sophomore Programs: Focusing on the continued needs of students in their second year of college. 13. Transition Programs: Assisting first-year students with their transition to college life, in the following areas: (a) career or major exploration, (b) first-year programming, (c) new student transitions for marginalized students (e.g., first-generation college students, LGBTQ students), and (d) transfer student programs. 14. Umbrella Programs: Combining several distinctive, small programs into one broader, central program. An example might include the University of Maryland’s College Park Scholars program, which is a collection of 12 LLCs with themes ranging from public health to business to the media. All 12 College Park Scholars programs are housed in the same residential complex on the University of Maryland campus.

Kurotoschi.indb 9

25-05-2018 20:31:15

10

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

15. Upper Division Programs: Serving the interests of third- or fourth-year students, usually focusing on preparing them for graduate school or workforce entry. 16. Wellness Programs: Providing an environment inclusive of physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being, including (a) general wellness and healthy living (e.g., no smoking, no alcohol consumption) and (b) spirituality and faith-based programs. 17. Women’s Programs: Focusing on women students’ development, including programming on (a) women’s leadership and (b) women-only science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs.

Using the same data from the NSLLP, Inkelas, Soldner, Longerbeam, and Leonard (2008) developed a second LLC typology, this time examining the following structural or organizational components of programs instead of their themes: (a) size, (b) budget sources, (c) faculty involvement, (d) courses offered, (e) program director affiliation, (f ) special resources, and (g) cocurricular activities. A cluster analysis determined there were three distinctive structural types of LLCs represented in the NSLLP data: 1. Small, Limited Resourced, Primarily Residential Life Emphasis: Smallersized programs (fewer than 50 participants) funded and run by residence life and housing (RLH) professional staff with little-to-no partnership with academic affairs and thus scarce faculty involvement. 2. Medium, Moderately Resourced, Student/Academic Affairs Combination: Medium-sized programs (approximately 100 participants) with limited partnerships between academic affairs and RLH that provided resources to students (academic advising, faculty involvement, community service opportunities, career workshops, etc.) not typically provided in traditional residence halls. 3. Large, Comprehensively Resourced Student/Academic Affairs Collaboration: Large-sized programs (average size was 343 participants) with robust collaborations between academic affairs and RLH. Students in these programs had the opportunity to access a large number of affiliated faculty, a variety of courses, and a number of resources and cocurricular activities.

In comparing results using the 2 typologies, Inkelas and colleagues (2008) noted their surprise to learn that hundreds of LLCs could be represented by only 3 structural types. Meanwhile, however, there were 17 different LLC themes. The authors conjectured that although different campuses might boast LLCs with varying themes, most LLCs are run and operated using a

Kurotoschi.indb 10

25-05-2018 20:31:15

11

INTRODUCTION TO LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

similar organizational structure. Additionally, although one might assume LLCs with more comprehensively and collaboratively resourced components are more effective than smaller programs primarily run by RLH staff, the self-reported student outcome data from the NSLLP were not significantly different between clusters 1 and 3. However, the reasons behind the lack of significant differences between the two clusters are not well-known, and the authors cautioned their findings were preliminary.

Characteristics of Contemporary LLCs Although the cluster analysis revealed only 3 structural types of LLCs, there was a significant amount of variation in the organizational characteristics of the over 600 LLCs represented in the 2007 NSLLP. The most common enrollment size of the typical LLC was 50 participants, but there were some LLCs with over 1,000 participating students and some with fewer than 10 students. In 2007 U.S. dollars, the average LLC budget was $21,000, not including salaries. However, nearly 10% of the LLCs in the NSLLP had no operating budget, and one-quarter had budgets under $1,000 (Inkelas, 2016). Nearly half of the LLCs were directed by a staff member, whereas 15% had directors whose appointments were in academic affairs. The rest were run collaboratively through a student/academic affairs partnership. Despite a high number of academic partners in today’s LLCs, there is not much faculty involvement. Almost 1 in 4 LLCs had no faculty participating in their programming, and 64% had only 1 to 3 faculty members working with the program. Of the limited number of faculty participating in LLC programming, they most often could be found teaching, conducting workshops, mentoring LLC students, and performing academic advising. Meanwhile, 85% of LLCs used RLH staff, in roles such as participating in social events, handling community or discipline issues, and performing administrative tasks (Inkelas, 2016). Although the efforts of the RLH staff are critical to the success of these programs, the lack of faculty involvement represents a missed opportunity for deeper integration of learning within the LLCs. A number of LLC characteristics tended to vary by program theme. For example, LLC goals and objectives tended to vary by theme; however, half of the LLCs in the 2007 NSLLP listed the following goals/objectives as pertaining to their programs: • Experiencing a smooth academic transition to college (56%) • Feeling a sense of belonging to the institution (54%) • Demonstrating openness to views different from one’s own (52%)

Kurotoschi.indb 11

25-05-2018 20:31:15

12

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

• Learning about others from different backgrounds (50%) • Experiencing a smooth social transition to college (50%) Similarly, cocurricular activities tended to be idiosyncratic to the theme of the LLC, but there were a few common types of activities included in many LLC portfolios. For example, 23% required some form of orientation program, whereas 14% and 12%, respectively, required students to undertake group projects or team-building exercises. Among the optional cocurricular activities, the most popular among LLCs were cultural outings (79%), multicultural programming (77%), and study groups (75%) (Inkelas, 2016). Although the preceding analysis identifies some of the common characteristics of contemporary LLCs, these characteristics do not exemplify best practices. This requires further investigation, and the focus of the remainder of this book will be on those aspects of LLCs that have been found empirically to facilitate positive student outcomes.

Purposes of This Book Clearly, LLCs as a HIP have the attention of faculty and administrators both within and outside the United States; the evidence is in the hundreds of LLCs that now exist. Because, until now, there was no empirically based framework for LLCs, there is substantial variation in quality and student outcomes related to LLC participation. Rising attendance at professional conferences related to LLCs and the development of new conferences like the Residential College Symposium illustrate that institutional leaders are looking for ways to enhance the quality of their LLCs. Despite the reclaimed interest in LLCs, there is a lack of resources available to researchers and practitioners; therefore, we have written this book to offer an empirically based framework to guide the design, delivery, and assessment of LLCs, using best practices from research to illustrate each element of the framework. We also address the resources needed to build and maintain these critical elements for program success. Practitioners, researchers, and institutional leaders can use this book as a guide to more effectively allocate resources to create and sustain successful LLCs and to realize the potential of these communities to improve undergraduate education. This book provides guidance for LLC administrators, institutional leaders, and faculty working in LLCs. Those who are just beginning to develop LLCs and those who are looking to improve them will also find many ideas of interest. Additionally, students in student affairs graduate preparation programs and other researchers exploring LLC environments may find this evidence-based approach to understanding LLCs beneficial to their work.

Kurotoschi.indb 12

25-05-2018 20:31:15

INTRODUCTION TO LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

13

Readers will note throughout the book that some institutions are identified when they are used as examples whereas others are not. Those from research studies for which confidentiality was assured are referenced by pseudonym. Other institutional examples, sought directly from particular institutions with recognition they would be named within the book, identify the specific college or university. We provide this information to clarify our approach. Additionally, we have made specific decisions about terminology for this book that deserve explanation. We have used the term academic affairs to reference academic units within institutions. When referencing staff from residence life and housing, we use the abbreviation RLH; we specify when those RLH staff members are students or professionals. Chapter 2 introduces the best practices model (BPM) based on the NSLLP, and readers are provided with an in-depth overview of each level of the BPM, with current LLC examples highlighting specific elements at each level. Each of the following five chapters (2–6) begins with the BPM graphic to provide a visual guide for the reader and reinforce the importance of building each level on the foundation of the previous level. Chapters 3 through 6 also include a special section highlighting one LLC to illustrate the BPM across chapters. The case example is introduced in Box 1.1. After exploring best practices, logistics and costs are described in chapter 7. Finally, sustainability considerations are addressed in chapter 8, including such aspects as program equity and faculty recruitment and rewards. In addition, at the end of each chapter we provide discussion questions for further exploration of that level of the model. At the end of the book, we offer an inventory for campuses to reflect on their current programs and determine current strengths as well as areas for improvement. Readers new to LLCs may want to read the book in its entirety, whereas those more familiar may opt to read chapters focused on areas in which they wish to improve or dedicate additional effort. Although this book represents a new model for LLCs, it should not be considered comprehensive. LLCs mainly exist on residential college campuses, and although some community colleges are beginning to provide campus housing options for their students, this book and the studies referenced in it are focused on four-year residential institutions. Moreover, although the evolution of LLCs in U.S. higher education includes the development of the broader-based set of learning communities, this book concentrates solely on residentially based learning communities and does not reflect current research and practice related to other types of learning communities. Finally, this book addresses best practices in LLCs but does not go into detail on other programming commonly found in college residence halls, such as residential education, community building, and other programming without an academic focus.

Kurotoschi.indb 13

25-05-2018 20:31:15

14

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

BOX 1.1

Pace University Case Study In chapters 3 through 6, toward the end of each chapter, we present a special section that highlights one institution’s LLCs in particular. With their permission, we use the First-Year Interest Groups (FIGs) at Pace University– Westchester as a case study on how the BPM can help identify places of strength and also show areas for improvement in an institution’s LLCs. Pace University–Westchester in Pleasantville, New York, underwent a major renovation transforming its 200-acre campus. Architectural firm EYP, Inc., was hired to create and carry out a new sustainable master plan, including designing a 125,000-square-foot residence hall, Alumni Hall, which opened in the fall of 2015. Through its commitment to building long-standing relationships with clients to assist in fulfilling their vision, EYP introduced a researcher to consult with them as well as their client, Pace University–Westchester. As an outgrowth of this assignment, Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas, the researcher and coauthor of this book, arranged to conduct a case study site visit of the FIGs and a survey of all FIG participants. Alumni Hall houses approximately 500 students in a semi-suite-style layout. The new residence hall features two classrooms, a coffee bar, and six study rooms. Alumni Hall also houses all of Pace’s seven FIGs, and each FIG has its own themed lounge. The themes of the seven FIGs are, in alphabetical order: Body and Mind (BAM), Creating Entrepreneurial Opportunities (CEO), Extreme Sports & Pace Nation (ESPN), Honors, Nursing, Pop Culture & Media, and Setters Leadership and Service House (SLH). There is also a themed program for returning (i.e., non-first-year) students in nursing, but that program is located in adjacent Elm Hall and is not included in the case study. Data for the case study were collected through a variety of methods. At the start of data collection, Pace’s Office of Residential Life and Housing (RLH) provided Inkelas a large set of documents about the FIGs, including residence director and resident assistant (RA) training documents, information about FIG orientation and selection, marketing information, agendas from FIG Advisory Board meetings, and results from prior assessments. RLH also responded to the LLC inventory described in chapter 6. In addition, Inkelas conducted a site visit at Pace on December 16, 2016, during which she was provided a tour of the FIG facilities and interviewed faculty and staff associated with the FIGs. Finally, in February and March of 2017, the researchers conducted a survey of all FIG participants, which resulted in 190 respondents, or a 42.9% response rate. The boxes in chapters 3 to 6 each show a real-life example of how LLCs can be scrutinized using the BPM.

Kurotoschi.indb 14

25-05-2018 20:31:15

INTRODUCTION TO LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

15

Like all HIPs the proving ground for institutions is not whether they operate any LLCs but if they operate effective LLCs. Indeed, although the premise for LLCs is rather simple—namely, to make the in-class and out-of-class experience more seamless—the components that make LLCs successful are anything but simple and are instead a series of building blocks that rely on one another for support. The next chapter describes this series of building blocks, which serves as our BPM.

Kurotoschi.indb 15

25-05-2018 20:31:15

Kurotoschi.indb 16

25-05-2018 20:31:15

2 BEST PRACTICES MODEL FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

L

LCs come in all shapes and sizes: as described in chapter 1, the NSLL Pincluded over 600 different LLCs categorized into 41 types, which were further grouped into 17 primary categories (e.g., Honors LLCs, Cultural LLCs, Transition LLCs, Residential Colleges). The NSLLP research team also developed a structural typology of LLCs, which sorted LLCs into three clusters: (a) Small, Limited Resource, Primarily Residential Life; (b) Medium, Moderately Resourced, Student/Academic Affairs Combination; and (c) Large, Comprehensively Resourced, Student/ Academic Affairs Collaboration. (See chapter 1 for a description of both typologies.) However, both of these typologies are merely descriptive, meaning neither makes any value judgments about the quality of LLCs of differing themes or organizational characteristics. Using the quantitative and qualitative data gathered by the NSLLP over 10 years and several data collections, the NSLLP research team developed a BPM that depicts a set of components for successful LLCs. The various components are arranged as building blocks in a stacked pyramid, similar to Maslow’s presentation of his hierarchy of needs (Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg, & Schaller, 2010; Maslow, 1954/1987). In Maslow’s model, human motivation is dictated by certain needs, of which the most basic and fundamental are the physiological (e.g., sleep, food, water). Without fulfilling these basic conditions, individuals cannot progress on to higher order needs. Thus, as one moves up the pyramid from basic needs, the higher tiers in the pyramid depend on foundational levels for support. The apex of Maslow’s hierarchy is self-actualization or the fulfillment of individual potential through interconnection with the rest of the needs in the pyramid. 17

Kurotoschi.indb 17

25-05-2018 20:31:15

18

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

Figure 2.1. The BPM for LLCs.

PINNACLE

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE

Courses for credit

Clear goals & objectives

Mortar between the bricks = assessment

Intentional integration

Study groups K–12 outreach Career workshops Visits to work settings Theme-related activities

Faculty advising

Academic Affairs

Academically supportive climate

Socially supportive climate

Residence Life/ Housing

Collaboration

Adequate resources

The LLC BPM, like Maslow’s model, is organized as a pyramid (illustrated in Figure 2.1), with four levels: (a) infrastructure on the bottom, (b) academic environment, (c) cocurricular environment, and (d) the pinnacle as the top level. Each level is made up of building blocks based on empirical evidence gathered either through the NSLLP survey data or case studies. After the various levels of the model are described briefly in the following pages, chapters 3 through 6 further describe each level.

Infrastructure Level At the base of the pyramid is the LLC infrastructure, or those aspects of LLC programming that—at their foundation—must exist for the other aspects of programming to subsist and flourish. The infrastructure consists of (a) clearly articulated goals and objectives directly relating to the program’s theme, (b) collaboration between residence life and the relevant academic departments supporting the LLC, and (c) adequate fiscal and human resources to productively run the program. Effective LLCs must have clear programmatic goals and objectives aligned with their theme. Because all other facets of the LLC’s programming and the assessment plan should be based on the LLC’s goals and objectives, they are critically important to the foundation of the program and thus are the cornerstone of the BPM. Partnerships between student affairs and academic affairs are critical to the success of LLCs. Collaborations between RLH and academic affairs

Kurotoschi.indb 18

25-05-2018 20:31:15

BEST PRACTICES MODEL FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

19

are contextually bound and should follow the working relationships most optimal for their unique contexts. For some institutions, where there is precedent for and an embrace of a strong integration of roles and responsibilities between faculty and student affairs staff, a fully integrated type of collaboration may be best, which might mean shared academic-student affairs employee lines, mutuality in decision-making, or frequent collaboration. For other institutions where no such precedent exists, or where the student and academic affairs spheres orbit somewhat separately, a more “parallel partnership,” where the two divisions maintain boundaries in their roles (e.g., RLHs responsible for community building and discipline, academic affairs responsible for the curriculum and academic advising) might be best. In either case, however, communicating regularly and developing a level of trust is crucial for both divisions. The final block of the infrastructure level of the LLC best practices pyramid involves the possession of adequate human, physical, and financial resources. Analyses of the NSLLP case studies revealed the significant role played by champions in LLC successes. The most common champions for LLCs included institutional leaders, but even more often the directors of the programs themselves. Effective LLC personnel should include faculty, who are vital in serving the academic objectives of the community, and a professional staff commensurate with the size of the LLC. Staff responsibilities may include community building, discipline, administrative tasks, and cocurricular activities. Physical capacities are also important to the basic functioning of LLCs. NSLLP case studies and other research (Wawrzynski, Jessup-Anger, Stolz, Helman, & Beaulieu, 2009) showed the most effective LLCs included physical spaces conducive to a learning environment, such as classroom space inside the residence hall, as well as offices for faculty advising and staff administrative duties. Moreover, public spaces like a common dining area and large, reconfigurable rooms or lounges were useful for formal and informal meetings and events, such as student organization meetings, group project planning, and social events from watching a popular TV show to dances or parties. Finally, despite the necessity of adequate financial resources to fund the various activities that make up the BPM, the NSLLP results showed substantial variation in budgets among LLCs. And not surprisingly, those programs with smaller or stretched budgets were often not able to meet their goals or fulfill all of their desired outcomes. Thus, if campuses are considering whether to develop new LLCs during stark economic and budgetary times, they must consider whether they have the resources to support those programs. If sufficient resources do not exist, forgoing the LLC altogether may be better than asking those administering the program to do so with severely limited resources.

Kurotoschi.indb 19

25-05-2018 20:31:16

20

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

Academic Environment Resting on top of the LLC infrastructure in the BPM is the academic environment, or the intellectual hub of the program (see Figure 2.1). The elements that form this level of the model include (a) courses for credit from the LLC itself or colists with an academic department, (b) academic advising performed by faculty members, and (c) a residence hall climate that is academically and socially supportive. One of the keys to successful LLC programming documented in the case studies is coregistration in common courses by the participants, especially if those courses are part of a major sequence related to the theme of the program. For example, STEM-based LLCs having undergraduate participants enrolled in the same sections of introductory STEM coursework (e.g., calculus, chemistry) helped create a more intimate learning community of LLC students within these often large lecture courses, in which the LLC peers could support one another with homework, examination reviews, and general encouragement during busy and stressful times. Unfortunately, analysis of the NSLLP data revealed fewer than half of the LLCs offered any form of coursework as part of their program experience. Moreover, many of the LLCs offered a course in conjunction with their programming, but in a non-credit-bearing format, which, being viewed as not required, resulted in diminished student motivation. Thus, the BPM recommends LLCs build in opportunities for students to take courses together that satisfy general education requirements or requirements for their major and are relevant to the LLC’s theme. The results of the NSLLP multiple case study showed that faculty involvement is considered an important, if not a crucial, aspect of effective LLC programming. The most common forms of faculty involvement in LLCs were teaching courses and advising students. LLC students interacted with faculty most often regarding course-related or academic advising issues and less so in the context of mentoring relationships. The nature of students’ interaction with faculty may be guided in part by the fact that most LLC participants are first-year students, and consequently their initial interactions with faculty may not yet lead to more mature, mentoring types of relationships. Accordingly, the BPM recommends the student-faculty interactions optimal to effective programming should be generally organized around specific courses or academic advising, which in turn may lead to more sustained mentoring relationships in the future. Finally, the last two blocks in the academic environment level of the model relate to the level of academic and social support LLC students perceive in their residence hall environments. Peer-to-peer interaction in the residence halls was mentioned by LLC students as the single most positive aspect of their programming, and the quantitative analyses of the NSLLP found

Kurotoschi.indb 20

25-05-2018 20:31:16

BEST PRACTICES MODEL FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

21

students’ perceptions of academically and/or socially supportive residence hall climates were significantly associated with positive student outcomes in areas such as the transition to college, sense of belonging, appreciation of diversity/multiculturalism, and commitment to civic engagement (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003; Johnson et al., 2007; Rowan-Kenyon, Soldner, & Inkelas, 2007). The NSLLP research and other studies (Wawrzynski et al., 2009) found effective residence hall environments supported students academically and socially and created a climate conducive to rigorous academic study, while also being fun and supportive. In addition, creating an LLC climate tolerant and appreciative of cultural differences (racial/ethnic, religious, or sociocultural) was critical. Again, the placement of the blocks on the pyramid is also symbolic. If the foundation on which the academic environment blocks are resting is not solid or is missing, the effectiveness of surrounding blocks is compromised as well. For example, if there is weak or no collaboration between the LLC and academic affairs (part of the infrastructure level), there is little chance the LLC courses or academic advising performed by faculty (part of the academic environment level resting on top of the infrastructure level) will be successful. Similarly, if the RLH is not attentive to the residence community in which the LLC resides, then the likelihood of the academic and social climate in those residential spaces being supportive in meaningful ways is low.

Cocurricular Environment The third level of the model consists of the cocurricular environment, or formal, out-of-class activities that supplement and fortify the academic goals of the LLC (see Figure 2.1). Generally, the cocurricular activities best suited for a particular LLC directly relate to and enhance its theme. For example, LLCs based on a theme related to a foreign language should incorporate cocurricular activities that allow students the opportunity to use and practice communication and understanding in that language (e.g., conversation partners, sharing cuisines from that region of the world, watching movies in that language). The survey results from the NSLLP found the most common required cocurricular activities in the LLCs studied were orientation programs, group projects, and team-building pursuits, and the most popular optional cocurricular activities offered included cultural outings, multicultural programming, and study groups. However, analyses investigating the relationships between specific cocurricular activities and student outcomes, such as the transition to college, overall sense of belonging, and commitment to civic engagement showed four cocurricular activities in particular were most often linked to more positive outcomes: (a) study groups, (b) outreach to K–12

Kurotoschi.indb 21

25-05-2018 20:31:16

22

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

schools (buddies, peer tutoring, etc.), (c) career workshops, and (d) visits to work settings (corporations, labs, governments). Thus, it is optimal for LLCs to capitalize on their themes and offer consonant cocurricular activities (e.g., cultural LLCs taking field trips to local museums). Study groups, K–12 outreach, career workshops, and workplace visits are some activities that appear to have universal appeal. Of course, quantity does not equate with quality; it would be preferable to provide a few high-quality cocurricular activities than to offer numerous activities that are not well conceived or planned.

The Pinnacle: Intentional Integration The highest level of the model, or the pinnacle, is characterized as intentional integration. This concept represents the extent to which all of the other blocks in the pyramid are aligned with the LLC’s goals and objectives and integrated with one another (see Figure 2.1). For example, a strong academic/ student affairs partnership is optimal but not if it operates in opposition to or without consciousness of the program’s goals and objectives. Likewise, RLH staff and administrators of cocurricular activities should be made aware of the timing of examinations and major assignments in LLC students’ classes so cocurricular programming can align with students’ academic needs (e.g., study skills, test-taking tips, and stress-relief programming can be encouraged more readily during those times). Similarly, if the LLC is planning a special outreach to K–12 schools as a service-learning project, the organizers of the outreach project should consult the instructors of the LLC courses to see whether any topics in the courses might dovetail with the service effort. Or faculty teaching the LLC-affiliated courses might facilitate the formation of study groups, especially if there are students struggling to find peers with whom to partner while studying. Finally, the LLC should be nimble and integrated enough so it can capitalize on serendipitous events and transform them into “teachable moments.” For example, if a controversial art exhibit were to open on campus or at a nearby museum, a fine arts LLC could use the occasion to study the art and artist and also the public reaction to the art and its symbolism in modern society.

Assessment: The “Mortar Between the Bricks” The final aspect of the BPM is assessment, which is depicted in the model as the mortar between the building blocks holding the model together (see Figure 2.1). Effective LLC assessments evaluate discrete parts of their programming (e.g., courses, staff, and cocurricular activities) and the extent

Kurotoschi.indb 22

25-05-2018 20:31:16

BEST PRACTICES MODEL FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

23

to which all facets of their program (a) align with the program’s goals and objectives and (b) integrate with the program’s other elements. Despite acknowledged efforts by the LLCs in the NSLLP case study to strengthen their assessment efforts, most were only in the beginning phases of designing and executing their assessment plans. Accordingly, as LLCs contemplate the types of assessments they might pursue, a strong assessment should include (a) the effectiveness of the discrete elements of their program, (b) the extent to which the LLC program’s elements are aligned with the program’s goals and objectives, and (c) the level of integration of the various elements to form a cohesive program.

Incomplete Pyramids and Their Implications for Practice As might be expected, not every LLC incorporates all of the elements included in the BPM. Indeed, for most, the BPM is an aspirational model, which consequently means the blocks of the model in some LLCs will be missing or vulnerable. However, because the LLC BPM—like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—is built in a pyramidal structure, missing blocks in any level will erode the foundation on which blocks in subsequent levels rely. This section describes some common vulnerabilities among existing LLCs and the effects these vulnerabilities have on the effectiveness of the LLC as a whole.

LLCs Lacking Academic Partnerships Even though LLCs are meant to represent the ideal combination of academic and social environments, not all LLCs strike that balance. Notably, the NSLLP survey findings revealed 46% of all LLCs are completely run and funded by RLH staff. When there is no collaboration from academic affairs in an LLC, the academic portion of the infrastructure level disappears, making the blocks that rest on top of it fragile. Indeed, 52% of LLCs in the NSLLP offered no coursework for credit, and 23% had absolutely no faculty involvement. And with the toppling of the “courses for credit” and “faculty advising” blocks in the academic environment level of the model, the cocurricular activities and integrative aspects of the LLC that rely on a strong academic environment tumble as well. What remains of the program is more akin to a “theme house” than an LLC.

LLCs Lacking Cocurricular Activities Another common type of incomplete LLC involves those that offer few or no cocurricular activities, such as study groups, community service-learning, or

Kurotoschi.indb 23

25-05-2018 20:31:16

24

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

field trips. Programs with all academic activities and no cocurricular activities often do not offer students the opportunity to apply what they are learning in the classroom to real-world experiences. And in the process, the cocurricular omission makes the integration of the theme throughout the LLC very difficult, if not impossible.

LLCs Lacking Intentional Integration An LLC with all of the “bells and whistles” can still lack integration. For example, in some LLCs, there is an academic/student affairs collaboration, there are courses offered for credit, there are faculty advisers who meet with the LLC participants, the academic and social aspects of the residence hall climate are well attended to, and there are robust cocurricular activities in the LLC. However, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. For instance, faculty teaching the LLC classes are largely ignorant of what is going on in the residence hall or in the cocurricular activities. The cocurricular activities are not tied to class topics. The program has resources, but those charged with programming do not capitalize on the existence of the community. Essentially, what is lacking in this LLC is “intentional integration.” If all of the parts are present, but the parts do not make up a whole, then what emerges is a disparate set of activities that is not optimized for learning. The real strength of an LLC is the lack of boundaries between the living and the learning experience—the extent to which the experience is seamless. Without such integration, the LLC is really no better than a series of discrete and unrelated activities from which students can draw little meaning-making.

LLCs Lacking Systematic and Ongoing Assessment The final type of incomplete LLC model is the one that lacks a regular and consistent assessment plan. To use an illustration, without mortar holding the bricks together, a stiff wind could blow down the pyramid. Now, imagine the wind is accountability. Without systematic and ongoing assessment, proving the LLC’s effectiveness is unlikely. And in an era of shrinking revenues and increasing competition for scarce resources, an LLC with no empirical evidence of its value will be blown away. So LLCs must begin by articulating clear program goals and objectives and then find ways to measure whether those goals and objectives are being met. Finally, LLCs must tie specific program components (i.e., blocks within the BPM) to the achievement of those goals and objectives.

Kurotoschi.indb 24

25-05-2018 20:31:16

BEST PRACTICES MODEL FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

25

Outline of the Next Four Chapters This chapter summarized the major components of the LLC BPM. Chapters 3 through 6 provide more depth on the individual building blocks that comprise each level of the pyramid: (a) infrastructure, (b) academic environment, (c) cocurricular environment, and (d) intentional integration and assessment. In addition, each of the subsequent chapters provides several examples of LLCs that illustrate each building block, including a case study from Pace University. Although no LLC hits the mark for every building block in the BPM, there are many LLCs that exemplify a best practice for one or a few of the building blocks. Indeed, the authors of this book believe designating any one LLC as an overall best practice is a misnomer. There are no perfect programs, and thus anointing any one as an overall best practice means the less desirable aspects of the program are also included as part of the “best practice” package. Instead, we describe elements (or building blocks) of LLCs as best practices because practitioners seeking to build optimal LLCs will learn better from a series of distinct examples than from one imperfect archetype.

Kurotoschi.indb 25

25-05-2018 20:31:16

Kurotoschi.indb 26

25-05-2018 20:31:16

3 BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIVING-LEARNING C O M M U N I T I E S T H AT W O R K

E

ach of the next four chapters starts with a depiction of the BPM, with a particular level of the model highlighted, illustrating the focus of the chapter. We begin this chapter with a focus on the infrastructure level of the BPM, which includes the aspects of LLC programming essential for all other aspects of the community to subsist and flourish. Among these essential infrastructure elements are clearly articulated goals and objectives directly related to the program’s theme, collaboration between RLH and the relevant units in academic affairs supporting the LLC, and adequate fiscal and human resources to effectively run the program (see Figure 3.1). Despite the fundamental importance of the infrastructure for the sustainability and success of an LLC, it can be easily overlooked when passionate and energetic faculty and administrators set out to create a community. Building a strong foundation for an LLC takes time, communication, and (sometimes uncomfortable) articulation of roles and excavation of assumptions about responsibilities for supporting the community. The following example is drawn from one of our research studies exploring the development of a new residential college (in our Institutional Review Board application we indicated we would not reveal the institution or residential college name). Perhaps because there were existing residential colleges on the campus, and also because the model’s development was an institutional priority, many elements of the BPM were evident in the design of the new residential college. The example illustrates how the university engaged members of the campus community (faculty, administrators, students, and 27

Kurotoschi.indb 27

25-05-2018 20:31:16

28

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

Figure 3.1. The infrastructure of the BPM.

PINNACLE

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE

Courses for credit

Clear goals & objectives

Intentional integration

Study groups K–12 outreach Career workshops Visits to work settings Theme-related activities

Faculty advising

Academic Affairs

Academically y supportive climate

Socially supportive climate

Residence Life/ Housing

Collaboration

Adequate resources

staff ) in developing a strong foundation for what was to become its newest residential college. When the residential college was in the initial design phase, university leadership provided key opportunities and mechanisms for communicating with the campus community and receiving feedback. For example, the university president initiated conversations about the future of liberal arts and sciences programs at the university as part of the university strategic plan. The provost engaged members of the campus community in a number of open focus groups to develop their best ideas and innovative thinking on the liberal arts and sciences. The focus groups culminated in a recommendation to expand the university’s successful residential colleges and the development of a university-wide steering committee. The steering committee (comprising faculty, administrators, and students) held a series of open forums and established a public website to solicit feedback from university members on developing an innovative liberal arts and sciences LLC. As the new residential college moved from concept to reality, the steering committee made several noteworthy decisions. Among these decisions were the creation of a clear mission statement and a set of goals and objectives (which were later expanded on after the hiring of faculty and staff and the admission of students to the LLC). Other decisions, more specific to the faculty, included identifying the need for core faculty teaching in the residential college to have their tenure home in the new LLC. Although advising and student affairs interactions were initially overlooked in the design of the residential college (Jessup-Anger, Wawrzynski, & Yao, 2011), members

Kurotoschi.indb 28

25-05-2018 20:31:16

BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

29

of the committee were keen to address these concerns, which resulted in additional support sought for advising, admissions, and coordination of programming as the residential college moved from concept to reality. In its first fall, the new program recruited 125 students who also provided ongoing feedback for programming and activities in the development of the newly formed LLC. This example illustrates how foundational elements of an LLC might be laid. The goals and objectives were initiated by the steering committee and revised as the residential college came to fruition. The partnership between relevant units in academic and student affairs was at first absent but was quickly addressed as the need for partnership became more apparent. The human resources needed to run the program effectively were formalized in the decision to place tenure lines in the college and in the organizational support provided for student affairs professionals (including academic advisers and program coordinators). Each element of the infrastructure level of the BPM, as elaborated in the following sections, is essential for an effective LLC. In addition, Box 3.1 (toward the end of this chapter) describes the infrastructure at Pace University.

Clearly Articulated Goals and Objectives Directly Relating to the Program’s Theme LLCs are most effective when their programmatic goals and objectives are present, clear, and aligned with the LLC theme. Attention to the goals and objectives ensures LLC staff and faculty are focused and working in tandem to advance the theme of the community and help students fully integrate their academic and social experiences. Moreover, LLC goals and objectives should be situated in the context of an integrated learning environment, in which the formal academic curriculum, collaborative cocurricular programming, student life, and community development are all recognized and valued for their contribution to student learning (Keeling, 2004). Thus, there should be goals and objectives to explicitly address the various aspects of the LLC, which likely include both social and cocurricular aspects in addition to curricular outcomes. This integrated design addresses concerns about fragmentation in the undergraduate curriculum (Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998; Keeling, 2004). Effective LLCs are lauded as a panacea for the fragmentation in the undergraduate curriculum in part because of their intentional design and integration of academic and cocurricular elements. The NSLLP illustrated that

Kurotoschi.indb 29

25-05-2018 20:31:16

30

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

successful [living-learning programs]—those that produce students who achieve the [Association of American Colleges & Universities’] Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) outcomes—might be considered microcosms of what our colleges and universities can and should be: intentionally designed learning environments that work doggedly to maximize student learning, and particularly student learning related to the high-order skills and abilities that allow students to become citizens and leaders of the world. (Brower & Inkelas, 2010, p. 43)

Clearly articulated goals and objectives are foundational to the success of LLCs because all other facets of the community’s program and the assessment plan are predicated on them. Goals are typically written in broad terms and are the end results of the program (Henning & Roberts, 2016). Objectives are the accomplishments achieved to meet the goals—they name what will be produced by the experience (Henning & Roberts, 2016) and describe what the LLC will achieve (Yousey-Elsener, 2013). Each important aspect of the LLC environment should have goals associated with it. Some common goals of LLCs include • increasing students’ peer interactions related to academics outside the classroom, • deepening students’ social integration into the university, and • connecting students to cocurricular opportunities that will enhance their academic experiences. Once goals are established, objectives should be tied to each goal. These objectives will help to frame the experiences students will have in order to meet the goals. Following are some objectives that can be tied to the listed goals: Goal 1: Increasing students’ peer interactions related to academics outside the classroom • Objective 1a: Offer opportunities for group learning outside the classroom (field trips, speakers, etc.). • Objective 1b: Provide inviting and dedicated study spaces for students within the LLC. • Objective 1c: Integrate group projects into the curriculum of the class(es) associated with the LLC.

Kurotoschi.indb 30

25-05-2018 20:31:16

BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

31

Goal 2: Deepening students’ social integration into the university • Objective 2a: Provide a formal initiation into the LLC that helps students get to know each other and establishes social integration as a norm (retreat, induction ceremony, etc.). • Objective 2b: Provide opportunities for social interaction for the LLC (group dinners, social activities). • Objective 2c: Integrate relevant “get to know you” activities into the classroom experience. Goal 3: Connecting students to cocurricular opportunities that will enhance their academic experiences • Objective 3a: Integrate cocurricular activities into the course curriculum and provide credit for attendance. • Objective 3b: Provide structure and support (financial, human) for students to plan and lead cocurricular activities related to the theme of the community. • Objective 3c: Provide sufficient space within the LLC for students to gather and engage in course-related and cocurricular activities. Although the process of creating these goals and objectives might seem laborious and, thus, LLC administrators may be inclined to create them in isolation, our work indicates faculty seek out LLC experiences in order to engage with students in the integration of their experiences in and outside the classroom. As a result, these faculty have a vested interest in shaping the goals and objectives of the community so their vision of the community’s promise can be realized. Continuing with our example of the birth of a residential college introduced earlier in this chapter, we describe how the interim dean of the college guided the development of the goals and objectives and invited constituents at multiple levels into the LLC to help shape and define them. On three occasions the shaping of goals and objectives was particularly salient. The first was in the initial development of the LLC, when the interim dean engaged multiple constituents (including faculty, staff, and students) as members of a planning committee to create the mission of the LLC and craft initial goals and objectives to help realize that mission. These goals and objectives were tentative, as those involved understood some might change as faculty were hired. The second salient occurrence of shaping the goals and objectives took place when they were revised after faculty were hired into the LLC. At that point, faculty were invited to revisit the initial goals and objectives, modifying

Kurotoschi.indb 31

25-05-2018 20:31:16

32

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

or adding specificity to them. Finally, the revised goals and objectives were refined again as students were admitted into and progressed through the residential college. Faculty and student affairs staff collected student feedback and ideas through multiple feedback loops, including focus groups and feedback sessions. This method of developing the goals and objectives iteratively and at multiple points in time was a mixed blessing. In one regard, those with a vested interest could start to articulate a vision for the community, which would solidify their investment. However, because many of the infrastructure decisions were implemented with no students formally enrolled in the program, changes had to be made so the program fit the needs of the students, which took time and energy during the initial years of the LLC. These iterative processes provided voice to the many constituents associated with the LLC and built a solid foundation on which other elements included in the BPM could rest. The example illustrates how the development of LLC goals and objectives necessitates leadership, involvement of many constituents (including faculty, staff, and students), time, and willingness to revisit and revise over time. The inclusion of multiple voices in the development of goals and objectives provided transparency and increased buy-in from faculty, staff, and students alike as they were better able to support what they were helping to create.

Collaboration Between RLH and the Relevant Units in Academic Affairs The BPM illustrates the importance of RLH and academic affairs collaboration as a foundational element of LLCs. Without a strong collaborative relationship between these entities, an LLC will not realize true integration in living and learning, and students may be deprived of seamless learning experiences. The organizational structure of contemporary postsecondary institutions (Magolda, 2005; Schroeder, 1999), coupled with the faculty’s lack of knowledge about the role of student affairs (Golde & Pribbenow, 2000) and student affairs professionals’ lack of knowledge about faculty (Whitt, 2011), makes collaboration between these entities challenging. The following illustration based on our research shows the detrimental effect of a lack of collaboration between RLH and relevant academic departments. Sustainability of the Environment through Residential Initiatives (SERI), as its name implies, is an academically based LLC with a focus on the environment and sustainability. The SERI program had clear goals and objectives and dedicated faculty who were committed to its success. However,

Kurotoschi.indb 32

25-05-2018 20:31:16

BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

33

the LLC was flailing in large part because it had a strained relationship with RLH and student affairs. Evidence of the fissure between these entities was found in how students in the LLC were assigned to rooms. Despite urging from the director of the LLC to group the 24 students together in a smaller residence hall to create a sense of intimacy and community, these students were assigned rooms throughout a building of 1,200 students, without much thought about how a sense of community and culture might be affected by this dispersion. For years the SERI director pleaded with RLH to move the program to a smaller building on campus to develop the lacking sense of community and further establish the program; however, she was met with resistance at every attempt. At that point, RLH clearly did not see value in the LLC. However, when a new director of RLH was hired and a building was renovated to enhance LLC programming, SERI was finally moved into a new space. Since then, the program has grown to over 200 students, who tend an organic greenhouse that provides herbs, fruits, and vegetables to the dining facilities on campus. These students engage in such varied activities as teaching others about composting in their rooms, selling produce at a campus organic stand, and working to increase recycling and sustainability efforts throughout campus. This example provides an illustration regarding the importance of collaboration between academic affairs and RLH. Although academic units are often resistant to collaboration, in this instance the academic program was a willing participant but experienced resistance from RLH. With increased collaboration, what was once a fledgling LLC on campus with one faculty member directing the program is now a wellestablished program with additional staff that is so highly regarded it is highlighted during campus admission tours. Now, when new RLH professional and student staff are hired, the academic program participates in the interview and selection process. Additionally, individuals at various levels of the RLH organization play a role in the collaborative efforts so they are not left to only the newest members. This collaboration helps to address one difficulty that often occurs with RLH—the reality of relatively high turnover rates. Because RLH entry-level positions, particularly those with hall director or residence director responsibilities, often change staffing every 2 to 4 years, continually building collaborative supportive relationships in the midst of constant staff change is essential for the sustainability of LLCs. Meanwhile, faculty may stay at the same institution for the entirety of their careers, meaning a need to collaborate with from 10 to 20 different RLH staff during a 40-year faculty career span. Despite the success story of SERI, collaboration pitfalls are more common in LLCs. When examined through the lens of organizational

Kurotoschi.indb 33

25-05-2018 20:31:16

34

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

theory, the difficulty of establishing and maintaining collaboration across academic and student affairs makes sense, as each entity brings differing organizational and authority structures, goals, and overall purposes to their relationship (Keeling, Wall, Underhile, & Dungy, 2008; Magolda, 2005; Schroeder, 1999). Faculty departments are professionalized and largely specialized, meaning faculty members within the department are considered experts in particular areas of study, and thus they largely have free rein to make decisions about curriculum, content, and how to spend their time. Furthermore, many departments have a long history of shared governance, in which decision-making is democratic and shared among the faculty. Student affairs, in contrast, has a much more tightly coupled organizational structure, meaning the various functional areas are more formally integrated and are often organized in a hierarchical fashion, with layers of supervision and authority structures. Decision-making is largely centralized at higher levels of a student affairs division. These differences across student and academic affairs can be a source of misunderstanding about responsibilities. For example, faculty may not understand why RLH staff cannot simply change policies problematic for community-building within an LLC, whereas an RLH department may become frustrated that a dean or department chair cannot force a new faculty member to maintain an interest in advancing the agenda of an LLC when another faculty member leaves the institution. Also embedded in the cultural differences between academic and student affairs are differences in values and socialization (Haynes & Janosik, 2012; Magolda, 2005), which create barriers to collaboration in LLCs. Many faculty are drawn to their positions and areas of specialization because of a desire to advance and share knowledge about their subject matter (Magolda, 2005). Conducting research and teaching are fundamental and time-consuming aspects of their work. Many faculty maintain labs, serve on editorial boards, and present at conferences with an eye toward advancing knowledge in their field or discipline. The accountability and reward systems for faculty— namely, promotion and tenure, which are judged mostly by other faculty within and outside their discipline—are typically weighted heavily on performance in these areas. Although service (which may include committee work, student group advising, and other administrative duties) is a facet of their evaluation, it is often weighted as less important and, in fact, may count negatively if others perceive it as interfering with more scholarly activity (Golde & Pribbenow, 2000; Kennedy & Townsend, 2008; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Wawrzynski et al., 2009). Thus, when faculty get involved in LLCs, they often do so in spite of their accountability and reward structures. They cite a desire to know

Kurotoschi.indb 34

25-05-2018 20:31:16

BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

35

students better and to engage in pedagogical innovation and interdisciplinary work (Golde & Pribbenow, 2000; Kennedy & Townsend, 2008). They stay involved in LLCs when they find the experience positive and enriching (Kennedy & Townsend, 2008). Faculty report that their involvement in LLCs includes intrinsic benefits such as greater, more varied, and more altruistic interactions with students (Haynes & Janosik, 2012). In addition, these faculty reported a feeling of contributing to the academic mission of the institution by their involvement and also noted increased interactions with faculty and staff outside their departments (Haynes & Janosik, 2012). Whereas faculty are concerned with advancing knowledge, student affairs professionals are often primarily concerned with tending to students’ needs and development (Magolda, 2005). Their socialization into the field of student affairs likely included information about how to support students’ intellectual, moral, and psychological development while also creating environments for students to thrive and ensuring an inclusive campus supportive of marginalized populations. Many student affairs professionals were attracted to the field because of a desire to help students thrive in a university setting. Their reward structures are likely centered on their particular functional area and evaluation mechanisms dependent on a number of factors focused on particular performance in their functional area. Thus, if LLC programming is part of a student affairs professional’s position, the evaluation and reward structure will likely connect directly to work in the LLC. Staff cite benefits of participation in LLCs that include a feeling of advancing the academic mission of the institution, broader connections with faculty and staff from other departments, and deeper interactions with students—both in quantity and in meaning (Haynes & Janosik, 2012). Because faculty may not be rewarded for their work in an LLC in the same way student affairs professionals are, it can be enticing for student affairs professionals to “go it alone” and not include faculty in the development of an LLC but then ask them to become involved after the goals and objectives are in place. A worst-case scenario happens when student affairs professionals do not include faculty at all in the LLC, thereby eliminating the necessary collaboration that would enhance the quality of the LLC, which would in turn affect additional levels in the BPM. Magolda (2005) argues that for student affairs and academic affairs partnerships to be successful, each must embrace their differences and create conditions for collaboration where each side can bring something to the table. In addition to positional differences between academic and student affairs professionals, the type of partnership is contextually bound and highly dependent on the organizational and cultural environment that exists at the

Kurotoschi.indb 35

25-05-2018 20:31:16

36

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

institution. In One Size Does Not Fit All, Manning, Kinzie, and Schuh (2014) outlined a number of different models of effective student affairs practice. They labeled about half traditional, and about half were deemed either innovative or not well documented in contemporary student affairs literature. Among the innovative models of student affairs was an academic-student affairs collaboration model, in which there are “significant interactions between student and academic affairs staff around the common purpose of enhanced student learning” (Manning et al., 2014, p. 158). In this model, a tightly coupled structure enables faculty and student affairs staff to deepen their understanding of one another so they learn to appreciate the other’s talents. The features of the model enhance the shared purpose and help to develop a partnership across academic and student affairs. These features include centering student affairs as a partner in student learning, tightly coupling student and academic affairs, providing structural bridges that connect student and academic affairs, and having a shared educational mission and language about student learning and success (Manning et al., 2014). This academic-student affairs partnership model is conducive to reenvisioning LLC partnerships because it provides a new organizational framework for each entity to reimagine itself in relation to the other. This partnership does not, however, address some of the differing reward structures that sometimes impede collaboration. In the scenario presented at the beginning of the chapter, the faculty were assured on multiple occasions their contributions to the development of the LLC were an important part of their evaluation process. The strong support and clear messages from the academic department and dean of the academically based LLC helped faculty put their minds at ease that their endeavors were a necessary and rewarded component of their faculty work. More specific to LLCs, the structural typology developed by Inkelas and colleagues (2008) and detailed in chapter 1 provides some insight into how the structure of these communities may affect collaboration between academic and student affairs, and thus outcomes of the communities. The small, limited resourced, primarily residential life emphasis communities, which are found in myriad institutions, are often organized around a theme or topic that is of interest to students. Shapiro and Levine (1999) note these LLCs are often time-consuming for RLH staff who must constantly reach out to students, faculty, and others for the community to function effectively. These communities are often plagued with sustainability vulnerabilities when the administration of the LLC is a secondary responsibility for several staff in RLH and thus does not get adequate attention. Another problem occurs when the responsibility for LLC administration falls on only one person, leading to difficulty when staff change positions or leave the university altogether.

Kurotoschi.indb 36

25-05-2018 20:31:16

BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

37

The medium, moderately resourced, student affairs/academic affairs combination living-learning programs boast more collaboration between student and academic affairs; however, the two typically work alongside each other as opposed to working in consultation or collaboration. In this type of community, students may be grouped together in a section of a class, and RLH might provide support to ensure students are housed together and RAs might focus programming on topics of interest to the students in the community; however, there is no integration between the elements of the course or its academic outcomes and the activities of the residence hall. Finally, in large, comprehensively resourced, student affairs/academic affairs collaboration programs, there is a strong precedent of shared responsibility between faculty and student affairs staff. LLCs can manifest this responsibility by sharing academic and student affairs employee lines: for example, a hall director (RLH) also had a 25% appointment as an academic adviser (academic affairs) in the community, which connected her more directly to the academic program where the LLC was situated. Other examples may include resident assistants who are also charged with providing academic mentorship and support to students in consultation with the academic department or unit sponsoring the LLC, or academic advisers or faculty who also support academic programming in the residence halls. In a comprehensively resourced, collaborative program, one would expect organizational mechanisms for shared decision-making between academic and student affairs. For example, there may be LLC advisory boards that have representation from faculty, academic staff (deans, associate deans, or academic advisers), and RLH professionals (including assistant directors, coordinators, or hall directors). These advisory boards might meet several times a year to discuss issues pertaining to the community, including curriculum, pedagogy, or staffing. Other less formal mechanisms to promote shared decision-making include sharing meetings, in which representatives from academic and student affairs dedicate time to plan or discuss issues within the community, or inviting a representative from academic affairs to an RLH meeting or vice versa. Researchers have used Inkelas and colleagues’ (2008) typology to better understand the sense of the magnitude of resources necessary for student success. Results are somewhat mixed. These researchers used their typology and data from the NSLLP to look at differences in critical thinking, cognitive complexity, and appreciation for liberal learning across the three different LLC types. They found that participation in large, comprehensively resourced communities yielded statistically significant higher scores in students’ critical thinking. In addition, students in the large, comprehensively resourced communities and the small, limited resource, residence life

Kurotoschi.indb 37

25-05-2018 20:31:16

38

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

communities outperformed peers in the moderately resourced communities in cognitive complexity and appreciation for liberal learning. The researchers suggested that perhaps in the medium, moderately resourced communities, the scale of the communities outpaced resources and connections, rendering them less effective in advancing students’ learning. Wawrzynski and Jessup-Anger (2010) used the Inkelas typology to examine experiences across medium, moderately resourced communities and also large, comprehensively resourced communities. They specifically focused on ascertaining differences in student-faculty interaction, sense of belonging, peer academic interactions, enriching educational environment, and peer intellectual connections. They found students in the large, comprehensively resourced communities reported stronger peer academic interactions and a more enriching educational environment than students in the moderately resourced communities. These findings support the supposition advanced by Inkelas and colleagues that medium-sized, moderately resourced communities have a scale/resource problem and may need additional resources to be effective. In addition to organizational mechanisms supporting collaboration between faculty and RLH staff, conceptualizing LLC integration as each side bringing something to the partnership that would not readily exist otherwise might help facilitate increased collaboration (Brower & Inkelas, 2010). Within student affairs, Blimling (2001) identified four different theories of practice that coexist—namely, student learning, student development, student services, and student administration. How a student affairs/academic affairs partnership is enacted depends largely on what and how strongly an institution, or more specifically an RLH department, identifies with a particular community of practice. On the one hand, if an RLH department identifies strongly with the student learning community of practice, staff within the department will see themselves as active partners in the learning mission and consequently will likely be eager to partner with faculty in both the curricular and cocurricular dimensions of the community. Their contribution may complement the contribution of faculty by engaging students in experiential, active learning (Blimling, 2001). On the other hand, if an RLH department identifies strongly with the student services or student administration community of practice, staff within the department will see themselves as managers or administrators charged with improving quality of services and student life, and thus they will be eager to partner with faculty in ways that will enhance the student experience or student satisfaction. Another way of understanding effective academic and student affairs partnerships is to recognize the qualities that exist when these partnerships

Kurotoschi.indb 38

25-05-2018 20:31:16

BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

39

are effective. Whitt and colleagues (2008) explored the partnership practices of 18 different postsecondary institutions to identify characteristics that exist when the partnership is effective. Among the findings relevant to LLCs were partnerships that embodied a learning-centered ethos, built on and nurtured relationships, attended to institutional culture, used assessment, and provided and cultivated “multiple manifestations of leadership” (Whitt et al., 2008, p. 245). Existing research on LLCs provides support for the notion of a learningcentered ethos as good practice in an academic and student affairs partnership. Wawrzynski and colleagues (2009) explored students’ perceptions of their environment in three different LLCs and found students highlighting seamless learning as one of the distinguishing features of their environments. Students described their communities as fostering learning in and outside the classroom through formal and informal activities that led them to engage with one another and the subject matter in both theoretical and practical ways. They credited the structure of the LLCs, including a close relationships with peers, strong faculty and innovative pedagogy, and expectation for involvement, coupled with endless engagement opportunities, with promoting learning. In summary, the foundation of LLCs is stronger and more resilient when there is collaboration between RLH and academic affairs. This collaboration may be fostered by ensuring meaningful opportunities for engagement between all entities involved from the initial development of the community to day-to-day operations. In addition, all involved parties from academic affairs and RLH should be aware of and dedicated to navigating through the differing values, reward structures, and operational frames that often hamper successful collaboration.

Adequate Resources Providing adequate resources is also foundational to realizing the potential of LLCs. These resources include the physical spaces that help to support and sustain the community, personnel committed to the success of the community, and sufficient financial resources for the community to thrive.

Physical Spaces In Designing for Learning, Strange and Banning (2015) argue that the physical environment of colleges and universities shapes students’ impressions in lasting ways. Even before students set foot on campus, they likely have been exposed to bucolic images of campus quadrangles and attractive buildings

Kurotoschi.indb 39

25-05-2018 20:31:17

40

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

that send messages ranging from historical traditions to modern innovations. These images provide a blueprint for what students can expect from a postsecondary institution when they arrive on campus (Felten, Gardner, Schroeder, Lambert, & Barefoot, 2016). Drawing from the field of environmental psychology, many campus planners have embraced the notion of architectural probabilism (Bell, Greene, Fisher, & Baum, 2001), which suggests the physical environment can be designed in ways to make some human behaviors more likely. Despite acknowledging the importance of physical space in shaping behavior, campus administrators, planners, and students report that facilities are often designed “without the flexibility and adaptability needed to ensure user relevance over time” (Rullman & van den Kieboom, 2012, p. 19). In The Undergraduate Experience: Focusing Institutions on What Matters Most, Felten and colleagues (2016) illustrate the contradiction between the desire for greater faculty and student interaction and the poor design of academic buildings by asking readers to imagine what it might be like for a shy first-year student to walk through a poorly lit hallway of mostly closed doors for his or her first visit to a faculty member’s office. Or vice versa, imagine professors, having long since graduated from college themselves, walking into a residence hall—the domain of people perhaps half their age. Alternatives to this intimidating, yet common experience for first-year students and faculty alike could be designated spaces for faculty and student meetings like a lounge or common area that might feel familiar to both parties. When it is possible, LLCs benefit when they are able to design their space in a thoughtful manner. Wawrzynski’s research team (2009) found physical structures of LLCs play a key role in promoting a scholarly environment by supporting community learning and the presence of faculty and staff within the communities. In one of the communities examined by the research team, students commented their LLC had “help rooms” where students could meet with teaching assistants after hours and on the weekends to get assistance with many different subjects. In addition, there were many different types of study spaces, including floor lounges, group study rooms, and quiet study rooms. One such study room was dubbed “the morgue” because of the expectation for students to maintain complete silence while studying there, an imperative passed on from year to year. The plethora of study spaces mentioned by students is not always common in traditional residence hall designs and is something to take note of when designing new spaces for LLCs. Wawrzynski and colleagues (2009) also found physical spaces could encourage faculty and student interaction. Students in their study described an administrative office for an LLC located in their residence hall, with a

Kurotoschi.indb 40

25-05-2018 20:31:17

BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

41

faculty office and meeting space, which meant professors were going to be available when students needed to talk. Students also reported being more apt to stop by faculty offices than they would have been if the faculty offices were located across campus. Furthermore, discussions with residential college faculty revealed they were more likely to look for opportunities to interact with students in the dining hall, music practice rooms, study lounges, and student art gallery, all of which were located in the building with the LLC (Jessup-Anger et al., 2011). In addition to facilitating interaction with faculty, Wawrzynski’s team (2009) found physical space was important for fostering social and cocurricular interactions. Students used gathering spaces in the LLC for student organization meetings, cocurricular events, and informal gatherings. Several students commented they were more inclined to get involved or go to events because of the ease of doing so—the information about involvement was at their fingertips because of their LLC affiliation and the events were often down the hall or stairs from their living space. EYP, Inc., the previously discussed architectural firm that builds college residence halls, has been conducting research on how student living spaces can facilitate deeper learning and has found similar results to Wawrzynski and colleagues (2009). Through their research (Kamal et al., 2014), they found students preferred residence hall spaces that were pleasant and convenient and that included comfortable furniture, quiet and privacy, adequate lighting, central location, and flexible space with furnishings that could be rearranged. In addition, students tended to favor public residence hall spaces conducive to studying, working on group projects, and informal socializing. Thus, as also noted by Wawrzynski’s team, incorporating space for studying is vital for an LLC, and increasing the number of comfortable and convenient public spaces in the residence hall can lead to greater student interaction and involvement—for conversations with professors, working on group projects with peers, meetings with student clubs and organizations, and just hanging out with friends. In a study at the University of Michigan sponsored by EYP (Kamal et al., 2014), researchers examined student interactions in two different residence halls, one that was built with living-learning design elements such as public spaces with reconfigurable furniture and smaller nooks and informal gathering spots for studying and meeting with faculty, and another that just completed renovation, but without the design elements. They found students living in the building with the intentional living-learning design elements were statistically and significantly more likely to interact with students with different interests and from different countries than those in the renovated building. Moreover, students in the living-learning environment

Kurotoschi.indb 41

25-05-2018 20:31:17

42

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

were more likely to have intellectual conversations with peers in which they explored different ways of thinking about a topic, referred to something an instructor of theirs once said, discussed something they read for a class, and were persuaded to an opinion about a social issue. Further, students in the living-learning residence hall were significantly more likely to conduct these types of interactions and conversations in their residence hall, up to 30% to 50% of the time. Thus, even when examining only residence halls, design elements that facilitate faculty and peer interaction and discussion can significantly raise the level of student involvement and engagement. In another study sponsored by EYP conducted at Michigan State University (Kamal et al., 2015), researchers found an even more profound effect from these types of design elements. In this case, Michigan State operates two identically shaped residence halls located side-by-side in the same location on campus. One of the two buildings underwent an exhaustive renovation, incorporating EYP design elements that foster student learning. Similar to the findings at the University of Michigan, when comparing the two largely identical residence halls, students living in the building with the renovations were more likely to interact with marginalized peers and other peers with different interests. Similarly, the same students were more likely to have these interactions in their residence hall. The students in the EYPrenovated building were also statistically more likely to discuss ideas for a paper or a class project, hold a meeting with their RA, and attend an event organized by their RA in the residence hall than the students in the identical building that had not undergone the renovations. It is often the case that LLCs do not get their choice of residence hall for their programs. However, the Wawrzynski and colleagues (2009) and EYP studies both show that well-designed residence hall spaces can have a significant impact on learning opportunities for students.

Personnel Although the organizational structure of an LLC varies according to student affairs and academic partnership type (discussed previously), institutional type, and staffing model, sufficient personnel resources are necessary for the LLC to be successful. Using data collected from over 600 LLCs, the 2007 NSLLP provided an overall profile of LLC personnel. Nearly half (43%) of the LLCs in the NSLLP had a director with an RLH background, whereas only 21% were directed by someone from academic affairs. Interestingly, 13% featured shared leadership between RLH and at least 1 academic affairs unit, and 8% were run with primary decision-making conducted by an

Kurotoschi.indb 42

25-05-2018 20:31:17

BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

43

advisory board. Although both faculty and RLH staff involvement in the LLC would be ideal for a true collaboration between the 2 units, the NSLLP found nearly 25% of LLCs did not include any faculty involvement at all. Of the LLCs that did include faculty participation, 83% included 1 to 3 faculty participants. The faculty who did work with LLCs were most likely to teach, conduct workshops, and academically advise for the community. In contrast, 85% of LLCs made use of RLH staff in some way. Although their roles were more diverse with the communities, the NSLLP found the most common forms of staff involvement in LLCs to be administrative tasks, living in the community, attending social events, and supervising student staff (Inkelas, 2016). A difficult question to answer is “What is the right amount of personnel and resources to devote to the program?” The answer to this question will vary by institutional type and focus. Smaller institutions may be able to provide only a portion of a faculty member’s and RLH staff member’s time whereas institutions with larger structures may be able to devote a person (or persons) to the establishment and development of the LLC. The collective research presented in this book includes a variety of institutions with a range of resources—fiscal and human capital—available. Regardless of the number of personnel dedicated to LLCs, these communities will be stronger if there is institutional support at every level. If senior administrators see value in LLCs, there will be resources to support these communities. In a time when fiscal responsibility and accountability are at the very core of funding and allocation, dedicating sufficient time to developing the foundational infrastructure and collaborative relationships necessary for an LLC to thrive is essential.

Funding Like personnel, funding allocations and sources for LLCs vary widely. Data from 600 NSLLP sites showed budget allocations for LLCs ranging from zero to $99,000, with a mean allocation of $15,000; 16% of LLCs reported no budget, and almost 30% allocated less than $1,000. There is some research (Inkelas et al., 2008; Wawrzynski & Jessup-Anger, 2010) that suggests a positive relationship between resource allocation and student learning outcomes, although the findings are not connected definitively to budgets and funding. What is clearer from the research is programs with smaller or stretched budgets are not often able to meet their goals or fulfill their desired outcomes. As with personnel, funding is an indication of institutional support for LLCs. Additional considerations related to funding are found in chapter 7.

Kurotoschi.indb 43

25-05-2018 20:31:17

44

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

BOX 3.1

Pace University’s FIGs: The Infrastructure The relatively new FIGs at Pace University–Westchester include some elements in their LLCs that form a solid infrastructure, but there are areas with room for improvement. One such area is the FIGs’ goals and objectives. The Office of Residential Life and Housing, which oversees the seven FIGs at Pace, established overarching goals for all of its FIGs (e.g., assist first-year students in making a smooth transition to college) and developed mission statements for each individual FIG. However, the office readily admitted it would be beneficial to develop goals and objectives for each individual FIG and not just the set of FIGs as a whole. This way, they could better understand the unique contributions each FIG brings to the undergraduate experience as well as have an operationalizable way to assess each FIG independently. One example of how a clearer set of goals and objectives might benefit the FIGs is the Honors Program. The Honors faculty/staff partner felt the lack of a theme or set of clear goals for the program prevented it from being effective. She described the Honors FIG as simply a collection of “smart kids” who were lacking a common set of interests. She noted she had introduced programming on criminal justice, her area of specialization, but because that was not a natural interest area for the Honors students, there was very little participation. With a clearer set of goals for the FIG, students would have a common interest to bond over, and potential faculty/staff partners could see if their backgrounds and interests were a good fit for the program. The FIGs at Pace have different funding arrangements. Some FIGs are jointly funded by and report to both RLH and an academic unit (e.g., Honors, Setters Leadership and Service), whereas the others are solely funded by and report to RLH. Yet all of the FIGs conveyed they have very healthy housing–academic affairs collaborations. Part of the reason for the strong relationship is the mutual understanding that the three primary sets of FIG personnel—RAs, resident directors (RDs), and faculty/staff partners—must form a partnership. Toward this end, the RDs required the RAs to meet with the faculty/staff partners of their FIG to learn about that individual’s interests and to identify programming that integrates well with the faculty/staff partner’s interests. For example, the BAM RA did a program on aromatherapy, and the BAM faculty/staff partner helped to put the program together. Similarly, the Nursing FIG went on a field trip to the “Bodies” Exhibition in

Kurotoschi.indb 44

25-05-2018 20:31:17

45

BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

New York City. Housing arranged the logistics (e.g., transportation) for the field trip, and the Nursing faculty/staff partner recruited other Nursing faculty—including the anatomy instructor who was teaching many of the Nursing FIG students that semester—to accompany the students on the field trip and serve as quasi-docents. All three—the RAs, the RDs, and the faculty/staff partners—meet at least one other time per semester to discuss a variety of topics related to the maintenance of the FIG, including generating ideas for new programming, resolving conflicts among residents, and getting to know one another better. As a result, the FIGs are able to execute some creative and impactful programming, which will be described in Box 5.1. Alumni Hall, the residence hall in which all of the Pace FIGs are located, is a new building. Thus, it has an advantage in terms of some of its physical resources. The building’s architects, EYP, Inc., incorporated several design elements that enhance the facility for optimal living and learning. For example, each FIG has its own lounge, centrally located in the area where the FIG students’ rooms are clustered and featuring floor-to-ceiling windows that not only let in ample natural light but also look out onto the central green space in the new master architectural plan. The lounges themselves are all uniquely furnished and decorated according to the FIG’s theme. For example, the BAM FIG’s lounge space is a yoga studio. The Extreme Sports and Pace Nation (ESPN) FIG lounge is outfitted with a Ping-Pong table, foosball game, and a seating and television viewing area that resembles a bowling niche. In addition to the FIG theme-based lounges, there are also six study rooms. The study rooms are painted different colors, and one wall of the study room is painted with high-gloss paint so it can double as a giant dry-erase board. On the day of the site visit, the writing on the walls varied from mathematical formulas to inspirational quotes to notes left for friends. Finally, the study room furniture, particularly the tables and chairs, are all movable and reconfigurable, so students can study individually or in groups, which is useful for team projects. Alumni Hall also features a classroom that can be subdivided into two rooms. The classroom includes a high-gloss painted wall and is equipped with smart classroom technology. The classroom is often used in the evening for organized study sessions and for drop-in assistance on Sundays as a satellite location for the Writing Center. For those FIG students living in the residence hall, they may not even need to leave the building to access a class review session or get help with their papers.

Kurotoschi.indb 45

25-05-2018 20:31:17

46

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

These amenities in Alumni Hall are significantly utilized by students. Responses to a survey of FIG students conducted in the spring of 2017 found that 39% identified their FIG lounge as the space they most often used, other than their own rooms. The next most used rooms identified by the survey respondents were the study rooms, at 33%. Finally, 11% indicated they most often used the classrooms. The Pace Office of RLH conducted a lounge tracking study over a 6-week period in November, February, and May of 2015–2016 and similarly found the FIG lounges were heavily used by students, particularly the FIG lounges centrally situated in Alumni Hall. Over the 6-week period, 2,868 students were recorded using the 7 FIG lounges located throughout Alumni Hall. Student use of the study rooms was also tracked during the same 6-week period, and 1,102 students were recorded using 1 of the 6 study rooms. The personnel resources for each FIG are limited. As described previously, the RD serves as the central conduit between the RAs assigned to the FIG and the FIG’s faculty/staff partner. There is only one faculty/staff partner per FIG, and there are only two RDs in the building, so each RD supervises more than one FIG. Perhaps because there is a limited staff for each FIG, the RDs and faculty/staff partners are spread a bit thin. This may be why FIG students indicate they do not interact with either their RDs or their faculty/staff partners on a regular basis: 57% of FIG student survey respondents in spring 2017 responded they do not interact with the RD regularly, and 67% revealed they do not interact with their faculty/staff partner regularly. As will be shown in Box 4.1, however, FIG students do tend to interact slightly more often with their RAs. Despite the limited staffing for each FIG, Pace has created some innovative ways to make the most of its resources. One illustration is the partnership RLH has formed with the Pace Admissions Office: Housing will soon be training the Admissions Office about the role and impact of the FIGs for first-year students, both as a way to market them to prospective applicants but also as a method to acquaint interested applicants with the different FIG themes, because they will eventually need to affiliate with one upon matriculation. Pace also makes use of a FIG Advisory Board, which consists of members of the RLH administration, all of the FIG faculty/staff partners, and other key faculty and staff administrators such as admissions and orientation staff. The Advisory Board is an efficient way to communicate information to the FIGs as well as share strategies for success. An examination of past FIG Advisory

Kurotoschi.indb 46

25-05-2018 20:31:17

47

BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

Board agendas includes topics such as staff training, assessment, marketing strategies, building logistical issues, and FIG-wide events. Finally, to capitalize on the insights of former FIG participants in terms of creating beneficial programming in the future, RLH has a goal to hire for each respective FIG only RAs who were once participants in that FIG when they were first-year students. Despite what appears to be a robust set of FIGs in terms of programming, administration, and collaboration, the operating budget resources for all of the FIGs combined is only $25,000 per year. This figure does not include any salary considerations for the RDs, room and board funding for the RAs, or any type of resources reserved for the faculty/staff partners. Instead, the $25,000 goes toward FIG-wide and FIG-specific programming, T-shirts and other accessories, and a modest $1,000 for the faculty/staff partners as a whole. Indeed, multiple stakeholders identified the lack of funds for the faculty/staff partners as being detrimental to the FIG system’s long-term success. Such meager funding for faculty/staff partners makes it difficult to recruit new faculty for the role. And as it currently stands, the sole faculty/staff partner is the only consistent professorial presence in each FIG; accordingly, it would seem even more impossible to recruit more than a single faculty member to get involved in a FIG. Thus, in terms of evaluating the FIGs at Pace University– Westchester based on the BPM, it appears as though they have several strong components necessary for the infrastructure layer. They appear to have a solid housing–academic affairs collaboration, despite a limited number of personnel to staff each FIG. Their new building, which houses all of the FIGs, offers some very nice amenities that enhance the living-learning experience for students. However, they operate on a very thin budget and acknowledge the need to work on developing clear goals and objectives for each FIG.

In addition to the variation in budget amounts dedicated to LLCs, the sources for funding vary too. The NSLLP revealed the vast majority of LLCs are funded mostly or solely by student affairs (including housing)— over 50% were funded solely by student affairs, and an additional 16% were funded more by student affairs than academic affairs. Examining the funding sources is particularly important when considering issues of buy-in and support for these communities. Because housing is a revenue-generating entity,

Kurotoschi.indb 47

25-05-2018 20:31:17

48

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

it is understandable they would be charged with funding LLCs; however, even nominal support by an academic unit or financial support for faculty participation might go a long way toward ensuring collaboration by student and academic affairs.

Conclusion The NSLLP identified the elements discussed in this chapter as infrastructure best practices for LLCs. The elements—clear goals and objectives, academic affairs and RLH collaboration, and adequate resources—are foundational to the successful development and sustainability of LLCs and should be attended to throughout the development and implementation of these communities. Once an LLC is developed, these foundational elements should be revisited periodically to ensure they remain relevant and timely.

Discussion Questions 1. What are the goals and objectives of the LLC(s) on your campus? Whose voices were included in the process of developing them? Who is aware of these goals and objectives? Are all the aspects of the community (academic, cocurricular, residence life) addressed in these goals and objectives? 2. What are the sources of academic and RLH support for the LLC(s)? Are there consistent opportunities for communication about the community across these two domains? 3. Are the resources provided to the community adequate? Do these resources favor one aspect of the community (academic, cocurricular, residence life) over others? How does the allocation of resources reflect the goals and objectives of the community? How does the allocation of resources reflect student and academic affairs collaboration?

Kurotoschi.indb 48

25-05-2018 20:31:17

4 ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT Intellectual Hub of the Program

T

he academic environment level rests on top of the infrastructure foundation of the BPM. Assuming the LLC infrastructure is sound, the groundwork for building a successful academic environment is laid in the foundation with the establishment of collaboration between academic and student affairs. In this chapter, we explore the LLC’s intellectual hub—the academic environment and its key components: courses for credit, faculty advising, an academically supportive climate, and a socially supportive climate (see Figure 4.1). An example of the academic environment of Pace’s LLCs is highlighted in Box 4.1, toward the end of this chapter. When postsecondary institutions establish LLCs, they often do so with a desire to increase students’ academic engagement outside class. The emulation of the “Oxbridge model” of education, which colocates students’ living, dining, classroom, and common spaces (Fink & Inkelas, 2015), promises academic integration and encourages students to immerse themselves in the life of the mind beyond the confines of the classroom environment. Indeed, existing research illustrates when LLCs offer environments marked by academic challenge and high expectations, students are more likely to exhibit a proclivity toward learning (Jessup-Anger, 2012; Wawrzynski et al., 2009). Unfortunately, the vast majority of LLCs fall short of that ideal, as the NSLLP reported that 44% offered no courses for credit and 46% were run exclusively with RLH oversight and had little or no connection to academics (Inkelas et al., 2008). To realize the potential of LLCs, attention must be paid to creating the conditions that feed the academic environment, namely, fostering faculty involvement and creating an academically and socially supportive culture. Cox and Orehovec (2007) found merely placing students in a residence hall together and providing opportunities for faculty-student interaction outside class is not sufficient to compel such interaction to occur. 49

Kurotoschi.indb 49

25-05-2018 20:31:17

50

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

Figure 4.1. The academic environment of the BPM.

PINNACLE

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE

Courses for credit

Clear goals & objectives

Intentional integration

Study groups K–12 outreach Career workshops Visits to work settings Theme-related activities

Faculty advising

Academic Affairs

Academically supportive climate

Socially supportive climate

Residence Life/ Housing

Collabo oration

Adequate resources

Formalizing faculty roles in the community can help to foster such engagement. The NSLLP multiple case study revealed that the two most common forms of faculty involvement in LLCs were teaching the courses associated with the community and advising students in the program. In the following sections, we examine these activities and then discuss ways to foster faculty involvement.

Courses for Credit The first key component of the LLC academic environment is linking academic courses for credit. This is an often missing, yet essential, aspect of the academic environment and further underscores the importance of collaboration between academic affairs and RLH in the infrastructure level. Institutions committed to developing and sustaining high-quality LLCs should focus on providing high-quality courses for credit as a way to sustain the community and provide continuity from year to year. Assuming the foundational level of the BPM is established, the goals and objectives of the community and collaboration with RLH are useful tools to leverage in advocating for resources for dedicated LLC courses. Just as with other elements in the BPM, there are multiple ways to link courses to a community, and the best way is dependent on features of the institution and the LLC. The range of academic connections for LLCs varies from reserving seats for

Kurotoschi.indb 50

25-05-2018 20:31:17

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

51

members in a non-LLC-designated course to offering courses solely to LLC students, taught by a faculty member from an academic department collaborating with the community. There are many factors to consider when linking academic courses, including structure, content, and rigor.

Structure of Courses Institutional size and available resources may dictate the structure and size of the courses. Some LLCs design courses, or a series of courses, solely for students residing in the community. These courses are typically connected to the learning outcomes of the LLC and also have cocurricular opportunities available to members. This approach of offering courses for academic credit is the most resource intensive. Alternatively, LLCs may receive sections of existing courses for members, using the current institutional resources of an academic program or department. Critics of this approach might argue offering a section solely for LLC students is excessive or unnecessary, especially if the section is smaller than others or requires adding a section that would not otherwise be necessary. A less resource-intensive approach would be to dedicate a recitation or discussion section of a large lecture course to a specific LLC. This approach may help to address the anonymity students experience in larger courses. These LLC-specific discussion sections can also support other desired benefits of LLC-only approaches, such as offering academic connections to peers, which ideally will be linked in some way to students’ living environment. Whether planners design a course specifically for LLC students, offer a section of an existing course to community members, or provide an exclusive discussion section, attention should be paid to instructor selection. An LLC works better when instructors understand its goals and are willing to get to know its students and help foster a sense of community. If instructor continuity is not possible from year to year, steps should be taken to ensure new instructors understand and commit to advancing the goals of the LLC.

Content of Courses In addition to the variation in academic connections, the content and comprehensiveness of academic coursework varies. Some communities pair courses from different disciplines with a common theme (e.g., sociology and psychology courses discussing the theme of race relations). The College Park Scholars (CPS) program at the University of Maryland, for example, has 12 interdisciplinary LLC programs. Although the CPS program is partnered with a particular college, the interdisciplinary focus of the programs allows students to fulfill major requirements in university disciplinary departments

Kurotoschi.indb 51

25-05-2018 20:31:17

52

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

while also meeting the course requirements associated with the focus of the LLC. Other communities provide more tightly coordinated experiences in which a faculty member is more formally connected to the LLC, engaging with students comprehensively to meet both the outcomes of the course or courses and the outcomes of the LLC (Matthews, Smith, MacGregor, & Gabelnick, 1997). Within this more tightly coordinated experience, faculty affiliated with the LLC are aware of the overall outcomes of the community and thus may coordinate cocurricular activities toward those broader outcomes. These faculty may also remain involved in the community over the course of several semesters or years. Case studies conducted as part of the NSLLP illustrated that coursework associated with a major sequence and related to the theme of the program is often effective in enhancing academic performance and engagement. A coeducational first-year engineering LLC at one of the NSLLP case study sites worked with the university’s School of Engineering to provide special discussion sections for LLC participants in their first-year calculus and chemistry courses. As a result, both the LLC participants and course instructors benefited; the LLC students became comfortable in their discussion sections because they were filled with familiar faces. In addition, having their classmates living together in the same residence hall (but separated by gender) meant study groups were easy to form and review sessions for examinations were easier to schedule. Indeed, review sessions for teaching assistants were easier for the LLC discussion section, because they could meet in the residence hall and guarantee good attendance. Course instructors noted the LLC students in their classes were more engaged and willing to help their peers, so much so that many of them became peer tutors when they were juniors and seniors. In the absence of major-related courses connected to an LLC, administrators should be mindful of how courses fulfill students’ undergraduate degree requirements. Because many students attracted to LLCs have academic goals beyond the community (such as a double major or a rigorous degree program), it is helpful when courses associated with an LLC can count for general education or other university requirements (Jessup-Anger, Dowdy, & Janz, 2012).

Rigor of Courses Another aspect of affiliated courses to be mindful of is rigor. In our research across multiple institutions, students clearly appreciate and get more out of demanding coursework. Often, when coursework connected to the LLC was one credit or less, or the work itself was not challenging, students described

Kurotoschi.indb 52

25-05-2018 20:31:17

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

53

their frustrations with wasted time or commented they enjoyed their experience in spite of the course. Students in a two-year LLC wondered aloud if the poor quality of their first-year LLC seminar course led to student attrition before the second year (Wawrzynski et al., 2009). Across three different focus groups about the same community, students described the instructor as “incompetent,” the course material as “dreadful,” and the overall course experience as “brutal.” In contrast, in other focus groups conducted by Wawrzynski and colleagues (2009), students in a science major–related LLC discussed the differences between their LLC coursework and other course sections not affiliated with the LLC. These students described their LLC experience as superior because the instructors teaching the courses were consistent from year to year and the coursework was challenging and practically applied. In describing her transition from an LLC course to a non-LLC course, one student commented that although the regular university chemistry section was more mellow, it had less interaction with the instructor, and she felt less support. Furthermore, she indicated that in the LLC chemistry section, she conducted her own experiments, whereas in the regular chemistry section, she was limited to experiments from a workbook. The perception by this student of LLC courses as more academically rigorous and promoting greater learning was consistent with students in other focus groups (Wawrzynski et al., 2009). In connection to the BPM, courses specific to LLC students and instructors who share goals and objectives of the LLC are more likely to create an environment that fosters learning and greater interactions with faculty. The structure and connection of these courses can be as vast and numerous as are the list of thematic elements of LLC programs. However, what remains consistent is the role faculty can play in helping to shape the academic environment.

Faculty Advising The second key component of the LLC academic environment is faculty advising, which can take place both formally and informally. In more traditional and formal advising situations, students are assigned to a particular faculty member for academic advising purposes and may be required to meet with the faculty member during office hours. The benefits of facultystudent interaction in students’ retention and performance have been well documented over the years (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2007), and because LLCs as an intervention are meant to provide students with deepened academic and intellectual experiences, one might expect the ways

Kurotoschi.indb 53

25-05-2018 20:31:17

54

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

in which faculty and students interact in LLCs would be substantial and profound. However, the NSLLP research found the most common topics students and their professors discussed in their LLCs involved routine subjects like course selection and feedback on assignments. Although this might be surprising at first, it is important to point out the vast majority of LLCs represented among the approximately 600 LLCs in the NSLLP catered to first-year students. As student development theory points out, first-year students begin college with different beliefs about the nature of knowledge and their own academic and social identities than those of older students. For example, cognitive development theorists would argue first-year students tend to view knowledge as a discrete set of information to be transmitted by experts like professors to novices like themselves (e.g., Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Perry, 1970). And psychosocial theorists such as Chickering and Reisser (1993) posit first-year students are still struggling with feeling competent in their academic and social pursuits. Subsequently, the combination of believing faculty members are experts from whom knowledge can be received by incompetent novices like themselves may lead first-year students to view their relationships with professors as transactional and formal. Yet all may not be lost regarding the potential of the LLC to foster more mature mentoring relationships between faculty and students. Indeed, having students meet regularly with faculty in the confines of the LLC—even if they are only discussing typical academic advising issues—might help establish a foundation for students to begin viewing faculty as potential mentors. Moreover, seeing faculty in varied circumstances in the LLC, such as in office hours as well as sharing meals and attending social events, may help students see professors as more than intellectual repositories and instead as people with varied and possibly shared interests. Here, the LLC can provide the setting for a transformation in students’ cognitive development to seeing professors as learned colleagues rather than experts and focusing on their own sense of purpose and meaning rather than any perceived lack of competence. When this developmental transformation begins to happen for LLC students, they may seek out faculty for conversations that go beyond questions about courses to take. Wawrzynski and Jessup-Anger (2010) found some LLC students expected to engage informally with faculty outside class on a number of topics beyond course performance, including personal issues, intellectual matters not associated with class, career direction or goals, and research opportunities. Moreover, beyond the formal advising mechanism for faculty involvement, there are a number of opportunities for informal and more serendipitous student-faculty interactions, which Cox and Orehovec (2007)

Kurotoschi.indb 54

25-05-2018 20:31:17

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

55

considered a precursor to deeper interactions between faculty and students. A means to making these expectations a reality for students (and faculty) may be as simple as providing the physical structure to do so. Locating faculty offices in the LLC may help to promote more and varied levels of interactions between faculty and students. For example, in their research, Wawrzynski and his colleagues (2009) found students had a variety of informal interactions with faculty (e.g., while faculty were working in their offices in the evening, eating in the dining hall, or talking with students in floor lounges), which helped to establish varied types of interactions with faculty and the culture of the LLC academic environment as both scholarly and supportive. LLC students also discussed the ability to “pop by the [faculty member’s] office” (p. 151) when they had questions and perceived this ease of interaction as support. One student commented, Lillian Bounds doesn’t let you down, they won’t let you fail, they won’t let you drop out. It’s like they are there for you. Your professors are there for you. Whereas in the University, you don’t get that at all. . . . It’s meant a lot. (Wawrzynski et al., 2009, p. 151)

In another study, which examined the influence of the college environment on honors students, Wawrzynski, Madden, and Jensen (2012) found honors students who live in academically based LLCs similarly reported greater faculty-student interactions than did honors students and nonhonors students in other on-campus living environments. More specifically, these high-achieving students who were also part of an LLC interacted with a faculty member about personal issues, academic or intellectual matters not related to class, career directions or goals, and research opportunities. The evidence offered from these studies reiterates the more active role faculty may take in reaching out to students about poor academic performance and other advising issues or making students aware of cocurricular events as they became more comfortable interacting with students in a space that can be very different from a traditional academic space (e.g., classrooms or “traditionally located” department faculty offices).

Academically Supportive Climate The third key component of the academic environment is an academically supportive climate. LLC research is increasingly focusing in on whether and how LLCs create academic support for students through the provision of types of programs and structures. For example, in their study of student outcomes in different types of LLCs (curricular, transition, and honors) in

Kurotoschi.indb 55

25-05-2018 20:31:17

56

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

comparison to students in traditional residence halls, Inkelas and Weisman (2003) found students across the three LLC types were more engaged and perceived their environments more positively than students in traditional residence halls. Specifically, students in transition- and honors-focused communities reported engaging more often in the following activities: using critical thinking, meeting with faculty outside class, and discussing sociocultural issues. In addition, students in curricular- and transition-focused communities reported their LLC environment was more academically focused. Findings from Wawrzynski and colleagues’ (2009) qualitative study point to some reasons LLCs tend to be viewed as academically supportive. In their study, students reported the LLCs conveyed a set of scholarly values with an emphasis on “community learning, prioritization of studying and academics, and an expectation of involvement” (Wawrzynski et al., 2009, p. 147). Work by Astin (1993b) has long held that peers have the most significant influence on one’s growth and development in college. Extending Astin’s work to LLCs, it becomes clear that although peers can play a critical role in another student’s college experience, where the influence occurs is not as obvious. Wawrzynski and Jessup-Anger (2010) found students in LLCs to be more likely to engage in academic conversations and work on class assignments with their peers outside class in their residential environments. These peers were also more likely to describe their LLC environment as enriching and educational than were students in other environments. Of note is students in the study were enrolled in courses designated for students in the LLC whereas other students were only grouped together by their common interests. Similarly, in another study focusing on high-achieving students (i.e., honors students), Wawrzynski and colleagues (2012) compared the peer academic interactions between honors students in LLCs to honors or nonhonors students in other on-campus living environments and also found honors students in LLCs reported greater gains in peer academic interactions. In addition to program type and peer interactions providing a sense of academic support for students, the physical environment of an LLC can do so as well, a topic we first broached in chapter 3, describing the report by illustrating students in living-learning–designed buildings were more likely to interact with diverse peers and engage in intellectual conversations related to academic topics—and they were more likely to do so in their residence halls. Several institutional examples also illustrate this concept. For example, in an About Campus article, Shushok, Henry, Blalock, and Sriram (2009) detailed the development and design of Brooks Residential College on the campus of Baylor University. Guided by sustained attention on “how, when, and where learning happens” that was first initiated with the development of their faculty-in-residence program, designers of Baylor’s first residential

Kurotoschi.indb 56

25-05-2018 20:31:18

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

57

college sought to meet “students’ academic needs through [the residential college’s] library, faculty offices, and seminar and study rooms” (Shushok et al., 2009, p. 13). Because of their attentiveness to the design of the community in support of academics, students and faculty alike benefit from a vibrant academically focused community. We have seen this thoughtful design of spaces to promote support for academic endeavors at many different institutions. From the inclusion of laboratories at Lyman Briggs College and a study lounge that emulates a law library at James Madison College (both at Michigan State) to the prioritization of seminar rooms and other study spaces at other institutions, physical spaces can convey an expectation that academics are important, even within residential spaces.

Socially Supportive Climate The fourth key component of the academic environment in the best practice model is a socially supportive climate in the residence hall. Numerous studies illustrate the benefits of LLC environments in enhancing students’ social integration, associating this integration with outcomes including the successful transition to college, sense of belonging, appreciation of diversity/ multiculturalism, and commitment to civic engagement (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003; Johnson et al., 2007; Pike, 1999; Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2007; Stassen, 2003). In the NSLLP, students indicated residence hall–based peer-to-peer interaction was the most positive aspect of their programming. Student success literature touts the benefits of social integration for reducing student departure (Tinto, 1993) and promoting student persistence (Braxton, 2004) toward graduation. In the following sections we illustrate some of the specific benefits yielded by creating a socially supportive climate, including fostering students’ sense of belonging, providing spaces to explore shared interests, and supporting appreciation of diversity and multiculturalism.

Fostering Students’ Sense of Belonging Effective LLCs help students to connect socially with other students in the community, which deepens students’ sense of belonging (Wawrzynski et al., 2012). Wawrzynski and colleagues (2009) found certain elements of the community helped to foster this belonging—even common door decorations that indicated LLC involvement made it more comfortable for students to leave their doors open or to reach out to and connect with others. In addition, propinquity to one another in their residence hall, classroom environment, and cocurricular activities made serendipitous interactions more

Kurotoschi.indb 57

25-05-2018 20:31:18

58

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

common. Students in our studies described how they often went to the dining hall immediately after class because they were all headed in the same direction. They also shared how their LLC interests served as an “ice breaker” to a deeper relationship (Wawrzynski et al., 2009, p. 151). As their relationships deepened, students described their peers as family and indicated feeling that others in the community were respectful and shared their values (Anger, Johnson, & Wawrzynski, 2012).

Providing Spaces to Explore Shared Interests In addition to fostering students’ sense of belonging, students’ social interactions in their LLCs can provide spaces to explore shared interests. JessupAnger, Johnson, and Wawrzynski (2012) told the story of Robert, a student participating in a social justice community. He described how the community deepened his social interactions: One of the things I enjoy about the [social justice community] is that people are very passionate about their social issues, and there’s a lot of conversation you engage in that maybe you wouldn’t engage in with your friends outside [the community]. Normally if I’m eating lunch with my [non– social justice community] friends, I don’t bring up poverty. So I feel, in [the social justice community] we get a little more philosophical and a little more theological than with other friends. (p. 168)

Like Robert, other LLC students imagined how their social interactions might be different if they weren’t involved in the LLC. Jack, a student in a fine arts community, imagined if he were not in the LLC he would “probably have liver failure by now” (Jessup-Anger et al., 2012, p. 169) because of his perception of a strong drinking culture in the traditional residence halls. Other students recounted how knowing all their peers on their LLC floors meant people were more respectful of one another, even if they weren’t friends. They described being respectful of quiet hours and acknowledging that their peers had a lot of work to do.

Appreciating Cultural Differences and How They Shape Our Lives International or global studies LLCs often draw high proportions of international students, because they all share the experience of being newcomers to American culture. By extension, American students wishing to learn more about other cultures are attracted to international LLCs so they can learn from the international students. Moreover, the phenomenon of living in close contact with students from different cultures introduces students in sometimes intimately meaningful ways to how similarities and differences

Kurotoschi.indb 58

25-05-2018 20:31:18

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

59

shape one’s social perspectives. At one of the NSLLP case study sites, the international LLC at an institution in the southern United States in a rural area annually charters several buses to transport the international students to a nearby Walmart for a “midnight shopping spree” at the beginning of the fall semester. American students in the international LLC tag along and may initially find the international students’ wide-eyed amazement at the vastness of the store and the amount of choice in products to be humorous. However, soon the conversations would shift, and the American students learned that even the international students from advanced economies like Western Europe and Japan do not have all-inclusive megastores like Walmart in their countries and may only have the choice of a few types of laundry detergent instead of 10 to 12 in the United States. These conversations would then lead to why different cultures would or would not prefer to purchase all of their shopping needs in one place and what the psychological toll is in having, perhaps, too much choice. Even smaller daily interactions can have profound effects when U.S. and international students room together. One student in the same international LLC remarked he never considered it a “big deal” that he would call his parents on a regular basis to report on his progress and ask their advice, until he realized his Serbian roommate, owing to the high cost of international calls, could not do the same. He wondered aloud if his Serbian roommate would talk to his parents regularly if he had the chance. Another American student relayed a story about when she and her Taiwanese roommate talked about how they decided on their academic majors. The Taiwanese student remarked on how she was fond of reading works of fiction, but because English was not her native language, it would take her a lot longer to read the assigned texts in the literature courses, and she could not effectively express her thoughts in English for the assigned papers. As a result, she chose to major in chemistry, because the reading was more straightforward and the examinations were usually multiple choice. The American student then told of how she came to understand the privilege she had in being able to express herself in her native language while in college and never having to choose her academic vocation based on the way in which the classes were taught instead of where her intrinsic interests fell. Although these types of conversations may occur in a non-LLC context, they are much more likely to take place in residential settings where multicultural contact is frequent, deeper conversations are encouraged, and students are motivated to learn from one another. When the residence hall climate is socially supportive, as they often are reported to be in LLC environments, the opportunities for students to appreciate how

Kurotoschi.indb 59

25-05-2018 20:31:18

60

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

their similarities and differences shape their identities becomes a powerful learning tool.

Using Peer Mentors as Sources of Support The staffing structure can assist with some of the benefits associated with a socially supportive climate. Although RAs/community assistants play an important role in the overall community for which they are responsible, LLC peer mentors are students selected to work specifically with the LLC. According to Collier (2015), peer mentoring aids in mentees’ plans to remain in school, encourages their academic success, helps mentees transition, and increases mentees’ confidence in their ability to be successful. “Peer mentors role model the college student role, observe their mentees’ efforts, and then provide mentees with feedback that gives them legitimacy as ‘real’ college students” (Collier, 2015, p. 11). Although the criteria for peer mentor selection may vary from one LLC to another, Terrion and Leonard (2007) identified a number of valuable characteristics for peer mentors in their literature review of 54 mentoring-focused articles. Preapplication characteristics, such as an ability and willingness to commit the necessary time for the role, university experience, and sufficient academic achievement to be considered credible were identified as valuable. Additionally, they noted the importance of the mentor and mentee sharing the same program of study for the mentee to view the mentor as a reliable source of information. Other qualities included sound communication skills, a supportive and empowering approach to mentoring, trustworthiness, empathy, and enthusiasm. Terrion and Leonard (2007) also noted the value of mentors being flexible, demonstrated through appreciation of diverse values, as well as not holding too tightly to their expectations of mentees. Peer mentor positions can be paid student employment or volunteer opportunities that provide students with a chance to gain valuable leadership skills (Rieske & Benjamin, 2015). Peer mentors need to be provided with a job description and training so they understand and are prepared to enact the role they have accepted (Benjamin, 2007). Additionally, supervision and performance evaluation are necessary in order for mentors to enact their job responsibilities in appropriate and productive ways. Peer mentors often are former LLC participants, and as Collier (2015) noted, they often seek the position as a way to give back to the program. Thus, each new group of LLC participants will include the program’s future peer mentors, and they begin to understand the peer mentor role through observation of their own peer mentors and reflection on that experience (Benjamin, 2007).

Kurotoschi.indb 60

25-05-2018 20:31:18

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

61

BOX 4.1

Pace University’s FIGs: The Academic Environment How do the Pace University FIGs fare when examining their academic environments via the BPM? The results are mixed. First, only 2 of the 7 FIGs offer courses for credit. The Setters Leadership and Service House (SLH) requires a course on leadership development. Students in SLH take the course in the spring semester after they have completed their required 25 hours of service in the fall semester. The SLH faculty/staff partner teaches the 1-credit class. The Honors FIG has its own special section of the UNV 101 “Introduction to the University” course, although the faculty/staff partner questions whether this is the best curricular option for Honors students who she maintains may have the fewest challenges in terms of making the academic transition to university life. The 2 FIGs jointly funded by an academic unit and Housing are the 2 FIGs that offer coursework as part of the FIG. The other FIGs may not offer coursework, but some do supplement their cocurricular offerings with content they might have introduced in a formal course. For example, the BAM faculty/ staff partner offers programs on topics such as meditation and yoga, 2 topics that might be able to be converted to for-credit courses. Although there is not uniformity in the offering of courses for credit as part of the FIG, there is ample potential for the introduction of more academic programming on the part of the students. In a survey of FIG students in spring 2017, 40% responded they had referred to knowledge they had acquired in 1 of their classes at least once or more per week. Similarly, 32% referred to something their instructor said in 1 of their classes once or more per week, and 68% read material related to something they learned in a class at least a few times per month. For most of the respondents to the survey, the classes they were referencing when answering these questions may not have had anything to do with their FIG. Accordingly, if the students took a class related to the theme of their FIG while living together in the same residential space, the potential for these kinds of serendipitous “learning moments” could potentially significantly increase. Finally, some faculty/staff partners are advocates for requiring some level of coursework in the FIG, especially if they are the instructors for these courses. Teaching a class would allow the faculty/staff partners a formal way to get to know their FIG students better so subsequent interactions in other cocurricular or social settings would be easier and more familiar.

Kurotoschi.indb 61

25-05-2018 20:31:18

62

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

According to the RDs, one of the benefits of having only 1 faculty/ staff partner per FIG is the ease of referral for students regarding academic questions. Yet it would appear FIG students are not interacting with the faculty/staff partners; 67% of FIG respondents stated they did not meet with their faculty/staff partners. Moreover, it would appear FIG students are not seeking out their faculty/staff partners for academic advising or mentoring; 74% of respondents to the spring 2017 survey asserted they never discussed their academic program or course selection with their faculty/staff partner, and 73% never discussed their career plans or ambitions. With such a high percentage of students not asking their faculty/ staff partners for academic advice, it is not surprising to find they did not seek out faculty for mentoring relationships either; 76% never socialized with their faculty/staff partner, and 87% never talked with the faculty/ staff partner about a serious issue or concern. If FIG students are not going to their faculty/staff partners for academically related questions, from whom are they seeking advice? Evidently, they seek out their RAs; 62% discussed their academic program or course selection at least a few times per semester with their RAs. Moreover, 57% discussed their career plans and ambitions with RAs at least a few times per semester. These results highlight the importance for Pace of creating a climate in which FIG students feel more comfortable going to their faculty/staff partners for academic advising. This might initially be accomplished by having RAs recommend that residents talk with their faculty/staff partners when students come to them for advice. However, given that RAs may be the “first line” of academic advising, perhaps a portion of their training might focus on basic academic information they could impart to their students. Regarding how FIG students perceive the academic and social climates in their residence hall, overall, 92% of FIG respondents to the spring 2017 survey felt relationships with their peers were friendly and supportive. Academically speaking, 60% of respondents were satisfied with fellow residents’ concern for their academic success, and 62% were satisfied with the noise level in the residence hall. Only a small minority (6% to 11%) were dissatisfied with either issue. Socially, the FIGs appear to be a significant presence in students’ lives; 55% of respondents indicated they spent 11 or more hours per week socializing with friends, and 81% of the time, they were socializing in Alumni Hall. Moreover, 73% of FIG students responded they were satisfied with their opportunities to participate in their residence hall’s social events. Yet, interestingly, only 55% felt a sense of belonging to their FIG, and 26% were only “neutral” about their FIG.

Kurotoschi.indb 62

25-05-2018 20:31:18

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

63

Finally, the FIGs appear to be a driving force in facilitating diverse interactions and conversations. Between 84% and 95% of the FIG respondents to the survey reported having discussions with peers of a different race/ethnicity, religion, or political orientation within the previous year, and 55% to 65% of those students reported having those conversations in Alumni Hall. When examining the FIGs in relation to the BPM as a whole, Pace might consider investing in formalizing coursework as a part of all of their FIG offerings; the students seem to appreciate being able to make in- and out-of-class connections, and at least some of the faculty/staff partners would like to teach courses in order to get to know their students better. Additionally, the FIGs should encourage residents to meet with their faculty/staff partners in order to benefit from the academic advice and encouragement they could offer. To conclude, Pace’s FIG students appear to find their residence hall to be academically and socially supportive, including in terms of their interactions with diverse peers; however, these supportive climates do not always appear to lead students to feel a sense of belonging to their FIG. This is a conundrum that requires further investigation.

Conclusion In summary, as illustrated in Box 4.1, the NSLLP case studies, and our examples from other research studies, the academic environment level of the BPM is vital to the success of LLCs. When courses for credit are offered to students in LLCs, these students report greater academic engagement and performance in classes, especially when the courses are rigorous. Moreover, students who are partnered with faculty advisers in their LLCs may begin to develop their capacity for mentoring relationships. At their best, LLCs also provide students with the type of academic support that helps them think critically, engage with peers about academic topics, and prioritize academics. The thoughtful physical design of LLCs, which may include classroom spaces, libraries, study lounges, or other academic spaces, can convey expectations about the role of academics even in residential space. Finally, the BPM illustrates the importance of LLCs in developing a socially supportive climate in the residence hall. This climate can help to foster students’ sense of belonging, encourage exploration of shared interests, and garner appreciation of cultural differences. The climate should not be left to chance but rather be shaped by cocurricular activities, shared interests, or peer mentors.

Kurotoschi.indb 63

25-05-2018 20:31:18

64

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

Discussion Questions 1. How will you link academic courses to the LLC? Can you use existing courses currently offered by faculty at the institution? Do you have resources to offer designated sections of courses to students in the LLC? Are the faculty who teach these courses supportive of and involved in the LLC? 2. What mechanisms can be put into place to foster both formal and informal faculty advising? What training and support will be provided to faculty to supplement their knowledge of campus resources to address issues discussed in advising (e.g., mental health, career exploration)? 3. How can students be encouraged to engage with peers in conversations that go beyond the classroom? What role do faculty and staff play in fostering these conversations? 4. Are there programs to help students in their transition to college and the LLC? Do faculty, staff, and students engage in programs that strive to foster a sense of belonging, support an appreciation of diversity and multiculturalism, and encourage a commitment to civic engagement?

Kurotoschi.indb 64

25-05-2018 20:31:18

5 COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT Reinforcing Goals and Objectives

O

nce the LLC is firmly established with the infrastructure base and academic environment level, cocurricular elements can provide added value (see Figure 5.1). Although LLCs can function without this element, best practices suggest professionals working with LLCs can enhance students’ experiences through these opportunities. This chapter highlights the benefits of cocurricular involvement and how the specific elements noted in the NSLLP (study groups, K–12 outreach, career workshops, visits to work settings, and theme-related activities) serve as best practices for LLCs. Additionally, examples of cocurricular experiences within the LLC context and resources needed for best practices are shared. Although the highlighted elements serve as general best practices, other theme-related activities also may make sense given the context of the specific learning community.

The Benefits of Cocurricular Involvement Cocurricular activities can serve as extensions of academics for college students, bringing students together to learn and gain experiences with and from each other. Schoem (2004) wrote: Learning is rarely an isolated process; it most often occurs in the interactions between faculty and student, in the space between the theoretical and personal, between the mind and the soul. . . . It is in these moments when intellectual work coheres into a critical life perspective. (p. 136)

65

Kurotoschi.indb 65

25-05-2018 20:31:18

66

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

Figure 5.1. The cocurricular environment of the BPM.

PINNACLE

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE

Courses for credit

Clear goals & objectives

Intentional integration

Study groups K–12 outreach Career workshops Visits to work settings Theme-related activities

Faculty advising

Academic Affairs

Academically y supportive climate

Socially supportive climate

Residence Life/ Housing

Collabo oration

Adequate resources

This in-between space for students is often the arena of cocurricular involvement. Cocurricular experiences clearly benefit students, and plenty of research supports this belief (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Astin (1984) theorized the quality and quantity of energy committed to these endeavors results in benefit, and Kuh (2009) cited as examples 40 studies from 1998 to 2008 alone that note the value of student engagement (a concept of how students invest their time and energy and what institutions do to entice students to engage in purposeful activities). At a minimum, students in one study reported greater satisfaction with college when they connected in-class experiences with their cocurricular involvement (Light, 2001). Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, and Whitt (2005) emphasized cocurricular involvement’s importance, writing the following: What students do in college counts more in terms of what they learn and whether they will persist in college than who they are or even where they go to college. That is, the voluminous research on college student development shows that the time and energy students devote to educationally purposeful activities is the single best predictor of their learning and personal development. (p. 8)

The variety of engagement-related instruments created in the past decades, such as the National Survey of Student Engagement, further attests to the fact that colleges and universities find students’ out-of-class activities worthy of attention and exploration for the value they provide.

Kurotoschi.indb 66

25-05-2018 20:31:18

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

67

Three specific categories of involvement with the greatest influence on student academic outcomes are involvement with academics, involvement with faculty, and involvement with peers (Astin, 1996). Although involvement with faculty may be addressed intentionally at the academic environment level of the BPM through faculty advising and courses for credit, all five activities found to be most salient at the cocurricular environment level (study groups, outreach to K–12 schools, career workshops, visits to workplace settings, and theme-related activities) represent involvement with academics, potential interaction with faculty, and almost certainly connections with peers. Additionally, Tinto (1993) highlighted factors influencing attrition, some of which can be addressed to some degree by the cocurricular activities discussed in this chapter. Issues such as college adjustment and isolation from college life may lead to student departure, but LLCs generally, and the cocurricular features of these programs more specifically, may aid in addressing these issues. Study groups, for example, may help address college adjustment as well as minimize isolation. Additionally, the cocurricular activities noted provide opportunities for active learning and time on task, identified by Chickering and Gamson (1987) as good learning practices. Beyond the specific benefits of the activities and experiences themselves, cocurricular involvement also offers students the opportunity to interact with, and learn from, their peers. Learning is a social process, and the influence of peers is significant as they play a critical role in each other’s cognitive and developmental growth (Astin, 1993b; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Citing various studies, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) noted that students affect each other’s learning both inside and outside the classroom, with significant influence occurring beyond the classroom walls: “Not surprisingly, the most influential peer interactions appear to be those that reinforce the ethos of the formal academic program and extend it into nonclassroom settings” (p. 121). As an example, in one of the social justice communities studied, students credited their peers with broadening their interest in social justice issues and deepening their understanding of class material. John, a student in the community, recounted how he often discussed assignments and readings with his roommate, who was also in the community. He described his routine of doing the assigned readings at the library and then coming back to the room and engaging in conversation about the readings. He shared how he and his roommate would often apply concepts they learned in their philosophy class to themselves and their lives, a practice that deepened their understanding of the material and also their questions about it. In addition to helping students engage more deeply in their academic endeavors, peer interactions can benefit students in other cocurricular ways. Whether students take on leadership roles or are active members/contributors

Kurotoschi.indb 67

25-05-2018 20:31:18

68

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

to activities, peer interactions through cocurricular involvement can benefit them. Those activities with an academic focus seem to be most valuable for student learning, and opportunities abound for these academically focused cocurricular experiences within LLCs.

Best Practice Cocurricular Activities for LLCs To create a complete experience for students, learning must be extended beyond the classroom through intentionally structured cocurricular opportunities that reflect curricular goals (Association of College and University Housing Officers–International, 1998), and students living on campus are more likely than their off-campus peers to be involved in these out-of-class activities (Blimling, 2015). These experiences, particularly those noted by the NSLLP as beneficial for LLCs (study groups, K–12 outreach, career workshops, visits to workplace settings, and theme-related activities) can be built into the structure of the LLC as either optional activities or as required elements of the program. An example of the cocurricular activities for Pace University is provided in Box 5.1. This cocurricular level of best practices reflects at least three of the core practices in learning communities highlighted by Smith and colleagues (2004)—community, integration, and active learning. Others have proclaimed learning communities must “maximize both active and collaborative learning” (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999, p. 61), both of which are evident in the cocurricular best practices noted in this chapter. Because students in LLCs are proximal to each other throughout the day, structuring activities for and with them is possible, particularly because living in the same area includes the added benefit of being able to hold activities at varied hours of the day. Additionally, the living environment may provide natural gathering spots, such as hall lounges or meeting rooms within the residence hall, making activities convenient. How space is conceptualized matters as well; for example, it is advantageous to have moveable desks/tables in residence hall classrooms or to ensure that spaces allow for a variety of uses. Faculty and staff must be aware of these cocurricular opportunities in order to encourage participation if these activities are not a required element of the LLC.

Study Groups Inkelas and Weisman (2003) identified working in groups and perceiving the living environment as supportive as critical components of LLCs for student growth. Study groups held in the residence hall or coordinated through the residential environment address both of those criteria for success. Bringing

Kurotoschi.indb 68

25-05-2018 20:31:18

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

69

students together to study can serve multiple purposes, offering academic support and assistance while aiding in the building of community. Study groups also serve as an example of one element of powerful learning communities: “cohorts working together and having common experiences over significant lengths of time” (Lenning et al., 2013, p. 69). Study groups can occur organically or be intentionally structured for the courses connected to the LLC or for courses in which many of the students enroll. In a study of students’ perceptions of academically focused LLCs, researchers noted students’ perception that the learning community was highly collaborative, referencing the informal study groups that surfaced in lounges before tests (Wawrzynski et al., 2009). LLC coordinators can capitalize on the convenience of students living together to create these opportunities, as noted by Parker (2012), who concluded that residing in the same living unit with others taking an introductory economics course benefited students, further suggesting networks created as a result of living in proximity may be a source of study partners. Students may create their own study groups as a result of their proximity to each other, but it is not guaranteed. LLC coordinators’ involvement is recommended. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) cited the positive influence of peer academic interactions, writing, “Peer interactions, particularly those that extend and reinforce what happens in the academic program, appear to influence positively knowledge acquisition and academic skill development during college” (p. 121). Study groups can be promoted as extensions of and reinforcements for classroom experiences, and their importance can be noted through this promotion. Whether participation in the study group is required or voluntary must be determined by the LLC coordinators. Regarding supplemental instruction, a common academic support program that includes small-group study sessions led by trained peer leaders, Arendale (2014) noted, “Mandatory attendance, and better yet, deep integration into the course so it appears seamless with the class sessions, will yield higher results for most students” (p. 4). A similar claim may be appropriate for study groups that are part of an LLC. Formal study groups may assist with both academic and social transitions, and for some students, such as first-generation students, having a structured program can mitigate the idea that informal peer interaction and cocurricular activities are not very important (Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Brown Leonard, 2007). Students may find study groups appealing, partially owing to the social nature of the interactions. Study groups can address what Vygotsky (as cited in Ahn, 2011) identified as the zone of proximal development, which is “the gap between what learners can do on their own and what they can do in a

Kurotoschi.indb 69

25-05-2018 20:31:18

70

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

group if people have different levels of capability and can help one another learn” (p. 7). Light (2001) noted, in reference to science study groups in particular, that study group participation was more productive when students had individually completed a class assignment, as opposed to attending the study group before they completed the assignment. Attending the study group after determining what they can do on their own may better prepare students to learn in the group because they recognize the gaps in their understanding. Students may fear appearing incompetent or unknowledgeable in the classroom, but they may feel more comfortable asking questions within their peer group in the less formal setting of a study group. Study groups may be coordinated by LLC staff (faculty, academic advisers, peer mentors), or they may be planned by RLH staff (residence hall director, resident assistant). If planned and facilitated by RLH student staff members, study groups offer role modeling opportunities, which may be particularly beneficial in LLCs targeted at first-year students. Through their observation of student leaders (peer mentors or resident assistants), first-year students may find examples of success to emulate. In one example of a psychology LLC at James Madison University, resident assistants who also majored in psychology coordinated study sessions for the LLC students (Grills, Fingerhut, Thadani, & Machon, 2012). Because resident assistants typically are required to plan events for their communities, study groups may be a natural option. Hosting these sessions in the residence hall adds to the convenience and capitalizes on the community element of the program to provide educational opportunities, a hallmark of strong LLCs, according to Brower and Inkelas (2010). In another study, Wawrzynski and colleagues (2009) found study groups in one LLC promoted a seamless learning environment and conveyed scholarly values, which included “an emphasis on community learning, prioritization of studying and academics, and an expectation of involvement” (p. 147). Their study focused on formal study groups organized by student teaching assistants and informal ones created by students gathering in lounge spaces to study for tests. One student noted, There are lots of places to study here. You think it would be really common in residence halls [to have as much study space], but it’s not, it’s a pretty novel thing. [Faculty] really encourage study groups and there’s places to meet for people to study outside your room. (p. 148)

Resources needed for study groups generally are minimal. Students need a place to study, and academic uses of space are typically considerations these days when renovating existing residence halls and building new ones. If no renovations are planned, a little creativity can go a long way toward creating

Kurotoschi.indb 70

25-05-2018 20:31:18

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

71

space that communicates what the LLC is trying to achieve in terms of group studying. For example, if the residence hall has a dining room, perhaps it can be utilized as a study space after hours. Alternatively, LLC administrators can conduct a utilization audit of the public spaces in the hall to see if changing the purpose of a space to a group study area is feasible. Once space is identified, it is important for the LLC to identify a person to coordinate group study efforts. It is likely coordination of these groups will be facilitated by a staff member who also has other responsibilities, such as a peer mentor or resident assistant. However, if establishing and attending/ facilitating study groups is a job expectation, it must be identified as such on the job description, and training for this aspect of the role should be provided. Including the expectation of facilitating study groups in the job description of either a peer mentor or resident assistant working with the LLC provides an opportunity for that individual to model successful study strategies for the benefit of the students involved in the group. Although LLC peer mentors are typically familiar with the academic content of the program, resident assistants may not be. If an expectation exists for the resident assistant to facilitate study groups, the RLH department and the LLC coordinator will want to discuss hiring resident assistants for the LLC who have the appropriate academic background to fulfill this expectation, while also considering the impact this specification may have on the overall resident assistant hiring process. One final consideration about the provision of spaces for students to study in the residence halls regards furniture choice. Results from the study conducted by the EYP architectural firm that designs residence halls observed students prefer tables and chairs with casters that can be configured into different shapes. For example, the tables could be put together to make a larger work space for a group project, or they could be pulled apart to form individual study carrels.

Outreach to K–12 Schools Outreach to K–12 schools as a cocurricular activity may be a form of community service or service-learning. Jacoby (1996) defined service-learning as “a form of experiential education in which students engage in activities that address human and community needs together with structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote student learning and development. Reflection and reciprocity are key concepts of service learning” (p. 5). She noted service-learning can be curricular and/or cocurricular. Some LLCs include a cocurricular service-learning or community-service component, which can be incorporated as required or optional activities.

Kurotoschi.indb 71

25-05-2018 20:31:18

72

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

According to a study by Levine and Dean (2012), undergraduate students’ service foci tend to be local, where they feel they can truly make a difference. They tend to prefer working with children rather than seniors, with “child and youth organizations” service appearing second on the list of service participation. Women tend to volunteer more than men, and upperdivision students are more likely participants than first-year students (Light, 2001), which suggests requiring this kind of activity may be necessary for new students to have the best chance of benefiting from the experience. The value of such service to the student experience has been reported in the literature, with enhanced cognitive growth and positive impacts on sociopolitical attitudes and beliefs as some specific benefits (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Laufgraben and Shapiro (2004) stated service-learning, as part of a learning community program, benefits those who experience the “service” but additionally prepares students for their responsibilities as citizens in society. By definition, service-learning is a type of experiential learning that takes volunteer work a step further by its incorporation of intentional reflection. Whether required or voluntary, service to the community provides benefits to all involved. Research on LLCs has shown the benefits of performing outreach for LLC participants. In 1 community studied, LLC participants lived together in suites of 10 students. These students were required to propose a service activity and commit to completing hours at the site over the duration of the academic year. One student, Lucy, who worked with her suitemates at the Boys and Girls Club, described how the experience opened her eyes to the struggles some children face and also brought her closer to her suitemates. She discussed how the car rides to and from the site with her suitemates were always a bonding experience, explaining on the way to the site they typically relaxed and “jammed out to music,” and on the way home they shared stories of their time at the site and reflected on their experiences. Lucy recounted a story about how she had developed a relationship with a girl at the site and shortly afterward the girl’s mother was stabbed to death. The informal reflection with her suitemates helped Lucy to make sense of her role in the girl’s grief process and also her desire to do more to address societal inequity. It was clear from the conversation Lucy’s preestablished relationship with her suitemates was instrumental in helping her to open up to and reflect with her suitemates informally about her experience at the site. Furthermore, she discussed how their experience doing service together and talking about it brought them closer to one another. Because elementary and high schools exist in communities where colleges and universities are located, their availability may offer opportunities for service in those locales. Options for this type of outreach might include having

Kurotoschi.indb 72

25-05-2018 20:31:19

.

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

73

LLC students provide tutoring for K–12 students. They also might offer entertainment-focused events like carnivals, haunted houses at Halloween, and after-school programs. Although these activities may seem fitting for students majoring in primary or secondary education, as illustrated by Lucy’s experience, these opportunities can be valuable for LLC students from a variety of majors. For example, theater students might offer a theater camp for elementary students; math majors might provide math tutoring for struggling high school students; and STEM students may work with a variety of grades to encourage exploration of STEM fields, especially for young girls. When planning K–12 outreach, coordinators must determine where these activities will take place. Activities held on campus may be most convenient for the LLC students but may pose challenges for the elementary and secondary students. If travel to the K–12 schools or another meeting site is involved, costs must be considered. Additionally, consideration must be given to necessary clearances for these activities in light of recent heightened concerns around child safety. Although simple volunteer opportunities may have been plentiful in the past, the current climate suggests greater planning may be necessary owing to the limitations placed on schools regarding who is allowed to interact with students on or off school property. Bowling Green State University’s Educators in Context and Community (ECCO) LLC is a program for all education majors and includes K–12 outreach as a core element of the program. To meet the expectations of the LLC, ECCO students spend 50 hours each semester in school settings working with local and area teachers. These field placements may meet a classroom requirement, but there is no course credit connected with participation in the ECCO program. The LLC director coordinates the field placements, contacting area schools to make arrangements. Additionally, the director meets with the students and teachers during the semester. As a result of their connections with the K–12 schools, ECCO students often volunteer time to chaperone homecoming events, work with school plays, and other similar activities. The field placement element is just one of the activities that connect ECCO students to K–12 schools. ECCO coordinates an After School Fun Night program that includes content-based activities for students, and a grant program through the LLC allows ECCO students and teachers or administrators to apply for up to $500 in grant funding for school projects. Previous grants have funded school equipment such as a skeleton and models for a classroom, moveable whiteboards, and supplies for a school garden. Before entering the schools (field placements begin during the third week of the term), ECCO students participate in training. They arrive on campus early one day to begin, and their training includes such topics as

Kurotoschi.indb 73

25-05-2018 20:31:19

74

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

ethics and confidentiality. Training occurs throughout opening weekend and in the first two weeks of the term during the times when the students would regularly be in the schools. Additionally, the LLC holds weekly and monthly meetings that include ongoing training, such as the “Take 5” activity where five volunteers tell stories of their field placement experiences for students to discuss. FBI and Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation background checks are required before students are permitted to be in the school settings. All education majors, regardless of participation in the ECCO LLC, are encouraged to take care of this during summer orientation. Students pay the costs for the background checks, which must be done annually. Organizations that require background checks beyond the two noted are not included as field placement options. ECCO students pay a fee to participate in the program, and a significant amount of that funding is used for student transportation to and from the schools. The LLC charters buses for students to go to the local schools for their field placements. Carpools or other transportation options are arranged for those students whose schedules do not allow them to use the bus option. The ECCO website provides additional information about the program (P. Vrooman, personal communication, August 31, 2016).

Career Workshops According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers’ (2016) 2015–2016 Career Services Benchmark Survey for Colleges and Universities, among the many services provided, nearly all participating institutions offer career workshops, with one-third also offering credited career classes. Research suggests career-focused activities contribute to career development and maturity (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), and along with additional services, including career fairs, career assessments, and internship assistance, career centers make available a wealth of information and opportunities to assist in students’ career and professional development. As one specific career-focused activity that surfaced as a best practice cocurricular experience in the NSLLP, career workshops can highlight information about specific occupations, offer ways for students to engage with guest speakers about career experiences, and provide opportunities for career exploration and decision-making. In summarizing meta-analyses of career choice intervention literature, Brown and colleagues (2003) identified a number of elements important to effective interventions that can be helpful in constructing career workshops. Those applicable to career workshops for LLCs include (a) having participants write goals with reasonable action steps for their future work, (b) providing

Kurotoschi.indb 74

25-05-2018 20:31:19

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

75

opportunities to both gather and process career information during the intervention session, (c) encouraging participants to gather career information outside the intervention, and (d) offering opportunities for participants to create written comparisons of career possibilities that include the support (approval/disapproval from support systems) available. An additional ingredient, interacting with individuals who have successfully addressed occupational investigation and difficulties with career decisions, may be included for workshops focused on career indecision. In research on LLCs, results have shown the power in helping students discern future career options. In one arts-focused community, visiting artists were brought in each semester to provide workshops and spend informal time with students. Through these visiting artists, students were exposed to such vocations as printmaking, bookbinding, poetry, and writing. In our interviews with students from the community, Roy, a student in the study, lauded the impact of such endeavors and the connections with interested peers on his career trajectory. He explained, If I hadn’t been in [the arts community] I would have graduated by now. And that’s a bad thing. . . . Being in [the arts community] has taken me out of my original mind-set, which was “I have to get a job that will get me money, so I need to have this major to do that thing.” [Now, I think] “Yeah I can do that,” but along the way I don’t have to suffer. I can actually do things that make me happy. I can do things like theater that make me want to go out and smile. . . . I can direct a play. I can act in a play. I can have friends that you know, don’t have it all together. We don’t have to have it all together, we can try to figure it out between ourselves and each other. It has actually helped me reduce my overall level of anxiety. . . . Like, this is not just me suffering alone, I can find help when I need it. And stuff like that, and you can grow that way. And if I had never ever found [the arts community], if I hadn’t been a part of it in some way . . . I really don’t know where I’d be right now. . . . I don’t know whether I would have just moved back home and tried to find a job there because right now that is like the least appealing opportunity to me. I want to get out. I want to go somewhere and find something. (Roy [pseudonym], personal communication, October 18, 2006)

Clearly, this student benefited from exposure to the professional artists and similarly interested peers through the workshops and general interactions provided in the arts-focused LLC. Although limited research is available about career workshops, various studies focused on career courses provide useful information that may apply to career workshops. One study of students in a semester-long career

Kurotoschi.indb 75

25-05-2018 20:31:19

76

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

exploration course suggested this intervention positively affected self-efficacy related to career decision-making (Scott & Ciani, 2008), and another noted the importance of framing the course using established career theory (Reese & Miller, 2006). Although workshops typically are individual and topically focused events, these activities can offer similar information as well as some of the benefits provided by career courses while requiring less of a long-term commitment. Workshops with a structured format tend to be more helpful than unstructured activities (Whiston, Brecheisen, & Stephens, 2003), making preplanning an important component for effectiveness. Studies indicate students who take advantage of career development experiences demonstrate growth in dimensions such as career decisionmaking, self-efficacy, and vocational identity (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), and options exist for in-person as well as computer-assisted career development activities. Although career workshops can be woven into the structure of a course, they also can be offered as cocurricular options brought into the residence halls and tailored for students in the LLC. Career workshops may be provided by the campus career development center, or they may be coordinated by the sponsoring academic department. For a substantial list of ideas for career-related activities, see Herr, Cramer, and Niles (2004). Alumni may be valuable resources for these workshops as well. Funds may be necessary for career interest inventories if communities wish to use those as part of the workshop. Moreover, working with LLC participants on career-related topics might include primers on professional conduct. One of LLCs that the NSLLP visited focused on animal and veterinary science for women students. Many of this LLC’s participants came from rural backgrounds and were unaccustomed to wearing business attire or dining in fine restaurants. Consequently, one of the outings for the students in the LLC was to the local department store, accompanied by their faculty advisers, to purchase appropriate professional clothes for job interviews. In addition, the women in this LLC participated in a workshop on fine dining etiquette to prepare for business situations that may take place in an upscale restaurant. Choosing to learn about the unspoken rules of professional conduct in their safe and supportive LLC climate, these women acquired social skills that were not likely to be gained in other university contexts and likely improved their career prospects in the process.

Visits to Workplace Settings Enthusiasm for a chosen career path can be reinforced through opportunities to see individuals in that career in action via workplace visits. According to Gore and Metz (2008), conducting informational interviews and job

Kurotoschi.indb 76

25-05-2018 20:31:19

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

77

shadowing are valuable ways to gain knowledge about an occupation and can be accomplished through visiting workplace settings. In studying a course that involved a field trip to a workplace, Galizzi (2014) noted the importance of making clear the learning objectives associated with the trip and suggested having activities at the site that allow students to be active learners and not just observers. Thus, before visiting the workplace setting, LLC professionals should determine what they would like the students to gain from the experience to make the visit most effective. Beyond the benefits of gaining information about the worksite, these encounters provide community-building time for LLC members as well. Although actual site visits may be preferred, challenges such as schedules, transportation (including costs), and liability may be obstacles. Virtual field trips become another option, as Garner and Gallo (2005) shared: A virtual field trip does not provide the same experiences as a physical trip into the field. It represents a compromise, a set of distilled experiences designed to mimic the real thing. . . . [Students] do, however, move through a series of interactive experiences that can be designed and controlled for maximizing learning. One cannot count on encountering an injured manatee, a nesting sea turtle, or a burrowing gopher tortoise on a physical field trip; however, on a virtual field trip these encounters can be guaranteed. (p. 14)

Resources needed for worksite visits are similar to those for K–12 outreach. Contacts to arrange visits require faculty/staff time, and travel costs also must be considered. One example of an LLC utilizing worksite visits is the Women in Science and Engineering (WiSE) program at Iowa State University. The program has approximately 380 residential participants and provides optional visits and job-shadowing opportunities to students in such places as engineering companies, teaching hospitals, and zoos. With 50 majors included in WiSE, it is difficult for the program to provide workplace visits fitting with every academic program, but it offers a variety of visits during which students can see women in the workforce in roles to which the students aspire. WiSE has a full-time professional staff member who works with the companies to coordinate the visits, while a graduate assistant helps students sign up for these opportunities. Although most visits use a first-come, first-served approach for securing spots on the trip, a particular program very popular with preveterinary students requires an application and essay to compete for spots. The maximum number for a trip is usually 15 students, and most trips are daylong events, although a few options include overnight stays. On a typical visit

Kurotoschi.indb 77

25-05-2018 20:31:19

78

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

(usually a Friday), students will receive a company overview, a tour or simulation, 2 to 3 hours of job shadowing, lunch with a panel presentation, and a wrap-up. Employees, often women, will spend time with small groups of 2 or 3 students during the visit, with the understanding that the employee is someone these students can continue to contact after the visit as well. Many companies provide the funds for these visits, either through corporate sponsorship of WiSE or through a contribution to the program specifically for the site visit. Costs include travel, meals, and payment for peer mentors who may accompany the group. No charges are assessed to the students. Because companies are seeking to diversify their workforces, they are incentivized to partner with the WiSE program as these visits may result in students seeking internships or employment with the company in the future (L. L. Chrystal, personal communication, August 24, 2016).

Theme-Related Activities Of course, the most beneficial cocurricular activities for an LLC are those that align and integrate with the program’s theme. There are several examples of this type of integration from the research, which works well because students tend to buy into the activities and sometimes even play a leadership role in planning them. In one of the social justice communities studied, one of the expectations for LLC members was participating in a social justice interest group. Typically the interest groups encompassed broad themes developed and chosen by the students. Examples included education, poverty, and the environment. Each interest group was expected to develop a project or event based on its theme. Students who were interviewed shared how learning about others’ projects had heightened their awareness of social justice issues and broadened their understanding of the interconnectedness of these issues. Although overwhelmingly successful in helping to integrate cocurricular and curricular learning, some students cautioned that expectations for these interest groups should be tempered, as the other aspects of the LLC, including coursework and service-learning expectations, demanded a large amount of students’ time as well. Theme-related cocurricular activities can run the continuum from simple to sophisticated. Many simple, low-cost activities can reinforce an LLC’s theme; for example, a language house might cook a special meal based on a culture’s traditional cuisine, sponsor a movie in the language of interest, or hold a festival featuring cultural arts and dances from the region. Alternatively, a cocurricular activity may borrow creatively from popular culture yet still enhance the theme of the LLC. At Pace University, the Creating Entrepreneurial Opportunities (CEOs) first-year interest program sponsors

Kurotoschi.indb 78

25-05-2018 20:31:19

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

79

BOX 5.1

Pace University’s FIGs: The Cocurricular Environment The FIGs at Pace University provide a robust set of cocurricular programming for their students, including those LLC best practices the NSLLP identified as beneficial for students across a range of outcomes. All 7 FIGs offer students the opportunity to participate in study groups, and 2 ask students to work together on group projects. Recall that the Alumni Hall infrastructure is ideal for study groups and group projects because the building includes 6 study rooms with reconfigurable furniture that can be rearranged to support teams of students working together. In response, FIG students report using the Alumni Hall facilities to study 90% of the time (as opposed to other locations on campus), and 25% of FIG students participate in study groups in Alumni Hall daily or at least weekly. Several of the FIGs also conduct career workshops and a few visit work settings. For example, the Nursing FIG visited the Yorktown Nutrition Center for Senior Citizens. The only NSLLPrecommended cocurricular activity that the Pace FIGs do not appear to offer on a regular basis is outreach to local K–12 schools. Because 4 of the 7 FIGs conduct community service as part of their programing, adding K–12 outreach seems like a natural fit. Moreover, given that the Setters Leadership and Service House emphasizes leadership through community service, including peer mentoring or tutoring programs for less advantaged children in neighboring K–12 schools would be relevant to the theme. The area in which the Pace FIGs truly thrive is their ability to create and offer cocurricular programming uniquely tailored to each FIG’s theme. As previously described in other sections of this book, the FIGs take full advantage of their themes, their faculty and staff ’s expertise, and even the surrounding area to provide some incredible experiences for their students. For example, the BAM FIG intentionally develops programming that makes the best use of the faculty/staff partner’s expertise and capabilities, including activities related to aromatherapy, meditation, and yoga. Even better, the BAM lounge was converted to a yoga studio, complete with mats and cushions, which is an ideal spot for contemplative programming. As mentioned in the text, the CEOs FIG sponsored a “Shark Tank” event, in which student teams pitched their ideas to a panel of judges, including the CEO faculty/staff partner and staff members of RLH. Winning teams were provided an “investment” (as in the television show) for their ideas. The Shark Tank program not

Kurotoschi.indb 79

25-05-2018 20:31:19

80

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

only encouraged students to think entrepreneurially but also provided a forum in which CEO FIG students could work collaboratively for a real-life outcome. Finally, the FIGs take advantage of the proximity of Pace University’s Westchester campus to New York City and organize field trips that make the most of what the city can offer. For example, the Nursing FIG traveled to lower Manhattan to view the “Bodies” exhibition while it was showing in New York. And as was discussed previously, several nursing faculty—including the instructor who was teaching the anatomy class that semester to the majority of the Nursing FIG students—accompanied the students on the trip and provided a unique perspective. The other FIGs at Pace seize the opportunity to create theme-related cocurricular programming as well and again use New York City as their backdrop: The Honors FIG students toured the United Nations, the Pop Culture and Media FIG students attended a live taping of the Maury Povich talk show, the ESPN FIG students went to a Yankees game, and the CEOs got a backstage tour of Madison Square Garden during the afternoon the singer Adele was setting up for a performance. FIG students respond to the extensive cocurricular programming quite well: 81% reported they attended or actively participated in social programs and events in their residence hall. Moreover, 58% reported attending at least 1 or 2 FIG programs, and 41% attended 3 or more programs per year. As a result of participating in their FIG’s or residence hall’s programming, the FIG students reported a number of positive outcomes, including gaining skills relevant to their future career, seeing their grades improve, equipping themselves with skills and abilities that they will use after college, and feeling a part of the larger Pace community. Although most of the Pace FIGs do not offer courses for academic credit, they appear to be using their cocurricular options to the best of their ability as a way to enhance the themes of their programs both academically and socially. And although each FIG has a meager budget, they are still able to provide some outstanding cocurricular experiences for their students. The FIG cocurricular programming at Pace stands out as an outstanding example of how to take a program’s theme and create innovative and impactful events that positively affect students’ learning and development.

Kurotoschi.indb 80

25-05-2018 20:31:19

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

81

an annual “Shark Tank” event, where—like the television program—teams of students compete against one another to “win” an investment from a panel of judges. In this case, the CEO’s program provides seed funding for good ideas proposed by the students. For example, one year a group of students proposed creating a student-run food delivery program at Pace, and it is now a functioning company under the Center for Student Enterprise. For the concepts used for theme-related cocurricular activities, LLC staff, faculty, and students should collaborate to create unique programming that will stimulate high interest among the participants. As previously stated, when all stakeholders share in the process of creating an event, motivation heightens and the likelihood for the event’s success is augmented.

Conclusion The NSLLP identified the elements discussed in this chapter as cocurricular best practices for LLCs. These activities can be structured in a variety of fashions, from in-person to online activities. Lenning and Ebbers (1999) claimed active and collaborative learning are essential elements of learning communities and stated that “both need to be effectively designed and executed” (p. 61). In fact, design and execution are critical. Coordination of these programs can be part of a faculty or staff role, or they can be organized by student staff with the guidance of faculty/staff LLC coordinators. If coordinated by student staff, the noted best practices can form the basis for required programming highlighted in their job descriptions. Participation in activities by the LLC students can be required or optional. As noted in the literature (Galizzi, 2014; Jacoby, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), learning through programs such as those identified is enhanced through the process of reflection. Thus, faculty and staff working with the programs should consider how they might incorporate reflection on the experiences into the LLC structure. This might occur through discussions at group meetings of the LLC or assignments in classes associated with the program. Chapter 3 described how the SERI LLC, which focuses on the environment and sustainability, sought to integrate the LLC theme in many cocurricular experiences. In doing so, the integration of learning was realized inside and outside the classroom in formal and informal ways. As one example, students learned about the value and sustainability of composting in class and then worked with residence life staff to secure bins where food could be composted in their residence hall rooms. Students learned the concepts in their courses and then enacted the practices as part of their cocurricular

Kurotoschi.indb 81

25-05-2018 20:31:19

82

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

engagement. This integration of learning resulted in students providing compost to their student-run organic garden, which in turn provides herbs and vegetables to campus dining facilities. The best cocurricular activities for an LLC are those that align with the program’s theme, advance the LLC’s goals and objectives, and are met with strong interest on the part of the LLC participants. In addition, the NSLLP highlighted five cocurricular activities that were empirically found to produce strong student outcomes: study groups, K–12 outreach, career workshops, visits to industry settings, and theme-related activities. Incorporating such cocurricular activities into LLC structures can help students build the “educational package” Light (2001, p. 22) referenced when he acknowledged the importance of integrating students’ in- and out-of-class experiences in college.

Discussion Questions 1. What theme-related activities would fit for our LLC, and what can students learn from those experiences that matches the goals of our program? 2. What locations exist within our residential community that would be conducive to study groups? Do we have available space to host them? Are there experienced students (peer mentors, resident assistants) who can provide leadership? How might we provide structure for study groups? 3. How might we enlist alumni with programs such as career workshops or workplace visits? 4. What opportunities do we have to engage with our local K–12 school system? How can the theme of our LLC be used to benefit both K–12 students and the LLC students? 5. Are cocurricular activities required or optional? If they are required, how will we hold students accountable for their participation?

Kurotoschi.indb 82

25-05-2018 20:31:19

6 THE PINNACLE AND M O RTA R O F T H E P Y R A M I D The Final, Yet Crucial, Components

T

he final building block of the LLC BPM is what we call “the pinnacle.” As in Maslow’s (1954/1987) hierarchy of needs, for LLCs to reach the highest point on the pyramid, it is essential that all of the lower levels of the pyramid are satisfied. As articulated in chapter 3, having clear goals and objectives for an LLC is critical in laying the foundation for its programming. Indeed, all other facets of the LLC—the courses, faculty involvement, a supportive residential climate, the cocurricular activities— should emanate from the LLC’s goals and objectives. Thus, one could conceive of a series of invisible lines stretching from the lower left-hand corner (the cornerstone) of the pyramid into all of the other blocks in the BPM. The pinnacle, in contrast, can be conceived of as a series of invisible lines that show connections between the rest of the blocks on the pyramid. In other words, the pinnacle represents the extent to which all other blocks on the pyramid are aligned with the LLC’s goals and objectives and integrated with one another. In essence, it is simply not good enough for an LLC to have all of the blocks in the infrastructure, academic setting, and cocurricular environment; those blocks need to be coordinated with one another in meaningful and intentional ways (see Figure 6.1). Otherwise, the individual blocks would be just that—individual blocks. For example, an LLC could offer a course for credit taught by a regular member of the faculty, but if that course does not take advantage of the learning community inside the LLC (e.g., the cocurricular activities offered, the propinquity of the students’ living environments, the special events the community hosts), then it is just a course, like any other course offered at the university.

83

Kurotoschi.indb 83

25-05-2018 20:31:19

84

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

Figure 6.1. The pinnacle and mortar of the BPM.

PINNACLE

COCURRICULAR ENVIRONMENT

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE

Courses for credit

Clear goals & objectives

Mortar between the bricks = assessment

Intentional integration

Study groups K–12 outreach Career workshops Visiting work settings Theme-related activities

Faculty advising

Academic Affairs

Academically supportive climate

Socially supportive climate

Residence Life/ Housing

Adequate resources

Collaboration

Integrating the Best Practices Blocks Optimally, all of the blocks in the BPM should be integrated. This means the academic affairs and RLH professional staffs must be knowledgeable about each other’s roles in the LLC, as integration is impossible without regular and effective communication. In this section, we review several examples of how LLCs can integrate their program offerings to provide more impactful environments.

Courses for Credit and Cocurricular Activities In offering a course that is open to members only, an LLC has several opportunities to take advantage of various cocurricular activities for that course. At the very least, the course could organize its students into study groups so dialogues and coursework begun in class can be continued in the residence hall. Or if the topic of the class is conducive to a service-learning project, the instructor can coordinate with the LLC to incorporate a service component to the class. If service-learning is incorporated, the instructor can take care to ensure the service dimension is integrated into the course. One way to do so is to conceive of the service as a core anchor of the course, much like a textbook. As Varlotta (2000) notes, When service is conceived in this way, faculty are implicitly prompted to answer the two questions that should frame any service-learning course: (1) What type of service text should I assign, and (2) How will I meaningfully incorporate the service text with other texts utilized in the class? (p. 76)

Kurotoschi.indb 84

25-05-2018 20:31:19

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

85

Similarly, if the course topic is related to a career or vocation, the instructor can invite individuals from that industry to the class to share their work experiences and then invite them to stay for dinner or a fireside chat with the LLC participants. Or when the LLC goes on a field trip to an industry site, the course instructor could take a few minutes of class time to discuss what the students will see there, what questions they might ask, or what observations they might make. The more opportunities students have to integrate what they are learning in the classroom into their lives in the residence halls, the more likely they will be able to apply their learning to other new contexts. Field trips and invited speakers can also serve to provide leadership opportunities for students. In our discussions with LLC coordinators and students, each described the formal and informal roles students played in planning these events, ranging from leading alternative spring break trips to providing logistical support for field trips or serving as a host for a campus visitor. Students reported these experiences inspired their passion for their area of study, gave them concrete understanding of what it might be like to work in a particular field, and helped to sharpen their leadership skills. Roy, a student who led an alternative spring break for an arts-focused LLC, shared his observation that students come home from the trip with a new orientation toward community and thus are more apt to make changes in their own communities (Roy [pseudonym], personal communication, October 18, 2006).

Academic Affairs–RLH Collaboration and Academically and Socially Supportive Residence Hall Climates LLCs may provide several programs and services that can enhance a residence hall’s academic and social climates, such as in-hall faculty academic advising, peer tutoring, cultural programming, and social events. However, it may be equally important for the two halves of the LLC—academic affairs and RLH professional staff—to be transparent and in regular communication about their roles and responsibilities. For example, if the RAs in the residence hall notice an increase in stress regarding an upcoming midterm for a class that many of the LLC participants are taking, academic affairs could step up the peer tutoring or reserve a lounge for a study session. Or vice versa, if faculty members notice an LLC student in their classes seeming more withdrawn than usual, or if they meet with the student during advising office hours and learn the student is having roommate difficulties, the hall director or RA could be notified for a possible intervention. Sometimes, a supportive climate in the LLC’s residence hall can be facilitated by physical spaces funded by the academic affairs–RLH collaboration.

Kurotoschi.indb 85

25-05-2018 20:31:19

86

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

At Pace University, despite being housed in the same residence hall, each FIG has its own lounge space that the LLC faculty partners, RLH staff, and participating students can decorate together, according to the FIG theme. For example, the FIG focusing on sports and recreation features a TV seating area much like a bowling niche and a foosball table. Meanwhile, the FIG focused on the body and mind uses its lounge as a yoga studio, complete with mats and other equipment. The personalized lounge spaces, mostly situated in central locations in the building with a lot of natural light, also feature large logos for the FIGs designed by the students, which all serve to provide the FIG an established identity its participants can be proud of and know as signaling a space that supports their needs. Faculty Advising and Socially Supportive Residence Hall Climates Although faculty tend to think of their roles in an LLC as limited to more academic matters, their awareness of program and campus activities and events can benefit the life of the residence hall. For example, visiting scholars or colloquium guests hosted by the faculty member’s home department could be invited to visit the LLC, especially if the guest’s expertise is related to its theme. For example, imagine the Department of Political Science is holding a colloquium on election strategy and has invited the campaign manager of one of the presidential candidates. If there is room in the individual’s schedule, perhaps the invited speaker could conduct a fireside chat in the LLC during the evening or have lunch in the dining room. Even better, if the LLC has a guest apartment, the department could save on accommodations and use the spare lodging in exchange for a fireside chat or meal with the LLC students. However, it need not be an extravagant event for a faculty member to have an impact. A faculty member could simply talk during office hours with students who are looking to make more friends and recommend that they join the LLC peer group participating in the cocurricular activity that might be of interest to the students—whether an intramural team, a Friday night dinner and movie group, or a small set of students trying to launch a new entrepreneurial endeavor. For this to happen, however, the faculty member must be aware of the various activities and interests of the LLC students. Academic Affairs, Cocurricular Activities, and the Academic Climate of the Residence Hall As mentioned previously, the academic climate of the LLC residence hall can be enhanced by mere awareness of the “rhythms” of the students’ classes over the course of the semester. RLH-led programming, such as study skills workshops, test-taking tips, and stress-relief programming, can coincide with the

Kurotoschi.indb 86

25-05-2018 20:31:19

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

87

timing of major assignments and examinations the students are undertaking. Cocurricular activities can also build on academic events on the campus, such as the Common Read (a book the university selects for all students to read) or Martin Luther King Day lectures, by holding smaller book clubs or sign-ups for lecture tickets. For LLCs focusing on a specific academic discipline, such as engineering, it may be common for students to form study groups, especially because they often take the same introductory classes (e.g., calculus, chemistry, physics) together in their first and second years. The students participating in the engineering LLC get to know one another well as they study together for upcoming tests and exams and may begin to organically participate in campus cocurricular activities over time. For example, they may decide to form their own intramural team, choose to go to the movies together on a Friday night, or even join a student club or organization of mutual interest. Individual students in the engineering LLC may not feel confident enough to strike out on their own and join such a club or form an intramural team, but the camaraderie formed through the academic study groups can serve as a way for students to gain more confidence by participating in campus-based activities together. Capitalizing on Serendipity, or “Teachable Moments” Finally, an LLC should be nimble and integrated enough to capitalize on serendipitous events and transform them into “teachable moments.” For example, if—in reaction to a local incident—protests on fair wages organize on the LLC’s campus, the economics and society LLC could use this unplanned occurrence to study economic protest movements in American history and the way they have shaped wage policies in state and federal governments. This LLC could organize a series of activities, including bringing in professors to give lectures on the topic, watching movies related to protest movements, or forming mealtime discussion groups. Yet to capitalize on these types of serendipitous phenomena, an LLC must have an infrastructure flexible enough to accommodate new programming and activities as well as the physical, human, and financial resources to support these unplanned activities and effective communication across all key stakeholders (students, faculty, staff ) so that everyone can participate and benefit. On one campus that was experiencing a high-profile sexual violence incident, students in the wellness LLC became interested in learning more about tactics to intervene and defuse a potentially dangerous situation between peers. With the encouragement of the LLC staff, the students contacted the Title IX office on their campus and asked a staff member to visit with the LLC and teach them “bystander” interventions. Word spread, the

Kurotoschi.indb 87

25-05-2018 20:31:19

88

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

workshop was a success, and other residence halls began to ask the staff member to do a similar workshop for its students. Soon the workshop became a staple for all different kinds of student groups in venues as diverse as LLCs, fraternities and sororities, and even academic departments. Thus, although the impetus for the intervention was an unfortunate incident involving sexual violence on the campus, with the encouragement of an LLC, more and more students on the campus learned about how to intervene in potentially difficult situations and possibly prevent further violent incidents in the future.

Benefits of Integrated LLC Activities The reason that intentional integration was placed at the pinnacle of the BPM is because integration serves to augment and enhance the building blocks that make up the rest of the pyramid. The pinnacle is not a new component or element to include in one’s LLC programming; instead, it serves to remind LLC leadership and practitioners that the effective strength of the LLC lies not in the individual “blocks” in the pyramid but in the extent to which they integrate to form a comprehensive and cohesive living and learning environment. After all, students—with or without an LLC—could separately live in a residence hall, interact with their professors and peers, take classes, and participate in cocurricular activities. But the purpose of an LLC is to provide its participants with a unified living and learning experience, where the program’s theme permeates explicitly and seamlessly through all of its elements—from faculty, staff, and student interactions to the living environment, curriculum, cocurriculum, culture, and climate. When these facets of a student’s college combine, the opportunities for learning, growth, and development can flourish (see Box 6.1). This concept is not new to the higher education literature. Most of its bedrock theories about the college student experience rest on the belief that the integration of students’ academic and social spheres is critical to their collegiate success. For example, Tinto (1993), in his model depicting factors that influence students’ persistence or departure, asserts that both academic and social experiences in the college environment—and the extent to which students can successfully integrate into both—shape a student’s decision on whether to stay or leave. He further delineates the facets of the academic and social spheres of influence in a college environment into four categories: academic performance, faculty-staff interactions, extracurricular activities, and peer group interactions. These concepts are repeated within our LLC BPM: courses for credit, faculty advising, residence hall academic

Kurotoschi.indb 88

25-05-2018 20:31:19

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

89

BOX 6.1

Pace University’s FIGs: The Pinnacle Although the FIGs are still relatively new, they have incorporated several elements into their infrastructure that facilitate the type of intentional integration described in this chapter as the pinnacle. First, for most of the FIGs, there is a strong collaboration between academic affairs and RLH. For all of the FIGs, the resident director (RD) serves as the conduit between the program’s resident assistants (RAs) and the faculty/staff partners. The RDs ensure the RAs get to know the faculty/staff partner as well as the theme of the FIG, and they require RA programming to be related to the FIG’s theme. The incorporation of the theme into FIG programming has resulted in several incredible events and field trips, which are described more fully in chapter 5. There also appears to be solid cross-FIG communication. This may be in part because all of the FIGs are located in one building and supervised by only two RDs, so the different FIGs cannot help but know what the others are doing. However, RLH takes it a step further and institutionalizes cross-FIG collaboration by convening an advisory board composed of faculty/staff partners, RDs, and RLH staff. An examination of the agendas for the advisory board meetings over the past two years shows how RLH strives to ensure the different FIGs are all made aware of policies and practices that affect them and to maintain the training their staff has been provided. The physical amenities of the building are critical in providing academically and socially supportive residence hall climates. The six study rooms scattered throughout the building provide a formal space for students to study. Moreover, the movable and reconfigurable furniture and the high-gloss painted walls that turn into large dry-erase boards are ideal for study groups or teams to work together on projects. On the other hand, the FIG theme-based lounges, which are decorated distinctively according to their themes provide the students with a physical manifestation of their FIG’s theme, creating a unifying identity that helps the participants feel as though they are a part of a community. Finally, even though most of the Pace FIGs do not offer courses for credit—one of the building blocks in the BPM—they take advantage of ways to integrate activities through their robust cocurricular offerings. For example, the BAM FIG offers regularly scheduled sessions on different forms of mindfulness and contemplative practices such as yoga, meditation, and aromatherapy. The BAM FIG often repeats the sessions so

Kurotoschi.indb 89

25-05-2018 20:31:20

90

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

students can begin to make a habit of using these mindfulness techniques on a more regular basis, and the sessions are held in the BAM lounge space (which is outfitted as a yoga studio) so students can practice these techniques in a physical space close to their living quarters. Thus, even those LLCs that do not include every aspect of the BPM in their programming can intentionally integrate those options they do have. Doing so may create extra layers of work and require constant communication, but the results are beneficial for the LLC students. At Pace, results from a recent survey of FIG students not only revealed that they are 88% satisfied with their overall experience in Alumni Hall but also reported that their knowledge expanded, their interactions with diverse others increased, and their social lives were fulfilling as a result of FIG participation.

and social climates, and cocurricular activities. Thus, we argue an effective LLC can satisfy all of the necessary elements of the Tinto persistence model in one program. The higher education literature also provides another key to understanding how to help students take full advantage of their LLCs: involvement or engagement. The two terms, as used when describing the college student experience, are analogous. Astin (1984) proposed that students’ success in college was directly proportional to their involvement with college. In other words, gains from college attendance are related to the extent to which a student is invested psychosocially and physically in the college experience. Similarly, Hu and Kuh (2002) have defined engagement as “the quality of effort students themselves devote to educationally purposeful activities that contribute directly to desired outcomes” (p. 555). Thus, for students to truly benefit from a set of integrated activities within an LLC, they must fully engage in those activities that best characterize the ways they are integrated. For example, a business LLC offers a class on comparative successful organizational business practices. The instructor for the course could contact a local business that employs one of these business practices to invite the owner or president to visit the LLC or to ask whether students could see one or both of these individuals at their place of work. Moreover, the instructor could assign students to develop their own service-learning projects employing one or more of the relevant business practices and sponsor the projects through the LLC. As projects are developed, students can reflect on what they have learned—positive or negative—about specific business practices and how this may inform use of these practices in the future. Finally, if

Kurotoschi.indb 90

25-05-2018 20:31:20

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

91

possible, those same practices could be infused into the community living agreement among the students living in the LLC. After a while, the students could compare and contrast how effectively the practices may work in living versus working environments. Thus, it is not merely enough for students to learn about a concept in a stand-alone course. They should have the opportunity to reengage with the concept through multiple high-quality experiences, such as practical reinforcement (meeting with a local business), application (using the practice in a service-learning project), and personal investment (community living standards). The strength of the LLC is that students can experience this in- and out-of-class learning environment all in one location. Although we know not all LLCs will be able to fully implement a program that incorporates all of the building blocks of the BPM, it nevertheless is crucial that they—as much as possible—integrate the blocks they do have. An effective LLC is not the sum of its individual parts; it is the level to which those individual parts work in harmony with one another to enhance students’ learning capacities.

The Mortar Between the Bricks Although the pinnacle represents the highest level of the pyramid, there is a final aspect to the LLC BPM, which is depicted in the illustration at the beginning of this chapter. Described as the “mortar between the bricks,” assessment is a vital component to creating and maintaining vibrant LLCs. Effective LLC assessments evaluate discrete parts of their programming (e.g., courses, staff, and cocurricular activities) and the extent to which all facets of their program (a) align with the program’s goals and objectives and (b) integrate with the other elements of their programs. Despite acknowledged efforts by the LLCs studied in the NSLLP case study to strengthen their assessment efforts, most were only in the beginning phases of designing and executing their assessment plans. Accordingly, as LLCs contemplate the types of assessments they might pursue, a strong assessment plan should include (a) the extent to which the LLC’s various building blocks are aligned with the program’s goals and objectives, (b) the effectiveness of the discrete building blocks of the program in achieving those goals and objectives, and (c) the level of integration of the various building blocks to form a cohesive program.

Assessing Alignment With LLC Goals and Objectives To assess how well the various elements of your LLC align with its goals and objectives, the first and obvious step is to ensure your LLC has

Kurotoschi.indb 91

25-05-2018 20:31:20

92

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

well-defined, operationalized, and measurable goals and objectives. For more information about this element of the LLC BPM, see chapter 3. As we argue there, an LLC’s goals and objectives should work in tandem to advance the theme of the community and help students fully integrate their academic and social experiences. LLC goals and objectives are foundational because all of the other facets of the LLC BPM are predicated on them. This is why goals and objectives are found in the infrastructure portion of the pyramid and why they are the cornerstone of the entire model. By this logic, however, if all other facets of the LLC are predicated on the program’s goals and objectives, then all of the other portions of the BPM should align with them. Thus, the first step of an LLC assessment plan should be verifying that all the other programmatic elements of the LLC do, indeed, align with its goals and objectives. Let us return to the example we used in chapter 3 and review the sample goals and objectives for an LLC that we provided. Goal 1: Increasing students’ peer interactions related to academics outside the classroom • Objective 1a: Offer opportunities for group learning outside the classroom (field trips, speakers, etc.). • Objective 1b: Provide inviting and dedicated study spaces for students within the LLC. • Objective 1c: Integrate group projects into the curriculum of the class(es) associated with the LLC. Goal 2: Deepening students’ social integration into the university • Objective 2a: Provide a formal initiation into the LLC that helps students get to know each other and establishes social integration as a norm (retreat, induction ceremony, etc.). • Objective 2b: Provide opportunities for social interaction for the LLC (group dinners, social activities). • Objective 2c: Integrate relevant “get to know you” activities into the classroom experience. Goal 3: Connecting students to cocurricular opportunities that will enhance their academic experiences

Kurotoschi.indb 92

25-05-2018 20:31:20

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

93

• Objective 3a: Integrate cocurricular activities into the course curriculum and provide credit for attendance. • Objective 3b: Provide structure and support (financial, human) for students to plan and lead cocurricular activities related to the theme of the community. • Objective 3c: Provide sufficient space within the LLC for students to gather and engage in course-related and cocurricular activities. When the LLC takes stock of its programming and resources, each element introduced to the LLC should align with at least one of these sets of goals and objectives. To ensure the programming and resources are well aligned, LLCs can develop a matrix as in the example given in Table 6.1. The essential elements of the matrix are (a) a description of the program or resource offered by the LLC, (b) which building block of the BPM the LLC program or resource best exemplifies, and (c) which LLC goals and objectives are addressed by the program or resource. To ensure all of the LLC’s goals and objectives are being addressed by at least one program or resource, key stakeholders would need to verify there is at least one check mark in each column and each row.

Assessing Effectiveness in Achieving Goals and Objectives Table 6.1 is useful in terms of ensuring all components of the LLC are aligned with its overarching goals and objectives, and it also points stakeholders to aspects of the programs and resources that need to be assessed in relation to relevant goals and objectives. Because not all goals and objectives are satisfied by each program and resource, it is unnecessary to assess the extent to which all programs and resources address all goals and objectives. Instead, the matrix can help the assessment team target which goals and objectives are salient for which programs and resources. For example, the LLC need not assess whether the Friday night dinner and a movie screening of Metropolis achieves all of the LLC’s goals and objectives. Rather, the assessment team can focus on only Goal 2’s Objectives 2a and 2b and Goal 3’s Objectives 3a and 3c. Now that the relevant goals and objectives for each portion of the building block model have been identified, the difficult challenge of devising assessment plans to examine their effectiveness begins. There are numerous materials in print regarding the topic of program assessment or evaluation, and the topic is too broad to be summarized in this short chapter; however, Upcraft and Schuh (1996) provide a useful list of assessment options for LLCs:

Kurotoschi.indb 93

25-05-2018 20:31:20

94

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

• • • • • •

Client usage tracking Needs assessment Satisfaction assessment Student cultures and campus environments assessment Outcomes assessment Benchmarking or national standards assessment

Tracking client usage is as simple as taking attendance or counting the number of participants at an event or activity. Increases or decreases in participation, as well as comparisons of attendance with similar events, can help LLCs make inferences about students’ interests and motivation. Two popular types of assessments are satisfaction and needs assessments; the former investigates the extent to which students are content with the LLC’s offerings, whereas the latter examines what student needs may be left unmet by current programming. Studies of the residence hall climate may make best use of student cultures and campus environments assessments. These assessments determine how students interact with their environment and how different elements of the LLC can be used to improve the fit between students and their environments. Accordingly, researchers and assessment leaders may learn that not all programs and resources enjoy similar participation by similar students but also that some programs and resources may be more beneficial for some students than others. Perhaps one of the more strategically important types of assessment is outcomes assessment, which examines the effect of the program or resource on students’ learning, growth, development, or success. Often, these assessments are critical in demonstrating to university administrators the “value-added” component of the LLC to the campus. Moreover, in light of increasing scrutiny of learning outcomes achieved by all sectors of the university on the part of regional and specialized accreditors, outcomes assessment is now no longer an option but a necessity. The final two subtypes of assessment—benchmarking and national standards—are similar in that they both seek to compare an LLC’s programs and resources with another entity, either another LLC or a set of standards, respectively. Typically, benchmarking and national standards assessment use exemplars, or best practices, as a point of comparison with one’s own LLC in order to identify its strengths and limitations. Whether using qualitative (interview, focus groups, observations) or quantitative (survey, student records) methods, the listed options may be appropriate in the assessment of an LLC’s goals and objectives. For example, to better understand if and how attendance at a Friday night dinner or a movie event deepened students’ social integration into the university, a research team might track client usage or take attendance at the event and

Kurotoschi.indb 94

25-05-2018 20:31:20

95

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

TABLE 6.1

An Example Matrix That Aligns LLC Programs and Resources With Goals and Objectives Alignment with: LLC Program or Resource Large open space on ground floor alternatively used for three purposes (hours of operation indicated on door): • Quiet study space • Group or team work • Social gatherings

Best Practices Building Block

Goals

Resources

1

Objectives a b c 



2



3



Space outfitted with comfortable seating, reconfigurable tables and chairs, and television ART 101: First-Year Seminar on Architectural History ASSIGNMENT: Working in teams, choose one historical landmark in the neighboring city and trace its history

Course for credit

Group study or group project sign-up

Academically supportive residence hall climate

New student orientation

1



 

2 3



1



2 3



Socially supportive 1 residence hall climate 2

  

3 Friday night dinner and a movie screening of Metropolis

Field trip: Architectural tour of nearby city

Socially supportive 1 residence hall climate 2 Cocurricular activities

Choose your own adventure: Have Cocurricular LLC student council develop activities one or two student-initiated cocurricular activities

Kurotoschi.indb 95

 

3



1

 

2



3



1



   

2 3







25-05-2018 20:31:20

96

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

compare the numbers of participants to those at other LLC activities. They might also assess whether the movie night was satisfying the needs of students’ social integration or if there are other activities the students would prefer. Further, the LLC might compare the effectiveness of its movie night to other LLCs on campus or an LLC of a similar theme on another campus in order to learn of other ways to run the event (or similar events) that might be even more beneficial. Regardless of the format of the assessment (satisfaction, needs, outcomes, etc.), it is important for LLCs to collect both formative and summative data. On one hand, summative assessment is generally conducted at the conclusion of a program or activity and evaluates its overall impact on meeting a targeted outcome. On the other hand, formative assessment is typically conducted while the program or activity is still occurring and is commonly used to better understand places of strength or areas needing improvement while the process is still unfolding. A popular example of the difference between the two types concerns student achievement in a course; the final grade is the summative assessment, whereas grades on students’ assignments and their participation in class comprise the formative assessment. So for an assessment of how effectively the architectural tour field trip enhanced students’ academic experiences, a summative assessment might query how the field trip enlightened students on the built environment’s effects on people’s usage of their habitats. However, a formative assessment might examine whether and how students were prepared for the field trip experience through reading assignments or discussions, whether the sites and routes chosen for the tour provided students with the best opportunities to observe how people interact with their environments, and if other elements of this LLC’s programming (course content, related cocurricular activities, guest speakers, etc.) influenced students’ field trip experience. Once the LLC stakeholders have identified (a) goals and objectives, (b) the programs and resources aligned with the goals and objectives, (c) the type of assessment option that will best provide the needed information concerning the program, and (d) how assessment will measure both formative and summative data, they can again turn to Upcraft and Schuh (1996) in running through the rest of the basic process for any program assessment: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Kurotoschi.indb 96

Determine whom to study. Determine how data will be collected. Determine what instruments will be used. Determine who should collect the data. Determine how the data will be analyzed.

25-05-2018 20:31:20

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

97

6. Determine the implications of the study for policy and practice. 7. Report the results effectively.

Assessing Effectiveness in Integrating LLC Programs and Resources The final portion of an effective LLC assessment plan is the examination of the extent to which programming and resources in the BPM are integrated with one another. For this type of assessment, it is important for researchers to study how both the LLC student participants and faculty, staff, and community partners experience these integrative components. Summatively, LLCs should measure how the integration of different activities (e.g., courses for credit and cocurricular activities, faculty advising and supportive residence hall climates) facilitates student outcomes, which should align with program goals and objectives. For example, did the coordination of an architectural tour field trip sponsored by the LLC enhance students’ learning outcomes in the architectural history course, over and above the course’s regular curriculum? In addition, through formative assessment, LLCs should document how they make explicit connections between the various elements of the BPM as well as which connections were more or less successful in augmenting students’ outcomes. Using the same example, did the instructor of the course meet with the LLC staff in charge of developing field trip ideas and brainstorm possibilities for excursions? When did that meeting take place, and what resources needed to be made available for the architectural tour to come to fruition? A good understanding of timing and the way processes unfold can aid in LLC planning in future years. Moreover, LLCs should document various interventions attempted in relation to the event (in this case, the architectural tour field trip) and whether those interventions were or were not beneficial. For example, did providing the LLC participants with a short primer on prominent architectural styles in the nearby city before the field trip enrich their excursion experience? Did having the course instructor accompany the students on the field trip bolster or detract from students’ experiences? Did choice of transportation influence the experience? Like the assessment of LLC effectiveness in achieving its goals and objectives, there is no one way to study intentional integration and its effects. Once the types of integrative activities are identified for assessment, researchers should follow a standard assessment process, beginning with the articulation of the study’s overarching research questions and then the choice of methodology, followed by the selection of the study subjects, the modes of data collection, the strategy for data analysis, and the process through which conclusions are reached. Those unfamiliar with or lacking confidence in

Kurotoschi.indb 97

25-05-2018 20:31:20

98

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

their social science assessment skills might enlist the assistance of constituents on their campuses who can be of help. Such key people might include staff working in research or assessment offices; staff in institutional research offices; faculty and graduate students in education and social science disciplines; and colleagues in other LLCs around the university, region, and national professional organizations.

An Initial Assessment The task of getting started on an assessment plan can be daunting, even for seasoned professionals. Furthermore, because LLCs are typically complex programs with several components—so much so that our own BPM includes seven discrete blocks (see Table 6.1)—it can be difficult to know where to start. Consequently, we created an initial inventory LLCs can use to gauge how their LLCs (new or existing) compare to our BPM. The inventory is self-scoring and will help LLC stakeholders identify strengths and areas for improvement at all four levels of the model (infrastructure, academic environment, cocurricular environment, intentional integration) and within individual building blocks (RLH staff–academic affairs collaboration, faculty advising, cocurricular activities, etc.). LLC stakeholders can choose to take the inventory as a collective team and discuss responses to each question as they move through the questions, or they may decide to have each stakeholder take the inventory separately and then compare responses afterward. Table 6.2 presents an example of how to take, score, and interpret one section of the inventory. This particular section of the inventory pertains to whether the academic climate in the residence hall where the LLC resides is supportive, which is a building block on the “Academic Environments” level of the BPM. The column on the far right is where LLC stakeholders can insert their responses to the questions. For example, if the stakeholder agrees with the statement “Life in the LLC is intellectually stimulating,” then a 3 is entered in the first row of the far right-hand column. After the respondents have answered all of the questions in the section, they can calculate the subtotal for the section. In the example, the subtotal for all of the responses is 14 (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 14). Accordingly, for this section of the inventory, LLC stakeholders will learn that their beliefs about the academic climate in the LLC’s residence hall are moderately supportive (as opposed to low or high), because the subtotal 14 falls in the “Mid” (13–17) range. In addition, in scanning through the individual responses, it seems clear the respondent feels 2 areas for improvement in the LLC are the extent to which the LLC staff spends a great deal

Kurotoschi.indb 98

25-05-2018 20:31:20

99

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

TABLE 6.2

An Example Section of the BPM Inventory Section 6: Academically Supportive Climate How well do the following statements reflect the academic environment within your LLC?

1. Life in the LLC is intellectually stimulating.

1 2 3 4

= Strongly disagree = Disagree = Agree = Strongly agree

3

2. There is enough peer support in the LLC for students to do well academically.

1 2 3 4

= Strongly disagree = Disagree = Agree = Strongly agree

3

3. Most students in the LLC study a lot.

1 2 3 4

= Strongly disagree = Disagree = Agree = Strongly agree

3

4. The students in the LLC support each other’s academic achievement.

1 2 3 4

= Strongly disagree = Disagree = Agree = Strongly agree

3

5. Staff in the LLC spend a great 1 = Strongly disagree deal of time helping students 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree succeed academically. 4 = Strongly agree 1 = Strongly disagree 6. It is easy for students in the 2 = Disagree LLC to form study groups. 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree SECTION 6 SUBTOTAL LOW MID (6–12) (13–17)

1

1

HIGH (18–24)

14

of time helping students to succeed academically and the ease with which LLC participants can form study groups. How can changes be made to the LLC using the results of this inventory? If there is general consensus that staff should spend more time helping students to succeed academically and to form study groups, then the LLC stakeholders should reexamine their goals and objectives and determine how to best implement these 2 activities in ways that will align with their goals and objectives—either within current programming and resources or by creating a whole new program or activity. Table 6.3 shows the initial inventory in its entirety.

Kurotoschi.indb 99

25-05-2018 20:31:20

Kurotoschi.indb 100

LOW (0)

SECTION 1 SUBTOTAL

MID (1–2)

HIGH (3)

2. Describe your LLC’s relationship with the academic unit (e.g., 1 = A nonexistent or close to nonexistent relationship academic department, central administration) that supports this 2 = A utilitarian, consult “as needed” relationship community. 3 = A fair, “okay” relationship 4 = A good, cordial relationship 5 = A strong, healthy relationship

1. Describe your LLC’s relationship with the Residence Life/ 1 = A nonexistent or close to nonexistent relationship Housing office on your campus. 2 = A utilitarian, consult “as needed” relationship 3 = A fair, “okay” relationship 4 = A good, cordial relationship 5 = A strong, healthy relationship

Section 2: Collaboration Between Academic Unit and Housing/Residence Life

0 = No 1 = Yes

3. Does your LLC have explicitly articulated learning outcomes?

2. Does your LLC have a mission statement, or some type of state- 0 = No ment describing its goals and aspirations? 1 = Yes

1. Does your LLC have explicit and enumerated goals and objec- 0 = No tives that are publicly available in an official document or website? 1 = Yes [Enter either a “1” or “0” in the next column.]

Section 1: Clear Goals and Objectives

TABLE 6.3

The LLC BPM Inventory

100 LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

25-05-2018 20:31:20

Kurotoschi.indb 101

SECTION 3 SUBTOTAL (Continues )

(SUM)

2. Does your LLC have enough funds to (check all that apply)?

+1 = Adequately staff the community to meet its needs +1 = Provide for cocurricular programming +1 = Fund regular and periodic assessments +1 = Pay for faculty incentives to participate in the community [Enter sum in next column.]

(SUM)

1. Do you have champions or key allies at your institution for your +1 = Institutional leaders LLC in the form of (check all that apply)? +1 = Prominent faculty +1 = Other key stakeholders [Enter sum in next column.]

Section 3: Adequate Resources

HIGH (16–20)

LOW (0–8)

SECTION 2 SUBTOTAL

MID (9–15)

0 = No reporting unit 2 = Academic unit only 2 = Residence Life/Housing only 4 = Both Residence Life/Housing and an academic unit

5. What unit(s) does this LLC directly report to?

4. What is the budget source (i.e., source of funding) for this LLC? 0 = No budget 2 = Solely funded by Residence Life/Housing 2 = Solely funded by academic unit 4 = Shared between Residence Life/Housing and an academic unit

3. Are there clearly defined roles for staff in both Residence Life/ 0 = No Housing and the relevant academic unit in your LLC? 1 = Sort of 2 = Yes

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

101

25-05-2018 20:31:20

Kurotoschi.indb 102

SECTION 4 SUBTOTAL

LOW (0)

MID (1–2)

HIGH (3 or more)

2. How many courses for academic credit are offered by this LLC? 0 = 0 courses 1 = 1 course 2 = 2 or more courses

1. Does your LLC offer any of the following types of courses? +1 = Courses for official academic credit, developed and (SUM) (Check all that apply): taught by living-learning staff +1 = Special sections of introductory or large classes (e.g., English composition, calculus, introductory psychology) taught by academic departments +1 = Courses offered by departments or the universityat-large +1 = Any other type of course that carries academic credit [Enter sum in next column.]

Section 4: Courses for Credit

TABLE 6.3 (Continued )

102 LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

25-05-2018 20:31:20

Kurotoschi.indb 103

0 = 0 faculty members 1 = 1–2 faculty members 2 = 3 or more faculty members

SECTION 5 SUBTOTAL

LOW (0)

MID (1–4)

HIGH (5 or more)

2. If you have faculty working with this LLC, check all of the +1 = Teach a course for the LLC activities that they perform for the community. +1 = Hold office hours for classes offered specifically for living-learning participants +1 = Work with students outside class on course-related matters +1 = Provide academic advising +1 = Live in the residence hall [Enter sum in next column.]

1. How many faculty members work with this LLC?

Section 5: Faculty Advising

(Continues)

(SUM)

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

103

25-05-2018 20:31:20

Kurotoschi.indb 104

1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

LOW (6–12)

SECTION 6 SUBTOTAL

MID HIGH (13–17) (18–24)

1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

6. It is easy for students in the LLC to form study groups.

5. Staff in the LLC spend a great deal of time helping students 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree succeed academically. 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

4. The students in the LLC support each other's academic 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree achievement. 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

3. Most students in the LLC study a lot.

2. There is enough peer support in the LLC for students to do well 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree academically. 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

1. Life in the LLC is intellectually stimulating.

How well do the following statements reflect the academic environment within your LLC?

Section 6: Academically Supportive Climate

TABLE 6.3 (Continued )

104 LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

25-05-2018 20:31:20

Kurotoschi.indb 105

SECTION 7 SUBTOTAL

LOW (4–8)

MID (9–11)

4. Students with different backgrounds interact often with one 1 = Strongly disagree another in the LLC 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

3. Students in the LLC have an appreciation for people from 1 = Strongly disagree different religions. 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

2. Students in the LLC are concerned with helping and supporting 1 = Strongly disagree one another. 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

1. Students in the LLC have an appreciation for people from 1 = Strongly disagree different cultures. 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

How well do the following statements reflect the social environment within your LLC?

Section 7: Socially Supportive Climate

HIGH (12–16) (Continues)

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

105

25-05-2018 20:31:20

Kurotoschi.indb 106

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 LOW MID (0) (1–2)

2. Arts/music performance

4. Career workshops

5. Cultural programs or outings

6. Group projects

7. International programming

8. Internship, field experience, career-related work experience

9. Intramural or club sports

10. Orientation programs

11. Outdoor recreation

12. Research project

13. Community service

14. Visits to work settings

15. Study groups

SECTION 8 SUBTOTAL

+1

3. Capstone experience (e.g., senior thesis)

1. Academic advising

HIGH (3 or more)

Check all of the types of cocurricular activities that are offered as part of your LLC. (Each response checked is +1 point.)

Section 8: Cocurricular Environment

TABLE 6.3 (Continued )

106 LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

25-05-2018 20:31:20

Kurotoschi.indb 107

SECTION 9 SUBTOTAL

LOW (5–10)

MID (11–14)

5. Instructors teaching the living-learning courses are aware of the 1 = Strongly disagree curriculum and goals of all their LLC’s courses, not just their 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree own. 4 = Strongly agree

4. Staff living with the living-learning participants are aware of 1 = Strongly disagree and try to integrate the LLC’s activities with their residents’ 2 = Disagree living environment. 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

3. Faculty affiliated with the community are generally aware of the 1 = Strongly disagree array of opportunities offered to participants in the LLC. 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

2. Cocurricular activities are planned and timed for maximum 1 = Strongly disagree impact around students’ coursework and other LLC activities. 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

1. Living-learning staff and faculty affiliated with the community 1 = Strongly disagree generally know about what each other is doing in conjunction 2 = Disagree with the community. 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree

To what extent do the following statements reflect your LLC?

Section 9: Intentional Integration

HIGH (15–20) (Continues)

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

107

25-05-2018 20:31:20

Kurotoschi.indb 108

SECTION 10 SUBTOTAL

LOW (0–2)

MID (3–5)

HIGH (6–7)

3. Do you regularly assess the extent to which the various com- 0 = No ponents of your LLC are integrated to form a cohesive student 1 = Yes, but not regularly experience (e.g., faculty teaching in the LLC are aware of the 2 = Yes, regularly service opportunities provided by the community as cocurricular activities)?

2. Do you regularly assess the extent to which your LLC’s core 0 = No components align with the community’s goals and objectives? 1 = Yes, but not regularly 2 = Yes, regularly

1. How often do you assess the effectiveness of your LLC’s core 0 = Infrequently and not regularly (e.g., every once in a components? while over the years) 1 = Sporadically, but semiregularly (e.g., you try to on an annual basis) 2 = Regularly, but not often (you commit to it annually) 3 = Regularly and often (you assess various components more than once per year)

Section 10: Assessment

TABLE 6.3 (Continued )

108 LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

25-05-2018 20:31:20

THE PINNACLE AND MORTAR OF THE PYRAMID

109

Conclusion What makes an LLC truly effective? Although a solid infrastructure and robust academic and cocurricular environments are important, as the BPM indicates, for an LLC to be truly effective, it must integrate all of its activities. Only through the integration of all the layers of the best practices pyramid can an LLC optimally use all of its resources. Moreover, for an LLC to remain effective, it must regularly and consistently assess its activities. Ideally, LLCs should incorporate an assessment plan that includes (a) assessing the extent to which the LLC’s various building blocks are aligned with the program’s goals and objectives, (b) studying the effectiveness of each of the LLC’s building blocks in achieving those goals and objectives, and (c) documenting the level of integration of the various building blocks to form a cohesive program. To help their assessments, we offer LLCs the inventory shown in Table 6.3 to compare their offerings with those in of the BPM. In using this inventory, LLCs can identify their program’s areas of strength and aspects ripe for improvement. Thus, in lieu of discussion questions for this chapter, we encourage readers to use the best practices inventory to preliminarily evaluate their LLCs.

Kurotoschi.indb 109

25-05-2018 20:31:20

Kurotoschi.indb 110

25-05-2018 20:31:20

7 LOGISTICS AND COSTS OF LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES

A

t this point in the book, readers probably have a number of logistical questions about LLC development—perhaps at the top of this list is “How much does it cost to create effective LLCs?” This question is not an easy one to answer, as the myriad organizational structures and institutional practices within postsecondary institutions lead to wide variation in the costs associated with these communities. For example, in the NSLLP data collection of over 600 LLCs, the average cost associated with programs was about $15,000; however, 16% of programs had no budget and almost 30% had budgets under $1,000. Only 10% of LLCs in the NSLLP reported budgets greater than $50,000. There is also considerable variation in who is responsible for funding LLCs. The NSLLP illustrated how student affairs or RLH appears to cover most of the costs. In fact, the NSLLP data revealed over two-thirds of the LLCs were funded more or solely by student affairs and RLH, with little support from academic affairs. And perhaps more specifically, just over 50% of LLCs were financed solely by student affairs or RLH. Less than 15% of LLCs reported being funded more by academic affairs than student affairs (8.4%) or solely by academic affairs (less than 6%). To this end, the purpose of this chapter is to provide LLC staff, planners, and stakeholders some considerations concerning the BPM, potential challenges that may be encountered, and types of resources needed to develop effective LLCs. In reading this chapter, it is important to keep in mind although one could argue everything has a cost associated with it (real or symbolic), there are some elements of the BPM that can be integrated into the daily workings of the institution and thus will not necessarily add to 111

Kurotoschi.indb 111

25-05-2018 20:31:20

112

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

program budgets. Throughout the chapter, we use the BPM as a framework for considering logistics and costs of building, implementing, and sustaining LLCs. At the end of each building block section, we enumerate specific considerations for each aspect of the model and offer questions that can be used to inform budgeting and resource allocation. Although all the elements we list are important to consider, there are some we deem essential to adhere to the BPM. We use asterisks (*) to indicate essential elements for the BPM. In addition to new costs or resources needed to develop, implement, and sustain LLCs, it is important to determine whether and how to account for staff and faculty time, classes, and cocurricular programming already in place. In some instances (e.g., courses for credit and cocurricular programming), these blocks in the BPM can easily be accounted for because there are traditional ways for institutions to handle these activities. However, time is a resource that is sometimes implicit and may need to be explicated, as various offices, departments, and colleges may view the allocation of someone’s time differently. Because of these differences, those seeking to implement an LLC must understand and negotiate the value placed on time for everyone involved. Although time is not always synonymous with cost, it is important to consider time and time constraints. Further, as was asserted previously, it is critical to remember that the four levels of the BPM should work symbiotically, and not in isolation from one another, to promote a healthy and effective LLC.

Infrastructure As illustrated in chapter 3, the infrastructure level serves as the foundation on which the other components of the BPM can build. To that end, attending to these elements (clear goals and objectives, collaboration between academic and student affairs, and adequate resources) will likely lead to the successful implementation and integration of building blocks above the infrastructure.

Goals and Objectives As discussed in chapter 3, involving multiple constituents and stakeholders in the development of clear goals and objectives is an important foundational task in building and sustaining effective LLCs. A fair question to consider, in addition to who should help determine the goals and objectives of the LLC, is how much time needs to be devoted to developing the goals and objectives and how will that time be compensated, if at all? Regardless of the length of the program or its focus, dedicating sufficient time from the outset to bring the many campus partners and stakeholders together to establish the goals

Kurotoschi.indb 112

25-05-2018 20:31:20

LOGISTICS AND COSTS

113

and objectives of the community is essential to the success of the community. These partnerships will elicit the feedback and buy-in necessary to build a strong foundation for the LLC. Figure 7.1 describes the initial logistical questions LLCs must ask about the development of their goals and objectives and then identifies potential costs or expenses associated with each logistical step. Remember an asterisk (*) indicates elements we consider to be essential for the effective consideration of the BPM. Figure 7.1. Logistics and costs associated with the development of LLC goals and objectives. LOGISTICS

Who is responsible for developing the LLC’s goals and objectives?

Who is responsible for assessing the LLC’s goals and objectives?

COSTS If the LLC includes staff member(s), does the staff member have the capacity to take on additional responsibilities, or will roles need to be shifted? * If the LLC includes faculty member(s), do the faculty need to be compensated in some way (course release, summer salary, etc.) for their time? *

If the LLC needs to hire someone or form a committee to do the assessment, should the person(s) be involved at the point of the development of goals and objectives?

Are there any expenses involved in the design developed to assess the LLC’s goals and objectives?

Adequate Resources Although the collaboration between RLH and an academic affairs unit is the next building block in the BPM, for the sake of discussing logistics and costs, it makes more sense to address issues and expenses related to an LLC’s resources. The two largest budgetary items are physical space and personnel associated with the LLC. As we have shown in chapter 3 and throughout other chapters, physical space in the LLC is a critical component that undergirds the three tiers above the infrastructure level of the BPM. Because the physical elements that are feasible in an LLC’s residence hall are largely dependent on the physical infrastructure of the building, it may or may not be possible to incorporate all of the features described. However, consideration can be made regarding how current space can be reimagined and retooled.

Kurotoschi.indb 113

25-05-2018 20:31:20

114

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

We have organized the various physical space considerations for LLCs into the following logistical arenas: (a) spaces to support academic study; (b) spaces to facilitate peer, faculty, and staff interaction; and (c) spaces to support LLC faculty and staff members. Supporting academic study includes providing not only a space for study but also a place where students can seek academic support from peers, faculty, and professional and paraprofessional staff alike. However, students also need spaces to meet and interact with others for nonacademic reasons, including meeting with faculty and staff to discuss personal issues, meeting with fellow peers for cocurricular or social gatherings, and pursuing or enjoying hobbies or interests. Finally, not all spaces inside an LLC residence hall are meant solely for the benefit of the students; some may be to support faculty or staff members working with the LLC. Figure 7.2 describes the various physical spaces an LLC might consider incorporating into its building structure in order to support aspects of the BPM. Figure 7.2. Logistics and costs associated with LLC physical resources. LOGISTICS

COSTS Is there dedicated space for studying, for both individual study and study groups/team projects? Can the furniture in the study rooms be reconfigured to support both private study and group study? * Are there offices in the residence hall where students can meet with LLC faculty, staff, and RAs to seek academic advice? *

What spaces are needed to support academic study?

If courses are offered as part of the LLC, is there classroom space in the residence hall where the classes could be held? Are there spaces that could be used as “help rooms” (review sessions for an upcoming test, tutoring sessions, assistance with writing papers, etc.)? Note: Classrooms, study rooms, or lounges could be used for this purpose on an ad hoc basis. * For LLCs with specialized themes, are there rooms that reinforce the academic theme (performance space, art gallery, library, vegetable garden)?

Are there offices in the residence hall where students can meet with LLC faculty, staff, and RAs to discuss personal issues? Note: This office can be used for several purposes. * What spaces are needed to facilitate peer, faculty, and staff interaction?

Are there public spaces conducive for students to meet for student clubs/organizations, cocurricular events, and informal social gatherings? * For LLCs with specialized themes, are there spaces that allow students to pursue their hobbies or interests (performance space, art gallery, library, vegetable garden)?

What spaces are needed to support LLC faculty and staff members?

Kurotoschi.indb 114

Are there offices in the residence hall that faculty or staff members can use to perform their administrative roles? Note: This office can be used for several purposes. * Are there residential apartments or other living spaces dedicated for faculty and staff member use?

25-05-2018 20:31:21

LOGISTICS AND COSTS

115

Personnel devoted to the LLC may be the largest or second-largest budgetary cost. As we identified in chapter 3, a number of factors, including academic and student affairs partnerships, institutional type, and staffing models, influence the personnel budget. At a minimum, however, the personnel required to fulfill the elements that make up the BPM include RLH staff, faculty members, and RAs. However, other possible personnel might include graduate assistants, paraprofessional staff such as peer mentors, and administrative support staff (Figure 7.3).

Collaboration Strong collaborative relationships between RLH and academic affairs, as noted in chapter 3, are another essential component of the infrastructure in the BPM. To this end, support from multiple levels within the institution is important to allow the time needed to develop and sustain collaborative relationships. We have also found collaboration is stronger when various stakeholders are able to discuss their reasons and desires for becoming involved in an LLC. Knowing these reasons helps to break down and overcome myths about involvement, values, and support. Although collaboration, no doubt, requires costs—both human and financial—much of the costs assumed in an RLH and academic affairs collaboration are already absorbed by the other building blocks of the BPM. Accordingly, in this section, we instead identify in more detail some of the logistics necessary for an effective RLH and academic affairs collaboration in Figure 7.4. These logistical considerations include (a) how decisions are made in the LLC, (b) who is responsible for which major functions of the LLC, and (c) how funds are dispersed in the LLC.

Academic Environment As outlined in chapter 4, the next level in the BPM is the academic environment, which includes courses for credit, faculty advising, academically supportive climate, and socially supportive climate. We believe all members of the LLC share a responsibility for fostering the academic environment.

Courses for Credit The costs associated with courses can be just as varied as the institutions where the courses are offered. We address some of the logistics and costs associated with offering academic courses for credit in Figure 7.5. Some courses may have limited costs because they may be existing courses within a preexisting academic program. In this instance, the course is typically considered part

Kurotoschi.indb 115

25-05-2018 20:31:21

116

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

Figure 7.3. Logistics and costs associated with LLC personnel resources. LOGISTICS

COSTS Will there be RLH staff dedicated solely to the functioning of each individual LLC? If so,

How will RLH staff be utilized, and how will they be compensated?*

•

How many RLH staff should be hired?

•

What is the total cost for a market competitive salary and all fringe benefits for each position?

Will there be one or a small number of RLH staff hired to coordinate all of the institution’s LLCs, such as a “coordinator of LLCs”? Will LLC responsibilities be assigned as a percentage of RLH staff members’ professional portfolios? If so, which RLH staff members? •

Resident directors or area coordinators?

•

Assistant or associate directors?

How many faculty members will be recruited to work with the LLC? How will the faculty member’s time be remunerated? Possibilities include the following: How will faculty members be utilized, and how will they be compensated?*

•

Salary or stipend

•

Summer salary if faculty member is a nine-month employee

•

Course buyout

•

Professional development or travel funding

•

Programming funds

•

Meal plan

•

On-campus living arrangements

What is the ratio of number of residents per RA? In other words, how many RAs should be hired to work with the LLC participants?

How will resident assistants (RAs) be utilized, and how will they be compensated?*

How should RAs be remunerated? Possibilities include the following: •

Stipend

•

Free or reduced lodging

•

Free or reduced meal plan

•

Reduced tuition and/or fees

What other staff might be necessary for the effective functioning of the LLC? Possibilities include the following:

How will other staff be utilized, and how will they be compensated?

Kurotoschi.indb 116

•

Graduate assistants (for administrative tasks, programming responsibilities, supervision of student staff)

•

Student paraprofessional staff other than RAs (e.g., peer mentors, tutors)

•

Administrative support staff

How should these staff members be remunerated? •

For graduate assistants, this may include tuition, stipend, health insurance

•

For student paraprofessional staff, this may include stipend, free or reduced room and board, reduced tuition/fees

•

For administrative support staff, this may include competitive salary and fringe benefits

25-05-2018 20:31:21

LOGISTICS AND COSTS

117

Figure 7.4. Logistics associated with residential life and housing and academic affairs collaboration. LOGISTICS

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS Will both the RLH and academic affairs members of the LLC make decisions mutually? Are both constituencies committed to an equal partnership?

How are decisions made in the LLC?*

Or would both units prefer a “parallel partnership,” in which each unit oversees the aspects of the LLC traditionally associated with its expertise (e.g., academic affairs teaches the courses, RLH handles student conduct issues)? Or would both units like to broaden decision-making to a larger group, such as an advisory board?

Who develops and conducts the training: Depending on the decision-making model chosen, how will some of the major responsibilities of the LLC be undertaken?*

•

For RAs and other paraprofessional staff?

•

For faculty participants?

•

For RLH staff?

•

For other staff (e.g., graduate assistants, administrative staff)?

Who sets the direction and priorities for recruitment and marketing? Who creates the expectations for and policies of the LLC?

Who controls the LLC’s budget? *

How are the LLC funds dispersed?

What is the process for obtaining funds for programs and events? How can supplies be obtained? How is information shared across the various stakeholders? How is information shared with students?

of a faculty member’s course load (e.g., depending on the type of institution, some faculty may have a four course per semester load, whereas others at another institution may have a one or two course load by semester). When courses are not part of a preexisting course load for a faculty member, some institutions may require the LLC to buy the time of the faculty member (often referred to as a buyout), which often then reduces the time the faculty member devotes to activities in the home academic department (e.g., teaching, committee work, research expectations). If the course will be taught by an adjunct faculty member, the LLC may need to pay the salary of the adjunct instructor. Depending on the institution, LLCs may or may not be able to offer a course or courses without an academic department to sponsor them. For example, an LLC whose theme is politics and social justice may be allowed to offer a course as its own unit, or it may be required to list the course as part of a

Kurotoschi.indb 117

25-05-2018 20:31:21

118

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

Figure 7.5. Logistics and costs associated with offering academic courses for credit. LOGISTICS Who is teaching the course(s), and how will that person be compensated? *

COSTS If a tenured/tenure-track faculty member, can the LLC arrange to buy out the course(s)? If an adjunct instructor, can the LLC pay the adjunct’s salary?

Will enrollment for the course be restricted or expanded in some way? Is there an academic department sponsoring (i.e., listing) the course? *

Will the course require a teaching assistant the LLC will need to pay for? Can the sponsoring academic department be incentivized to continue to offer the course through the LLC’s guarantee of enrollments or future majors?

department’s offering, in this case perhaps the political science department. If the LLC is listing its course with an academic department, there are several financial considerations that departments may require in return. For example, say the politics and social justice LLC wishes to offer a course on the influence of grassroots political protests on American public policy for its LLC participants. The department may allow the LLC to list the course with them but may require enrollment for the course to include interested political science majors who are not LLC participants. Or they may decide the course could count as an elective for the department to entice LLC participants to choose political science as their major. Sometimes, the course that is colisted with an LLC is an introductory-level class. Perhaps the first-year engineering LLC might work with the mathematics department to allow its students to register for a special discussion section reserved specifically for the LLC. The department may agree to this arrangement but require the engineering LLC to pay the stipend for the teaching assistant in that section. Thus, offering courses for credit listed with an academic department may incur costs for an LLC.

Faculty Advising In chapter 4, we outlined both formal and informal advising interactions between faculty and students. Although informal conversations may come about organically in the LLC, more formal types of advising may incur costs

Kurotoschi.indb 118

25-05-2018 20:31:21

LOGISTICS AND COSTS

119

Figure 7.6. Logistics and costs associated with faculty advising. LOGISTICS

COSTS Do the faculty need to be compensated for their time?

Will faculty conduct formal advising as part of the LLC’s services? *

Will they need training regarding • LLC policies? • Residence hall policies? • Academic department policies and curriculum? (Reminder: Faculty performing office hours will require an office as a physical resource.)

How will faculty time doing formal advising be accounted for in their evaluations?

Will faculty time spent doing advising for the LLC be factored into their annual performance reviews? Will faculty time spent doing LLC advising be factored into their promotion and tenure considerations, if they are tenure-track?

for the program (see Figure 7.6). For example, if the faculty participating in the LLC are compensated, is their time spent doing formal advising, such as office hours, remunerated? (And of course, faculty need offices in which to hold office hours, so that should be factored into physical resource expenses.) To be informed on the LLC’s and residence hall’s policies as well as any academic information related to the LLC’s theme or discipline, perhaps the faculty member needs to undergo some training or professional development. Finally, although it may not be budget-related, it may be important to discuss with the faculty member’s department how advising with the LLC counts toward evaluations such as annual performance reviews or promotion and tenure considerations.

Academically Supportive Climate As illustrated in chapter 4, having an academically supportive environment in the residence halls—characterized by peers interacting regarding and thinking critically about academic topics in the residence halls, participating in service-learning, and meeting with faculty outside class (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003)—promotes the ideal LLC. In fact, data from the NSLLP revealed peer-to-peer interaction in the residence halls was the single most positive aspect of their programming, and it was significantly associated with student outcomes ranging from the transition to college, sense of belonging, appreciation of diversity/multiculturalism, and commitment to civic

Kurotoschi.indb 119

25-05-2018 20:31:22

120

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

education (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003; Johnson et al., 2007; Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2007). In Figure 7.7 we detail logistics and costs to consider when developing an academically supportive climate.

Socially Supportive Climate A socially supportive climate is an important component in the BPM because of the influence it has on students’ transitions and outcomes while in college. To this end, specific benefits associated with socially supportive climates, as noted in chapter 4, include fostering students’ sense of belonging, providing spaces to explore shared interests, and supporting appreciation of diversity and multiculturalism. Earlier in this chapter, we encouraged exploration around physical spaces in LLCs. Here we focus on the logistics and costs necessary to Figure 7.7. Logistics and costs associated with developing an academically supportive climate. LOGISTICS Are LLC courses designed with assignments that promote student interaction outside class?*

Do faculty interact with students outside class?*

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS Do faculty understand the importance and potential impact of fostering peer-to-peer interaction about academic topics? Are assignments created to maximize peer-to-peer interaction and critical thinking?

Are there formal events to encourage faculty and student interaction outside class (faculty dinners, fireside chats, etc.)? Are there incentives provided to faculty to encourage interaction with students outside class? These might include meal plans, undergraduate research stipends, or travel stipends for taking students to conferences.

Who coordinates the service-learning? Is service-learning offered as part of students’ coursework?

Kurotoschi.indb 120

Are students able to go to the same service-learning site to maximize their shared experience? Do faculty integrate service-learning experiences and reflection into class discussion to maximize students’ perspective taking and sharing?

25-05-2018 20:31:22

LOGISTICS AND COSTS

121

foster a socially supportive environment. Too often, the social dynamics of an LLC are left to chance, with the assumption that living in close proximity to one another and taking classes together is sufficient to form a socially supportive environment. In Figure 7.8 we detail additional actions that can be taken to strengthen the climate. Some of the actions have associated costs, whereas some are important to consider for the general social well-being of the residents.

Cocurricular Environment As illustrated in chapter 5, the cocurricular environment is meant to enrich students’ experiences in the LLC by providing them venues to engage with peers regarding academic matters, support to venture out into the community to make connections outside the university, help to explore connections between their LLC and potential careers, and organization for participating in theme-related activities. In chapter 5, we highlighted the important aspects of the cocurricular environment as detailed by the NSLLP, including study groups, connections to K–12 schools, career workshops, workplace outings, and theme-related activities. Here we detail some of the logistics and costs to consider when developing a robust cocurricular experience in the LLC. It may be the case that some of these cocurricular elements already exist but are only loosely connected to the LLC. In those circumstances, the main logistical consideration would be whose time is spent exploring the feasibility of incorporating the activity into the LLC and building the relationships necessary to integrate the existing program or service into the Figure 7.8. Logistics and costs associated with developing a socially supportive climate. LOGISTICS

COSTS & CONSIDERATIONS Is there an orientation into the community, such as a retreat? If so, who plans it? Who pays for costs associated with it? Are faculty and RLH staff expected to be in attendance? Is each aware of these expectations?

Are there mechanisms for ensuring that students develop a sense of belonging in the community?*

How are social connections fostered throughout the year? Who plans them? From what budget do these activities come? Are faculty and RLH staff included in these activities? If so, is attendance at these events part of their formal responsibilities? How are demographic, ideological, religious, and other differences attended to in the community? Is there an expectation of bilateral communication between faculty and RLH staff about serious conflicts that arise in classes or in the residence hall?

Kurotoschi.indb 121

25-05-2018 20:31:22

122

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

LLC. Also, because the cocurricular involvement level of the BPM is built on the foundation and academic environment levels, some logistics and costs, such as the physical environment necessary to promote studying, have been addressed previously. We highlight other logistics and costs in Figure 7.9.

Figure 7.9. Logistics and costs associated with cocurricular programming. LOGISTICS Study groups: Who is responsible for coordinating study groups, and how formalized are these groups?

COSTS Are peer tutors available to manage study groups, and if so, who supervises and compensates them? Whose responsibility is it to maintain the spaces available for study groups? How are these spaces reserved and who maintains the reservation process?

If avenues for K–12 outreach exist, who will be responsible for fostering relationships between these avenues and the LLC? Will it be part of someone’s formal responsibility to do so? If they don’t exist, who will develop and maintain these partnerships?

K–12 outreach: Are there established avenues for K–12 outreach on campus?

Are there formalized avenues for connecting students’ experiences with K–12 outreach with their classroom experiences? Who is responsible for helping students to foster these connections? Are there costs associated with students’ travel to these sites? If so, are these costs included in the LLC budget? Are there background checks that need to be secured for students? Who will pay for these background checks? Who will help students obtain them?

Are there established relationships between the LLC and the career services office? If not, who will work to foster these relationships? Career planning and workplace visits: How are connections being made between the LLC and students’ career goals and plans?

Theme-related activities: Are there activities that connect the LLC theme to students’ coursework?

Kurotoschi.indb 122

Who is responsible for coordinating career planning activities to ensure that they are available to students? Are there worksites that students could visit that are related to the theme of the LLC? If so, who will coordinate these visits? How will students get to these sites? Are there costs associated with students’ travel to these sites? If so, are these costs included in the LLC budget? Are there any clearances that need to be secured for students?

Who is responsible for creating theme-related cocurricular activities for students? Are there formal avenues for students to be involved in the process of creating these activities? Are the fees for these activities in the LLC budget? Does RLH supply a budget for these activities? Is there an activity fee associated with the LLC?

25-05-2018 20:31:23

123

LOGISTICS AND COSTS

Pinnacle The pinnacle is the highest level of the model and is characterized by intentional integration. As we noted in chapters 2 and 6, the pinnacle can only be reached if all the components of the model are aligned with the LLC’s goals and objective and integrated with one another. The logistics and costs associated with intentional integration are coordination and time. Optimally, all of the blocks in the BPM should be integrated. This means the academic affairs and RLH professional staffs must be knowledgeable about each other’s roles in the LLC, as integration is impossible without regular and effective communication. In Figure 7.10, we describe the logistics and costs associated with integrating the various aspects of the BPM.

Assessment Assessment is the mortar between the various blocks in the BPM, holding them together as an integrated whole. As discussed in chapter 6, effective LLC assessments consider the discrete parts of the community, including courses, cocurricular activities, and staff, in addition to the community as a whole. A strong assessment plan will focus on several dimensions, including (a) the extent to which each block of the LLC aligns with the program’s goals

Figure 7.10. Logistics and costs associated with integrating all aspects of the LLC. LOGISTICS

How is information shared across the LLC so that faculty and RLH are aware of what the other is doing? *

How do faculty and RLH staff support each other’s efforts and roles within the community? *

Kurotoschi.indb 123

COSTS If information sharing includes meetings, who convenes the meetings and ensures that they are conducted in a time-effective manner? Is the role part of someone’s primary responsibilities? If meetings include faculty member(s), is LLC coordination part of their formal responsibilities? Or do the faculty need to be compensated in some way (course release, summer salary, etc.) for their time? Are resources and administrative support available so that faculty and staff from RLH can provide high-quality cocurricular activities that enhance the academic aspects of the LLC?

25-05-2018 20:31:23

124

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

Figure 7.11. Logistics and costs associated with assessment of the LLC. LOGISTICS

COSTS Do those charged with assessment design have the requisite knowledge to conduct effective assessment, or are there adequate resources to compensate someone to provide assessment support?

Who contributes to the assessment plan that aligns the blocks of the community with the program goals and objectives? *

Who collects and documents the measurable contributions of each block of the community? * How does the assessment inform future practice? *

Do those charged with assessment design have adequate administrative and institutional support to conduct an effective assessment? Possible expenses may include the following: • Software (statistical, qualitative, visualization) • Recording equipment for interviews or focus groups • Food/beverages for focus groups • Online survey fees • Transcription costs • Participation incentives

Is assessment leadership part of someone’s formal responsibilities? If not, are there adequate resources to compensate someone to collect and analyze outcomes of the assessment?

What resources are needed to share or make meaning of assessment results? If providing benchmarking results is important, are there sufficient resources and avenues to do so?

and objectives, (b) the effectiveness of each block of the LLC in achieving the program’s goals and objectives, and (c) the level of integration of the various blocks into a cohesive form. In Figure 7.11, we detail some of the logistical considerations of assessment and the costs associated with each of these.

Conclusion We are hopeful this chapter provides a comprehensive framework of considerations regarding the logistics and costs associated with each block of the BPM. We imagine LLC planners might use the chapter to guide discussions and decision-making in the design of a new LLC or revitalization of an existing LLC. We also believe the framework is helpful in building a culture of assessment, especially when it is used in conjunction with chapter 6. By

Kurotoschi.indb 124

25-05-2018 20:31:23

LOGISTICS AND COSTS

125

engaging in discussion about the costs, logistics, and resources necessary for effective LLC development from the outset, LLC planners will have a realistic outlook about what is necessary to design, deliver, and sustain an effective LLC.

Discussion Questions 1. After reviewing the logistics and costs detailed throughout chapter 7, who from your institution needs to be at the table to design, deliver, and assess LLCs on your campus? 2. Which of the logistics and costs associated with the BPM are already in place in your LLCs? 3. Which of the logistics and costs associated with the BPM should you prioritize as next steps in your design, delivery, and assessment process? 4. Which of the logistics and costs associated with the BPM might be part of long-term or strategic planning?

Kurotoschi.indb 125

25-05-2018 20:31:23

Kurotoschi.indb 126

25-05-2018 20:31:23

8 S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y A N D CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

O

nce established, LLCs need continued attention to ensure quality in delivery. As noted in the previous chapters, with the identified building blocks in place (infrastructure, academic environment, cocurricular environment, pinnacle, and assessment), institutions can provide high-quality experiences for their residential students involved in these communities. However, additional details must be addressed to ensure the features of the programs work optimally. For example, consideration must be given to ensuring equity such that all student demographics have access to LLCs, maintaining faculty recruitment and rewards, and creating conditions for institutional champions to support the programs. It also is critical to examine how LLCs interact with other HIPs to minimize conflicts and allow students to partake in as many of these varied high-quality initiatives as possible. Additionally, as interest in LLCs has expanded beyond the borders of the United States, viewing the international context of these programs is worthwhile. The BPM can be fitted to serve many contexts, but the first step is to acknowledge that much of our conversation has concerned U.S.-based communities and may be culturally biased and not fit some international contexts.

Equity The needs of diverse student populations must be considered in structuring LLCs both in the communities formed for a general population and in communities designed specifically for marginalized populations. Talburt and Boyles (2005) encouraged researchers to expand the discourse about who benefits from LLCs by critically examining the ways in which learning communities alienate students. The authors argued the normative ideals these 127

Kurotoschi.indb 127

25-05-2018 20:31:23

128

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

communities promote may “take on a coercive, prescriptive tone rather than one that describes emerging identifications and purposes” (p. 216). Drawing from their experiences advising a learning community, Talburt and Boyles encouraged researchers and practitioners to consider what happens to students who lack connection within the community. They provided anecdotes of student marginalization due to a lack of access to social interaction and diversity beyond the community and concluded that for some students, isolation and limited opportunities coincide with learning community involvement. Research on LLCs has revealed similar examples of the alienation about which Talburt and Boyles caution. In one community—which was academically based and focused on the social sciences—an African American student with the pseudonym LaTia discussed her experience being one of only a few students of color in the community. She recounted incidents where racial microaggressions or quarrelsome debates happened in the LLC class, with little intervention from the faculty member teaching the class. After class, these conversations continued on the residence hall floors, which created an environment in which LaTia felt unsafe, and she described herself as walking on eggshells. Despite the numerous resources availed to the community, LaTia reported when she decided to transfer out of the community, it was virtually impossible for her to navigate the transfer process because faculty and staff within the community believed she would fare worse outside the community and thus were reluctant to help her. In some of the LLCs examined in the NSLLP case studies, program faculty and staff described a phenomenon the researchers came to term hyperbonding. In these cases, students in an LLC deeply enjoyed and appreciated the social support they found in their communities, so much so that they isolated the entirety of their college peer interactions down to the small clique within their LLC. They always ate together, socialized together, participated in the same cocurricular activities, and sometimes even took the same classes together. And when it came time to leave the LLC and move elsewhere, they chose to live off campus together in the same apartment. Although having a strong and supportive peer group can be beneficial to students’ persistence and achievement (Astin, 1993b; Tinto, 1993), limiting oneself to a small group of friends and not experiencing the rich environment that the rest of the campus can provide may curb developmental opportunities for learning and growth. Moreover, the strong normative contexts created by such small social cliques may be restrictive not only to the students in them but also those who are not part of the clique. Social eudaimonia for some students should not be accomplished at the expense of others. As these examples illustrate, faculty and staff in LLCs should be aware of the social dynamics within the community and partner with RAs and other

Kurotoschi.indb 128

25-05-2018 20:31:24

SUSTAINABILITY AND CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

129

peer leaders to ensure the community is welcoming to all students. In cases where students feel marginalized, avenues for airing their concerns should be apparent and resources to help them navigate their environments should be provided. In addition to ensuring all students feel included in communities focused on the general population, attention should also be paid to communities aimed at identity-specific populations. Communities focused on addressing the needs of women, transfer students, first-generation students, and other specific groups exist throughout our colleges and universities, and Lardner (2003) noted the potential benefits for underrepresented students. These programs can help students feel a sense of belonging to the institution, and as Lardner noted, “Learning communities create ideal places for faculty and students to develop practices that are inclusive and hospitable” (2003, p. 6). Fink and Hummel (2015) also noted the importance of providing inclusive learning communities, defined as those that are “intentionally designed and implemented to benefit traditionally underserved students” (p. 30); however, the authors indicated that information about these communities is limited. Lardner (2003) identified several important learning community structural factors, which included designing learning communities for specific student populations, along with using learning communities to transform the curriculum. Fink and Hummel (2015) recommended core practices such as using research and theory focused on the specific student population to inform the learning community structure and work, using active learning, communicating positively about achievement and student progress as opposed to the deficit-focused messaging that is common, and advocating for systemic institutional improvement for the student population. The authors emphasized the broader institutional benefit of programs focused on underserved student groups: It is uncommon that a learning community designed for underserved students will be able to enroll all members from that particular campus population. Thus, practitioners who focus on improving institution-wide barriers and challenges encountered by the specific student population served by their learning community directly benefit not only their students but the broader campus population as well. (Fink & Hummel, 2015, p. 37)

Thus, the valuable impact of these programs on the larger university community must be recognized and leveraged. The benefit of “community” within these inclusive programs allows students, faculty, and staff to develop trusting relationships, potentially creating spaces that feel safe for discussing difficult issues (Lardner, 2003), but it is

Kurotoschi.indb 129

25-05-2018 20:31:24

130

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

a mistake to think simply housing students together and enrolling them in common courses will create community among them. As Jehangir (2009) discovered in a study of first-generation students in a multicultural learning community, Students need to be asked to consider first what kind of “place” of learning they seek to inhabit and then how they might commit to sustaining this place. Central to the process is the effort to ensure that community building was purposeful and each student was invited to have a stake in its development. (pp. 45–46)

Although intentional recruitment and outreach are needed, attention to sustaining academic support and relationships within the community after it is established are also critical to program success (Schoem, 2004). Lenning and colleagues (2013) presented a note of caution: “Although the targeted approach is a powerful use of the LC model, the distinctions can give rise to claims of unfair selection and discrimination by nonmembers who would like to participate but are not from the targeted class” (p. 176). Research has highlighted several different structures of successful LLCs aimed at supporting historically marginalized populations that also integrate students from privileged backgrounds who have an interest in engaging in issues related to equity, diversity, and inclusion. In an example community, students are housed together on 2 residence hall floors (1 for males and 1 for females) and are placed in small (fewer than 20 students), yearlong, creditbearing courses (1.5 credits each semester) together with other members of the community. The courses, which when taken consecutively satisfy 1 of 2 diversity requirements at the university, address issues of equity and social justice in students’ lives, the surrounding community, and the wider society. Within the courses, there is an emphasis on understanding concepts of privilege and oppression and one’s own role in promoting greater equity in society. Collaboration with campus partners is key for addressing equity in LLCs. LLC coordinators must consider who else at the institution is focused on equity-related topics and issues so efforts are enhanced instead of duplicated. Lardner (2004) noted learning community faculty and staff and diversity professionals need to work together, stating, “The climate is ripe for directors and advocates of historically marginalized programs—learning communities and diversity programs—to be pitted against each other in the competition for increasingly scarce resources” (p. 129). Resources continue to be scarce, and collaborative efforts will not only reduce competition for these resources but also produce a more comprehensive and cohesive experience for students.

Kurotoschi.indb 130

25-05-2018 20:31:24

SUSTAINABILITY AND CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

131

Faculty Recruitment and Rewards Faculty participation in LLCs is a critical element of the programs’ success. Those structuring LLCs must consider elements of faculty culture in order to encourage faculty participation. Although student affairs practitioners may have LLCs assigned to them as a job responsibility, faculty typically take on LLC work because of a belief in the positive outcomes of such learning structures. However, faculty, particularly tenure-track faculty, are typically instructed to “protect their time” and focus on the work that must be accomplished to achieve promotion and tenure. Given LLC work typically is not rewarded (or not highly rewarded) in promotion and tenure processes, it is not surprising some faculty shy away from involvement in the programs, despite proven benefits for students as well as faculty. Benefits for students participating in LLCs have been documented, but there also are benefits for faculty who choose to be involved. Faculty may or may not live in the community, but research suggests their presence and involvement in some fashion can offer something of value to them. Such benefits might include financial compensation, release time, and credit for teaching or service. For non-tenure-track or adjunct faculty, an LLC may provide amenities that faculty members’ departments often cannot: a dedicated office space, a computer to use on campus, or just a “home base” where a faculty member can go during down times. Other benefits to faculty may be less tangible and include enhanced or new relationships with colleagues (Jessup-Anger et al., 2011), collaboration with faculty from other disciplines with whom they might not typically interact (Golde & Pribbenow, 2000; Kennedy & Townsend, 2008), the opportunity to recruit and retain students (Kennedy & Townsend, 2008) and get to know them better (Golde & Pribbenow, 2000), the chance to act congruently with their beliefs about education, and the opportunity for involvement in an initiative they believe to be valuable (Golde & Pribbenow, 2000). An additional benefit includes chances to conduct and publish research on the LLC program (Kennedy, 2011), although it must be noted not all disciplines will “count” LLC scholarship in the tenure and promotion process. A primary benefit to involved faculty seems to be the opportunity to work with academically motivated students with an expressed interest in the faculty member’s scholarly interests (Inkelas, 2000) and the ability to see students grow and develop as a result of their experiences (Kennedy & Townsend, 2008). Additionally, Fitzpatrick (2011) noted, “For me, one of the main benefits of engaging students [through an LLC] was learning how to crack the student culture, which seemed rather difficult in the more formal confines of our classroom” (p. 73). This sentiment was echoed by Sriram, Shushok, Perkins, and Scales

Kurotoschi.indb 131

25-05-2018 20:31:24

132

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

(2011) in their study of faculty-in-residence. Having a better understanding of the student culture allows faculty to interact with students in more informed, and potentially more effective, ways. Involvement with LLCs also may affect work enthusiasm and energy for faculty members. Ellertson (2004) wondered if involvement in learning communities for mid-career faculty contributed to vitality, defined as “a spirit of engagement that a faculty member has with his or her work” (p. 3). She found that although working with the learning community did not necessarily create vitality for her participants, participation can foster vitality: “Experiences described by faculty as making them feel vital fit with the types of experiences that learning communities can provide, suggesting that learning communities, in fact, can promote faculty vitality” (p. 153). Although the participants in this study were not all working with LLCs, the advantages of working with learning communities noted by this study such as satisfaction with work, positive relationships with colleagues and students, and scholarly opportunities available through learning community work also are present in LLCs (Jessup-Anger et al., 2011). Additionally, Ellertson (2004) found faculty members recognized their learning community work had a broader impact, affecting the institution, their departments, and their professional associations. Her study suggested faculty who already demonstrate vitality are drawn to learning community work, and thus they may be a group to target for participation. Other faculty to consider reaching out to include faculty with college-age children, faculty who have received awards, and tenured faculty who are known to interact with students (Golde & Pribbenow, 2000). Having faculty colleagues, particularly experienced faculty learning community leaders, extend the invitation for involvement may be a sound approach as they can speak to the faculty experience in the learning community in ways student affairs professionals cannot (Golde & Pribbenow, 2000). Although it would be remiss to ignore the common challenges of faculty involvement in learning communities in general and residential learning communities specifically, these issues can be overcome. However, it is worth noting the potential concerns that may surface. Issues such as the lack of rewards, student cliques, departmental resistance, or indifference (Ellertson, 2004); concerns about fitting into the LLC for both students and current or long-standing faculty and staff; challenges of true collaboration between faculty and student affairs staff; and faculty not valuing the contributions of student affairs work broadly (Golde & Pribbenow, 2000) all have been noted in the literature. Not surprisingly, the most significant challenge noted is the perceived lack of time (Ellertson, 2004; Golde & Pribbenow, 2000; Kennedy, 2011; Kennedy & Townsend, 2008).

Kurotoschi.indb 132

25-05-2018 20:31:24

SUSTAINABILITY AND CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

133

Additionally, some would argue tenure-track assistant professors should avoid involvement with LLCs to focus on activities emphasized and rewarded in the tenure and promotion process. However, new faculty have some of the characteristics and enthusiasm necessary for successful involvement in LLCs, and faculty have conveyed that assistant professors can participate and successfully advance their careers (Golde & Pribbenow, 2000). Additionally, Golde and Pribbenow (2000) noted discouraging this kind of institutional involvement socializes new faculty to not be involved in important institutional initiatives like LLCs. Although there is no denying that any or all of these challenges might exist, we believe the potential benefits of involvement from faculty members, students, and the institution outweigh the detriments. Campuses reward faculty involvement in various ways, including oncampus accommodations, meal plans, professional development funds, stipends, and campus awards. For example, the FIG program at the University of Missouri provides a $500 credit to faculty members’ department account to be used for books or travel (F. Minor, personal communication, March 9, 2017). Among the various awards offered by Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Teaching Excellence is the Living-Learning Award, recognizing outstanding faculty contributions to the university’s LLCs. The recognition carries with it a $500 award funded by the Office of Student Affairs (Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2017). Additionally, at many institutions, those coordinating the campus living-learning initiative provide letters of support for faculty promotion and tenure files. For some faculty, particularly early career faculty working at an urban campus with a high cost of living, living in a furnished apartment in the residence hall that hosts the LLC may be a welcomed perk. The ability to live on campus, in exchange for participating in the LLC, could be ideal for faculty who cannot yet afford to buy property in the city where the university is located. This way, the individual (or couple or family) could live rent-free (and perhaps even have meals covered by the program), while saving up for a down payment on a home in the near future. Or faculty may simply wish for a change of pace or different kind of living arrangement for a short period and might enjoy participating in a vibrant LLC much like the original colonial college model while living in a state-of-the-art on-campus apartment. For example, in the early-to-mid 2000s, Cornell University built an entirely new residential system for upper-division students on the West Campus that also included a one-bedroom guest suite that could be used by visiting guests to the campus. Thus, faculty could still have access to all the comforts of home, and even a space for guests, and still live in a residence hall.

Kurotoschi.indb 133

25-05-2018 20:31:24

134

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

Similarly, a meal plan may be considered a nice perk for some faculty. Busy professors may like not having to worry about packing a lunch and knowing a full meal awaits them at the nearest residence hall. Like the ability to live in a furnished apartment, not having to pay for a meal per day (or even several meals) could be a cost-saving measure that contributes to being able to finance a major investment like a home or car in the future. Further, faculty with a meal plan could more easily invite students to dine with them, without the awkwardness of having to choose where to meet or worrying about how to split the check. In more comprehensive LLCs, like some residential colleges, the tension related to participating in the community is lessened, and rewards for participating in the community may be greater. At Michigan State University, for example, many faculty in the residential colleges have their tenure homes either partially or wholly located in the residential college. For these faculty, worries about dedicating time to the community are lessened, as their peers who evaluate their promotion and tenure understand their roles and the demands on their time. Furthermore, these faculty are often attracted to their positions because of the opportunity to work with the residential college, as the values of the community often align with their own (JessupAnger et al., 2011). As evidenced here, there is substantial variation in the incentives and rewards for faculty participation in LLCs, much of which is largely dependent on the resources allocated for communities and the culture of collaboration (or lack thereof ) between academic affairs and RLH. Discussions about how to incentivize faculty participation are important and should be part of an ongoing discussion between faculty and RLH professional staff.

Institutional Champions All institutions must make hard decisions about where time and money should be focused for the benefit of the students. Any initiative on campus that diverts time, funds, and personnel away from other potential uses requires leaders who can support it. LLCs are initiatives that, as noted in chapter 7, require such resources to be effective, and there are those who may not recognize how advantageous LLCs can be to students, faculty, staff, and the institution as a whole. It is for these reasons institutional champions for LLCs are critical. Support from high-level leaders on campuses is necessary for the success of these programs, and that support may be demonstrated through permanent funding for LLCs (Schoem, 2004). Although it is common to see

Kurotoschi.indb 134

25-05-2018 20:31:24

SUSTAINABILITY AND CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

135

support from student affairs leadership, LLCs that enjoy the support of the president and provost/academic vice president have the potential to attract the attention and involvement of faculty as well as support from deans and department chairs. When environments and their leaders, such as departments and department chairs, are not supportive of faculty involvement, faculty may choose not to be involved (Kennedy, 2011; Kennedy & Townsend, 2008). That lack of support may play out in the tenure and promotion process, but with academic leadership reinforcement, rewards for LLC involvement within tenure and promotion are possible. Kennedy (2011) argued, Another step in the right direction [for encouraging faculty participation] would include steady but appropriate advocacy for RLC [residential learning community] faculty through student affairs and academic affairs leaders on campus to include RLC involvement as a viable form of service or teaching while on the tenure track. (p. 22)

Champions for LLCs can send clear messages about the value of these initiatives and the subsequent benefits to faculty, students, and the institution. Some faculty will miss out on the potential rewards of such involvement simply because they believe these efforts are not acknowledged and their time must be spent on those activities that are rewarded. Faculty will be the best recruiters of other faculty: “We believe that faculty members are much better recruiters and advocates: they can convincingly speak to their colleagues about the realities of the experience, allaying fears about the time commitment or fears about being rejected by the student community” (Golde & Pribbenow, 2000, p. 38). When respected colleagues and leaders champion involvement, they can elevate the status of these programs within the faculty culture. In addition to elevating the status of LLCs on a campus, champions can also serve as the best spokespeople for individual programs. The faculty partner for the BAM FIG at Pace University, Jane Collins, is readily identified by her peers as a champion for the LLCs on campus. As one of the first faculty members at Pace to become involved with LLCs in the original Dyson House model (which gave way to the current FIG model), Collins has been one of the first and strongest proponents of the power of LLCs. Of all the faculty partners associated with a FIG at Pace, she is the most well-known among students—even students who are participating in a FIG other than BAM. She takes an avid interest in the students and spends a good deal of her free time attending BAM social events. However, it is important to note that Collins receives a course release in exchange for her substantial involvement in the BAM FIG, so at least in this instance she is recognized for her efforts

Kurotoschi.indb 135

25-05-2018 20:31:24

136

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

by her department. Another dilemma that occurs when an LLC’s champion is also its director or leader is the question of what will happen when that individual steps away from the role, retires, or leaves the institution. When institutions or programs lose their champions, are the LLCs strong enough to maintain a steady footing, or will their flourishing, or even existence, be at risk? When asked about what would happen to BAM if Collins were to step down or leave, the LLC staff being interviewed simply shrugged and wondered aloud if they could even conceive of someone else in her role. Sometimes, being an LLC champion at the institutional level means having to make difficult decisions for the sake of the overall health of the communities. At an institution with almost 20 LLCs found within RLH, a senior student affairs administrator stated to the NSLLP site visit research team that her most important responsibility in maintaining and promoting the overall success of the communities was knowing when to “sunset” programs that were no longer viable—whether from lagging student interest, challenges with staffing, and/or general dysfunction in the community. All of the LLCs at this institution underwent regular assessment that focused on student interest as well as learning and growth. And, although this senior administrator admitted closing an LLC was difficult, she asserted the best way she knew how to argue for the continued existence of LLCs on her campus was by introducing and maintaining the most vibrant communities she could and retiring those that were past their prime or were lasting beyond their original purpose.

Connections With Other HIPs Learning communities are noted as one of 10 HIPs or interventions in higher education proven to be beneficial for student engagement and learning among diverse students from different backgrounds (Kuh, 2008). The other HIPs include first-year seminars and experiences, common intellectual encounters, writing-intensive courses, collaborative assignments and projects, undergraduate research, diversity and global learning, servicelearning/community-based learning, internships, and capstone courses and projects. As one format for learning communities, LLCs pair well with some other HIPs, and coordinators of these communities might consider using LLCs in combination with some of these practices. Participation in multiple HIPs is more beneficial than participation in just one (Kinzie, 2012), and pairing a first-year seminar with the LLC, incorporating service-learning/community-based learning, or including diversity and global learning foci for LLC activities are possibilities. Finley and Kuh

Kurotoschi.indb 136

25-05-2018 20:31:24

SUSTAINABILITY AND CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

137

(2016) noted the specific potential of pairing learning communities with first-year seminars, stating, “There is, however, evidence to suggest that weaving these two [HIPs] into the same experience may indeed be more powerful than either one is alone” (p. 11). When thoughtful pairing of LLCs and other HIPs is done effectively, student learning and development can occur. One example from the LLC research concerns how much LLC participants learned from peers’ reflections on their service-learning experiences. The findings from a research study of a social justice LLC described how the LLC course instructor brought students’ experiences with service-learning into the classroom environment through discussion and reflection activities. One student, Zoey, discussed how she learned more about social justice because of the discussions she had with peers about their experiences at their servicelearning sites. She noted how she began to connect the dots between issues she once saw as disparate. Moreover, Zoey shared that in addition to the service-learning discussions students had in class, they continued to discuss these social justice issues in small groups in their LLC. When Zoey was interviewed one year after she participated in the community, she stated among her most enduring memories of the community were her servicelearning experiences and the formal and informal discussions she had with others about their service-learning activities. She commented that when she ran into other former LLC students on campus, she always asked them if they were still involved in service or were still passionate about the social justice issues they cared about. Although it is evident LLCs can contribute to or offer opportunities for the incorporation of a number of HIPs (e.g., pairing a first-year seminar with the learning community or incorporating service-learning/community-based learning into the structure of the living-learning program), some practices may at times conflict with the LLC. Some internships may require students to be away from campus and unable to participate in the LLC for a period. Several students in the social justice LLCs mentioned there was tremendous variation in students’ involvement in activities related to the LLC. When these students were asked to describe their involvement on a continuum from very involved (leading and planning activities, meeting all community service requirements) to uninvolved, several students mentioned other activities, including other HIPs, which kept them from engaging more fully in the community. For example, Robert, who was majoring in communications, discussed the tension he felt between wanting to spend time socializing and discussing social issues with other students in the LLC and his commitment to his internship at the campus television station. He indicated there were not enough hours in the day for him to dedicate sufficient time

Kurotoschi.indb 137

25-05-2018 20:31:24

138

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

to both the community and the station. John, a biomedical sciences major, echoed Robert’s claim, citing that the difficulty of his courses, coupled with his desire to give more time and attention to service-learning and the reality that he did not complete service-learning with other LLC members, was a deterrent to further involvement in the LLC. Both students were satisfied with their level of involvement. John stated succinctly, “We’re all busy. We’re all in college. It’s college. It’s hard. You got to focus and work.” Decisions about holding spaces and opportunities to return to the community following the internship need to be made and communicated to the LLC members. Similar considerations are necessary for students participating in study abroad (under the diversity and global learning practice). However, LLC students participating in local internships (e.g., student teaching) that allow them to remain in the community may benefit from the opportunity to reflect on the internship with their LLC peers, particularly those who also are in internships. Although individual activities within the various HIPs might conflict with LLC events on occasion, most appear more likely to potentially contribute to the structure of the community through the incorporation of fitting activities. Another popular pairing of HIPs includes LLCs and undergraduate research. The Michigan Research Community (MRC) at the University of Michigan offers first-year students a research partnership with a professor in a discipline of their preference. In addition, they have the opportunity to live in a small and academically supportive community in one residence hall. In that residence hall, MRC students are given opportunities to share with their peers information about the research projects they are working on and to reflect with each other on what they are learning about the nature of the research process itself. At the University of Maryland, the Gemstone LLC combines an LLC, an undergraduate research program, and an honors program. In a four-year program, selected honors students from a variety of academic majors in Gemstone form teams to design and conduct their own research projects under the guidance of faculty mentors and the Gemstone staff. In their fourth year, the student teams present their research as a thesis to a panel of experts, and the students complete the program with a citation. Another HIP combination integrates first-year seminars with LLCs. In identifying reasons for pairing these two types of programs, Graziano and Schmidt (2016) point out cost-effectiveness as a benefit, noting that “resources that might need to be duplicated in two separate programs can often be shared in combined programs, such as student advisement and professional development opportunities” (p. xviii). Competition for resources may result in conflicts between various HIPs on a campus, and LLCs may be

Kurotoschi.indb 138

25-05-2018 20:31:24

SUSTAINABILITY AND CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

139

affected by this potential conflict. Some may argue all residence halls should be run as LLCs, which might suggest no need for different or additional resources. However, Kuh (2008) noted these practices “must be done well ” (p. 21, emphasis in original) in order to maximize the student experience, and time, personnel, and financial resources beyond the basic RLH budget are needed for that quality.

International Context Literature about LLCs in other countries is extremely limited, but some Asian countries in particular have begun to use this residential approach. In 2010, the National University of Singapore announced the creation of NUS University Town (UTown), the country’s first residential colleges (National University of Singapore, 2010), and in 2011 the institution launched a collaboration with Yale University to form the Yale-NUS College, a residential liberal arts college comprising three residential colleges (National University of Singapore, 2011). Students live in the residential colleges along with rectors, faculty members who oversee the residential colleges, and vice rectors, who “oversee the health and wellness of students and coordinate community-building events” (Yale-NUS College, 2017a). Cocurricular activities, including leadership, arts, and athletics opportunities, are available within the communities. Additional staff members include dean’s fellows, recent liberal arts graduates whose role is somewhat like a graduate assistant in RLH. Each is assigned a group of 10 to 12 first-year students. Another new role offers juniors and seniors an RA-type position on first-year floors (C. Bridges, personal communication, October 25, 2016). Each residential college has its own dining space, providing a sense of home in the hall. Residential college events take place in these dining areas. Cocurricular requirements for the residential colleges include a two-week orientation to build community and a program during orientation called “RCX” during which students leave campus for community-development activities led by the rector and vice rector of their residential college. School officially begins with the start of orientation, not the first day of classes. Firstyear students also are required to participate in Week 7, an international trip short course coordinated by the Centre for International and Professional Experience (CIPE): During Week 7 LABs (Learning Across Boundaries), students, faculty and staff engage in learning projects of up to a week that explore themes of the

Kurotoschi.indb 139

25-05-2018 20:31:24

140

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

common curriculum in a broader context, in an interdisciplinary way and in a different setting than the traditional classroom. The week culminates in a symposium, where students and faculty share the insights and knowledge they’ve gleaned with each other and members of the Yale-NUS community. (YaleNUS College, 2017b)

Topics explored through 2016 Week 7 LABs included such foci as food sustainability in Singapore, the social role of museums in society, and urbanization and the environment. The residential college format of LLCs is also available at institutions in Taiwan. In a study of four Taiwanese universities’ residential colleges (Hu, Ching, & Hung, 2015), participants identified competencies developed through the residential college along with the importance of these competencies. Participants included faculty, staff, and students involved with the residential colleges. Competencies of importance included the following: 1. Civic-mindedness, described as increased understanding of and respect for the law as well as attending to international affairs and environmental sustainability 2. Open-mindedness, described as respect for their own and others’ cultures 3. Independence, described as thinking “rationally and independently, while at the same time think[ing] responsively and objectively” (p. 938) 4. Multidisciplinary skills, including self-awareness, goal-setting, active learning, and flexibility 5. Teamwork, described as being an outstanding leader and group member 6. Professional skills, including employment competencies such as competitiveness, problem-solving skills, and English communication skills

The researchers determined that their participants identified teamwork as both most important and also most evident in student performance. The next highest ranked competencies for students’ performance were openmindedness and independence; however, in terms of importance, independence ranked third whereas open-mindedness ranked fifth. Professional skills ranked lowest in both importance and performance. Although the specific goals of the residential colleges were not explained, it is clear that those involved in these programs have identified what they perceive as important gains for students in these programs. Other examples of institutions outside the United States that have implemented LLCs include the University of Macau in China and Nelson Mandela University in South Africa. The residential colleges at the University of Macau

Kurotoschi.indb 140

25-05-2018 20:31:24

SUSTAINABILITY AND CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

141

have their core educational objective, which is to help students meet the requirements in five Areas of Competencies—Healthy Living, Interpersonal Relation and Teamwork, Leadership and Service, Cultural Engagement, and Global Citizenship—through systematic planning of all courses, programmes, and activities. (University of Macau, 2017, para. 1)

Self, peer, and teacher evaluation to determine whether students have met program expectations are components of the experience in the residential college system. Residential college requirements for students include participation in various activities, some of which must be college, floor, or house association events, whereas others may be university activities; maintenance of an ePortfolio; and high-table dinner activities. High-table dinner is a nod to “Oxbridge” residential colleges, where fellows and guests of the college dine at a table on a raised platform at one end of the dining hall, much like where the professors at Hogwarts in the Harry Potter books dined. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela University located in Port Elizabeth developed LLCs in an effort to foster learning experiences that contribute to critical life skills required for successful employability. To that end, LLC goals are to encourage the idea of self-development, create a sense of belonging at the University, develop emotional and physically healthy students, improve leadership skills, prepare students for better employment opportunities, contribute to the academic success of our learners, and make better citizens of our students in our care. (Nelson Mandela University, n.d.)

Although there is little research currently available on living-learning programs outside the United States, there are indications this residential structure is emerging in other countries besides those already mentioned. Robert J. O’Hara (2016), a faculty member formerly in various faculty roles with residential colleges at multiple institutions, creates and maintains a website titled “The Collegiate Way: Residential Colleges and the Renewal of University Life.” The site offers a listing of residential colleges throughout the world with links to information about specific programs. In summary, when structuring LLCs, elements such as equity and faculty recruitment and rewards must be addressed. Additionally, attention must be given to other important educational practices and the ways that LLCs can be integrated or might conflict. High-level institutional champions are instrumental to helping living-learning program coordinators navigate the various challenges present when structuring educationally purposeful activities of this nature.

Kurotoschi.indb 141

25-05-2018 20:31:24

142

LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES THAT WORK

Final Thoughts As illustrated throughout this book, the design, delivery, and assessment of LLCs takes time, creativity, collaboration, and a commitment to integration across areas traditionally siloed at many residential campuses. Yet in order for LLCs to fulfill their moniker as a HIP (Kuh, 2008), it is precisely this kind of hard work that must be undertaken. Over the decades, numerous programming models have been introduced in American university residence halls, such as theme- or hobby-based communities or special-interest housing, but the LLC stands apart from other models because it explicitly seeks to support and augment student learning and development. For this reason, they are included as a HIP. Therefore, the purpose of this book is to provide, through our BPM, a blueprint for executing effective LLCs—the kind that can deliver on their lofty goals and objectives. We hope the BPM will provide a helpful tool, whether you are just starting to develop your LLCs or are in the process of enhancing what already exists at your institution. Although institutions differ in size, focus, goals, and resources, we believe the model as well as the other considerations highlighted throughout this book can provide valuable guidance for any institution in creating and sustaining LLCs that meaningfully affect student learning and development.

Kurotoschi.indb 142

25-05-2018 20:31:24

AFTERWORD

Learning is rarely an isolated process; it most often occurs in the interactions between faculty and student, in the space between the theoretical and personal, between the mind and the soul. . . . It is in these moments when intellectual work coheres into a critical life perspective. —D. Schoem, “Sustaining Living-Learning Programs,” 2004, p. 136

Why LLCs? Why Now? In an era when many are championing the “unbundling” of higher education (Craig & Williams, 2015) and asking whether college is “worth the cost” (PBS NewsHour, 2017), is there a need for more research and new theory on students living and learning together? This seems like an old-school topic, quite literally. In a climate where technology, efficiency, cost, and accountability are touted as the drivers of higher education’s future, do we need Living-Learning Communities That Work? We believe the answer is yes. Urgently. Meaningful undergraduate education is about far more than stacking up discrete units of knowledge. Learning goes beyond the acquisition of knowledge, and the purposes of higher education are greater than transmitting information: “Most fundamentally, our educational mission is to prepare students to understand and contribute to a world that is increasingly complex and interconnected” (Newman, Carpenter, Grawe, & Jaret-McKinstry, 2015, p. 14). This kind of education requires students to develop deep disciplinary competencies and also to cultivate a range of capacities to question, communicate, and collaborate in diverse contexts. Such learning is, by definition, integrative and connective. As Schoem contends in the epigraph opening this afterword, it is most alive at the intersections of the theoretical and the practical, the academy and the community, the mind and the heart. LLCs are fertile grounds for precisely this kind of learning to take root and blossom. In the “unbundled” higher education future imagined by many commentators, such integrative learning would be available only to students who have the financial resources to pay for it out-of-pocket. The vast majority of undergraduates, in contrast, would learn in a “just-in-time” educational 143

Kurotoschi.indb 143

25-05-2018 20:31:24

144

AFTERWORD

model that allows students to acquire bits of knowledge and tailored skills on an as-needed basis (Craig & Williams, 2015). Such a two-tiered system would exacerbate broader social inequalities linked to socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity by reserving the highest quality, most integrative undergraduate education for the privileged few. Indeed, research demonstrates “systematically underserved students [in higher education] fare worse in unstructured do-it-yourself learning environments, and they succeed in environments with strong advising, mentorship, and clear pathways to their goals—all of which require continued guidance from faculty and staff ” (Schneider, 2016, p. vi). Any just and equitable system of higher education must make high-quality learning open and accessible to all students. LLCs that work are one essential piece in that puzzle.

A New Model for LLCs The model presented in this volume provides important research-based insights into LLCs that work—those that contribute most to deep learning for all students. In doing so, the book builds on recommendations developed in a July 2015 think tank on learning communities, residential colleges, and other academic-residential partnerships that we hosted through the Center for Engaged Learning at Elon University, and in which three of the authors of this volume participated1 (Elon University Center for Engaged Learning, 2015; Felten, Dooley, & Moore, 2015; Felten, Moore, & Dooley, 2015). During those two days of conversation, think tank participants noted many of the fundamental practices of LLCs and similar programs are ill-defined, lacking the pedagogical and theoretical coherence that characterizes other HIPs (Kuh, 2008) such as study abroad, servicelearning, capstone courses, and undergraduate research. Think tank participants recommended practitioners and scholars develop clear models and frameworks to support faculty, staff, and students in leading LLC initiatives across different institutions, sizes, types, and cultures. This book responds directly and substantially to that charge by offering a theoretical model grounded in research, and it draws from multiple examples of effective practice. In doing so, the authors outline the future of LLC practice and challenge all of us to explore critical questions about who benefits from LLCs, who is currently underrepresented in this HIP, what outcomes are best addressed with this form of engaged learning, and how to effectively advocate for and support LLCs in a wide variety of higher education settings. In short, this book represents an important step in the evolution of LLC research, practice, and advocacy.

Kurotoschi.indb 144

25-05-2018 20:31:24

AFTERWORD

145

No book is the final word, of course. Lee Shulman (2002) helpfully reminds us that heuristics like the pyramid model in this book are useful and practical, but imperfect: “They are powerful in these ways as long as we don’t take them too seriously” (p. 42). We urge the readers of this book to take the model presented here seriously because it has great potential to improve LLC practice and research. It can also help practitioners recognize tensions related to three themes in LLC practice highlighted in this book, as they are likely to persist even in the best of times: partnership, language, and sustainability and equity.

Partnership The very name “living-learning” community implies a partnership between those professionals on campus who are primarily responsible for living environments (student affairs staff ) and those primarily responsible for academic learning (traditionally, members of the faculty). By acknowledging residential and social spaces as the site of learning, by drawing those communities—physical and conceptual—closer together in pursuit of learning, and by inviting faculty and staff into relationships aimed at addressing a shared educational commitment, the authors have crafted a model that galvanizes the potential of LLCs at their best and offers a concrete structure for shaping effective environments and implementing practices that will increase learning, value, and meaning for students. The authors reinforce that partnerships are crucial to successful LLCs and place this form of integration at the pinnacle of their model. However ideal in theory, partnership in practice is vexing. In the more than two decades since the publication of the Student Learning Imperative (American College Personnel Association, 1994), which called for greater integration within colleges and universities, effective partnerships between academic affairs and student affairs continue to be difficult to sustain. Indeed, in Contested Issues in Student Affairs, Magolda and Baxter Magolda (2011) posed the question in one of the chapter titles: “If student affairs–academic affairs collaboration is such a good idea, why are there so few examples of these partnerships in American higher education?” (p. viii). The model presented in this volume offers specific elements that serve as the building blocks for partnerships that lead to effective practice with LLCs and offer a hopeful roadmap for collaboration that has the potential to transform institutional relationships for forms of deep, integrative learning beyond just LLCs.

Language Just as we should insist partnerships are an essential component of LLC structures, so should we begin to use another name to describe the residential

Kurotoschi.indb 145

25-05-2018 20:31:24

146

AFTERWORD

environments that encourage learning but that do not include intentional integration of all the components of LLCs. We acknowledge the many merits of themed living communities, special-interest housing, and other approaches that move beyond the generic residence hall environment. Experimenting with differing living and learning models is appropriate; no single solution will be applicable for all students and all institutional contexts. However, muddled language often conflates a very wide range of programs with LLCs, confusing both students and others on (and off ) our campuses about the goals and structures of different residential living arrangements. We suggest reserving the term LLCs for those experiences truly marked by a transdivisional partnership to integrate residential living and academic learning in one physical environment. This coherence in language will not only support effective practice but also enable more powerful advocacy for LLCs. The framework for living and learning outlined in this book has the promise to be one of the highestimpact practices, particularly for students from backgrounds that often were excluded from residential campuses in the past. To capitalize on this potential, LLCs need champions across higher education—within student affairs and the faculty on campuses, in outreach to prospective students who might choose an LLC, in state and national policy debates, and with philanthropists who support inclusive excellence. If we cannot define our terms clearly when we are talking with each other, we cannot realistically hope to persuade others of the value of LLCs that work.

Sustainability and Equity Finally, the 2015 think tank participants would likely agree with the authors of this book that sustainability and equity are an ongoing challenge for implementation of LLCs at any institution. Too many colleges and universities are turning to LLCs as a practice for adding value to the experience of honors students or academically elite cohorts, without recognizing the value of these initiatives to all students and without considering a more equitable model for access to the mentoring, relationships, close-knit community, and educational benefits afforded by LLCs to student participants. Rather than reserve these practices for a privileged student population, LLCs should be viewed as a practice designed to engage all students, especially those who have historically been at the margins of institutional environments and for whom these experiences have even stronger outcomes than for their peers (Inkelas et al., 2007; Nosaka & Novak, 2014). At the same time, colleges and universities should make sustained investments in the people, spaces, and programs that allow LLCs to thrive.

Kurotoschi.indb 146

25-05-2018 20:31:24

AFTERWORD

147

This is particularly difficult as higher education budgets stagnate (or worsen!). All too often programs and facilities are starved for funding, onthe-ground staff and key leaders are reassigned or leave for greener pastures, and the attention necessary for partnerships cannot be maintained. Yet we are confident the value of LLCs more than justifies the time, focus, and resources required to make this form of deep, integrative learning available to students. In chapter 7, the authors of this book begin to outline some of the logistics and costs they deem necessary for the sustainment of effective and healthy LLCs. The next generation of practice, grounded in evidencebased models like the one presented here, combined with ongoing multiinstitutional research and assessment on those efforts, will be critical to the advocacy required to ensure the place of LLCs alongside other, more welldefined and researched forms of HIP, as a form of engaged learning worthy of institutional investment.

Integrating Integrative Learning This book’s model pyramid of an LLC likely will not be—nor should it be—the only form of engaged learning students encounter in college. Service-learning, capstone courses, internships, first-year experiences, and undergraduate research, among other HIPs and pedagogies, should be adopted and supported on campuses that host LLCs. These diverse experiences should be understood as complementary from both the student and administration perspectives. Our goal as educators should not be to build a campus of multiple silos (or perhaps pyramids), with service-learning here and LLCs over there. Instead, our challenge and charge should be to pursue integration across the initiatives. For example, how does having a common set of integrative practices in first-year seminars, writing-intensive courses, and service-learning experiences contribute to a strong foundation for learning in LLCs? And how does a strong LLC program create a campus model for the academic-student affairs collaboration and integration required in effective internship, diversity, and study abroad programs? These questions are especially important for those campuses that are attentive to the call for students to participate in one or more high-impact learning experiences each year. We also believe the challenges and questions posed by the authors through their evidence-based model for effective LLCs are precisely the kind of reflective prompts faculty, staff, and students should use as guides as they consider what matters most in the undergraduate experience on their own campus. To extend the metaphor of building a pyramid, what are the particular academic,

Kurotoschi.indb 147

25-05-2018 20:31:24

148

AFTERWORD

human, and other assets of your institution that make up the foundation of your work? What is the right mixture of (assessment) mortar that holds the pieces together most effectively on your campus? Exploring these questions should not lead to strict institutional isomorphism; rather, this type of reflective inquiry is powerful because it should connect one’s unique context to an empirically based framework for success. By considering these “brick-andmortar” questions from the LLC pyramid, the authors of this volume are showing us how to pursue a deeply reflective practice that has the potential to positively affect much more than just LLC implementation.

The Way Forward This volume represents an important step forward in practice of and research on LLCs. Yet we know there is still important work to be done. The data behind the evidence-based model presented here draw on three different studies at multiple institutions. That foundational work highlights the need for additional multi-institutional studies to continue to identify the efficacy of LLCs and to better explain how to enhance student learning through LLCs. We have much still to learn about the key characteristics, expectations, and norms of successful LLC program implementation. Likewise, we need further inquiry into students’ experiences with LLCs: how learning unfolds over time; where, when, and why integrative learning happens; what roles student leaders and peer mentors play in LLC learning; and what differences exist between student experiences in LLCs that are selective versus those that welcome all students. Finally, we believe the research on LLCs would benefit from studies that focus on the faculty-staff experience: how LLC engagement affects faculty teaching, mentoring/advising, and research; how LLC participation changes faculty understanding of the student experience; and how LLC participation affects student affairs staff perceptions about their role in student learning (Elon University Center for Engaged Learning, 2015). This book’s authors also challenge us to consider the important role institutional champions play in the development and success of LLCs. Indeed, we believe stronger advocacy is needed across the higher education landscape for this form of HIP. No matter whether they are working on a specific campus or across higher education, LLC champions would benefit from the clear articulation of LLC practices, characteristics, and outcomes the authors of this volume have begun to provide. In an era of tight resources, advocates will need to better define the value proposition for LLCs: why LLCs should be considered an essential part of higher education, how LLCs contribute to

Kurotoschi.indb 148

25-05-2018 20:31:24

AFTERWORD

149

important student outcomes, how they complement other engaged learning practices, and how to shift the focus from amenities-based marketing of residential living to a strategy that clarifies the meaning and potential of LLCs that work. Advocates for LLCs should address an array of audiences within and beyond their institutions, including a stronger presence in associations and spaces other than those focused on residence life and student affairs. Every faculty member, dean, provost, president, board member, philanthropist, and policymaker should know about the power of LLCs that work. And this advocacy must include a strong equity lens, considering who has access to the experiences, whether they reinforce an elite or elitist model of higher education, and how they can be implemented in ways that are accessible and appealing to all students. There is plenty of work ahead for practitioners, researchers, and champions of LLCs. This book, however, outlines a clear path forward. If we can act on and extend what is here, we will ensure more students—perhaps one day, all students—will benefit from LLCs that work.

Note 1. Think tank participants included Mimi Benjamin (Indiana University of Pennsylvania), Jeffrey Coker (Elon University), Jon Dooley (Elon University), Peter Felten (Elon University), Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas (University of Virginia), Jody JessupAnger (Marquette University), Jillian Kinzie (Center for Postsecondary Research & NSSE Institute, Indiana University), Jessie L. Moore (Elon University), Jill Stratton (Washington University in St. Louis), William Sullivan (Center for Inquiry in the Liberal Arts, Wabash College), Frank Wcislo (Vanderbilt University), and Lori White (Washington University in St. Louis).

Jon Dooley Vice President for Student Life and Dean of Students, Elon University Peter Felten Assistant Provost and Executive Director, Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning and Center for Engaged Learning, Elon University

Kurotoschi.indb 149

25-05-2018 20:31:24

Kurotoschi.indb 150

25-05-2018 20:31:24

APPENDIX

T

he best practices model (BPM) and examples provided in this book all stem from research findings from three separate studies. Because the empirical findings are important to our assertions, we provide in this appendix a more detailed description of the studies, as well as their accompanying methodologies.

National Study of Living-Learning Programs The National Study of Living-Learning Programs (NSLLP) was a 10-year multi-institutional study of living-learning communities (LLCs) and began as a means to understand the impact of LLC participation on a number of undergraduate student outcomes, ranging from binge drinking behaviors to perceptions of intellectual growth. As the number of participating institutions grew, the twin purposes of the NSLLP evolved into (a) a mechanism for developing a multi-institutional database of research on LLCs in order to more comprehensively study them on a national scale and (b) a source of information to help improve practice by providing LLC staff with empirical data about connections between their work and student outcomes. The NSLLP was based on Astin’s (1993a) inputs-environments-outcomes conceptual framework, which posits that student outcomes are influenced by both student inputs (e.g., background characteristics) and their interactions with their college environments (or the various educational experiences, interventions, and programs on their college campuses). The NSLLP queried students about nine self-reported outcomes—transition to college, perceptions of their self-confidence, appreciation of diversity, sense of civic engagement, alcohol use and behaviors, overall satisfaction and sense of belonging, persistence, academic achievement, and perceptions of intellectual abilities and growth. Student inputs measured through the NSLLP included a variety of demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race/ ethnicity, socioeconomic status), high school achievement (e.g., high school grades, standardized test scores), and pretests of several of the outcome measures. Finally, in addition to questions pertaining to LLC participation, the NSLLP survey included items regarding other college environments, 151

Kurotoschi.indb 151

25-05-2018 20:31:25

152

APPENDIX

such as peer interactions, faculty interactions, cocurricular involvement, and academic coursework. Over a span of nearly 10 years, the NSLLP undertook 4 principal data collections. First, a pilot study in 2003 included 4 large public universities (n = 5,437), and the survey instrument was tested for reliability and validity, as well as the efficacy of different types of data collections (web versus paper-and-pencil). Second, in 2004, the NSLLP conducted its first national data collection, with a sample of 34 universities, 297 LLCs, and 23,910 students. The 2004 NSLLP used a quasi-experimental design, for which all participating institutions selected 2 samples: (a) all or a random sample of students participating in their LLCs and (b) a matched sample of students living in a traditional residence hall. In addition, a shorter questionnaire was administered to LLC staff, who provided information about the organizational structures of their LLCs. In 2007, the third baseline data collection took place, this time with 46 institutions, 617 LLCs, and 22,258 students (again, half LLC participants and half students living in traditional residence halls). The 2007 NSLLP also surveyed the respondents from the 2004 study, providing a longitudinal follow-up of the original baseline sample. Fourth, NSLLP researchers conducted a 4-campus site visit in 2008; the 4 campuses were chosen based on which had the highest average survey outcomes from the 2007 data. The 4 campuses included (a) a large public research university in the south, which hosted 15 LLCs; (b) another large public research university located in the south (but in a different state) with 22 LLCs; (c) a mid-sized public comprehensive university in the mid-Atlantic with 10 LLCs; and (d) a mid-sized public research university in the midwest with 31 LLCs. It is important to reiterate these 4 campuses were chosen not for their reputations but because the students in their LLCs exhibited among the highest mean scores on the outcomes measured in the NSLLP.

Comprehensive Mixed Methods Study at a Four-Year Public Land-Grant University Additional data for this book were drawn from a multiyear, mixed methods study of LLCs, which included data from 9 LLCs that varied in their intensity and scope. In the first phase of data collection, a survey was sent in the fall of 2005 to all 750 first-year students who resided in the academically based LLCs, of whom 338 completed the survey (45% response rate). The survey focused on students’ expectations regarding academic behaviors, attitudes, and concerns about the university; their goals for college; and their support systems. A follow-up survey, the Residence Hall Environment Survey, was sent in the spring to the same students, of whom 168 completed the survey

Kurotoschi.indb 152

25-05-2018 20:31:25

APPENDIX

153

(response rate 22%). The Residence Hall Environment Survey was a 76-item questionnaire developed to assess outcomes associated with the LLCs, residence hall environment, social interactions among peers and faculty, and academic behaviors occurring in the residence halls. In the second phase of data collection, directors and key personnel of each community were interviewed to gain a contextualized understanding of the LLCs, resulting in nine semistructured interviews with the directors and others who had primary responsibility for the LLCs. Our intent was to gain a better understanding of the purpose/mission of each community, the structure of each, and the directors’ perceptions of the important components of each community. We were hopeful that a deeper understanding of the LLCs would inform the development of a survey to be distributed to students later in the academic year. The following themes were constructed from our interviews—(a) opportunities for peer leadership, (b) bridging classroom and cocurricular experiences, (c) varying levels of faculty interaction, (d) varying climate of department/college support, and (e) barriers to developing relationships with residence life. In the third phase of data collection, 10 single-session focus groups were conducted with 34 students residing in the LLCs. Between 2 and 5 students participated in each focus group, which lasted 50 to 70 minutes each. The focus group interviews were semistructured, with questions developed from existing literature on LLCs and from the results of the second study phase. Some examples of questions included “What is it like to be a member of your LLC?” and “How has being a member of your LLC impacted your experiences?” Finally, the fourth phase of the study coincided with the development of a new residential college on the campus. Thus, key faculty and administrators were interviewed to learn more about the process of developing the college, and key documents were collected for analysis. We interviewed 12 of the 16 faculty and administrators affiliated with the new residential college. We focused our inquiry on why they sought to join the residential college, what they were learning from their experiences, and how they believed the residential college would evolve.

Multisite Case Study of Social Justice–Themed LLCs The multisite case study was a qualitative study that drew from 3 social justice–themed LLCs located within 3 private Catholic institutions and examined outcomes for the communities (see Table A.1 for a summary of each community’s elements). The project worked with the administrators of each community to gain access to the sites. Each administrator provided

Kurotoschi.indb 153

25-05-2018 20:31:25

154

APPENDIX

TABLE A.1

Descriptive Overviews of the Three Social Justice LLCs LLC Name

Community Service

Style of Residence

Course(s)

Class Year of Students

City University

3 hours each week

2 residence hall floors (1 male, 1 female)

Single 3-credit course each semester

Sophomore

Lake Side College

15 hours each semester

8-person suite

None

Sophomore

Foot Hills College

3 hours each week

2 residence hall floors (1 male, 1 female)

Single 1-credit course each semester

First-year

information about the community, offered access to applications, and encouraged students to participate in interviews. The project drew a snowball sample from each of the communities, initially sending out an e-mail inviting all students to participate, getting responses from some students, and then asking them to recommend others for the researchers to contact. The project conducted single-session interviews that lasted between 30 minutes and 2 hours. Our interviews were composed of general questions about students’ experience and definition of social justice, specific questions about relationships with peers in and outside the community, and experiences with community service. For students in communities that included a class component, we asked questions about their experiences in class (see Table A.1 for a descriptive overview of each community). At the most well-resourced community, the researchers conducted follow-up interviews the following semester and again one year after participation to determine the lasting outcomes of the communities. The communities explored included City University’s Social Justice Living-Learning Community, Lake Side College’s Social Justice Living-Learning Community, and Foot Hills College’s Social Justice Living-Learning Community. City University (CU) is a large four-year, highly residential doctoral research university located in the Midwest. CU’s Social Justice LivingLearning Community (CUSJLLC) was a sophomore community in which students lived on two floors in a residence hall (one all-male floor and one allfemale floor), took one three-credit course together each semester for a year, and participated in three hours of service-learning each week as part of their coursework. The three-credit courses could be counted for students’ required

Kurotoschi.indb 154

25-05-2018 20:31:25

APPENDIX

155

curriculum and included a philosophy course in the fall and theology course in the spring. Adjunct instructors taught both courses. Lakeside College (LC) is a small four-year, highly residential baccalaureate college located in the Midwest. LC’s Social Justice Living-Learning Community (LCSJLLC) was a sophomore community in which students lived together in 8-person suites in a residence hall and completed 15 hours of community service each semester at a site common to their suite. Marketing materials for LCSJLLC indicated students with an interest “in community service and social justice can find a home” in the hall. Students applied to the community in groups of 8 and ranked their community service site preferences upon application. There was no formal class connected with LCSJLLC; however, students participated in reflection sessions organized by the servicelearning office at least once each semester. Foothills College (FC) is a medium-sized four-year, primarily nonresidential master’s university located in the western United States. FC’s Social Justice Living-Learning Community (FCSJLLC) was a first-year community in which students lived on two floors in a residence hall, took a one-credit course together for the entire year, and participated in three hours of community service each week as a group. Marketing materials for FCSJLLC encouraged students who were “academically, socially, and community minded” and who sought “more out of their first year experience than the traditional route” to apply. Together, these three studies form the foundation for the BPM and provided many of the examples cited throughout the book.

Kurotoschi.indb 155

25-05-2018 20:31:25

Kurotoschi.indb 156

25-05-2018 20:31:25

REFERENCES

Ahn, R. (with Bhavsar, V.). (2011). Extending instructional dialogue through a student learning community. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 20(6), 7–9. American College Personnel Association (ACPA). (1994). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Washington, DC: Author. Arendale, D. R. (2014). Understanding the peer assisted learning model: Student study groups in challenging college courses. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(2), 1–12. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v3n2p1. Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: Author. Association of College and University Housing Officers–International. (1998). The residential nexus: A focus on student learning. Columbus, OH: Author. Association of College and University Housing Officers–International. (2014). Residential learning communities. Retrieved from http://rlc.acuho-i.org/Communities.aspx Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 25(4), 297–308. Astin, A. W. (1993a). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Astin, A. W. (1993b). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 123–134. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bell, P. A., Greene, T. G., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental psychology (5th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace. Benjamin, M. (2007). Role construction of residential learning community peer mentors. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 34(2), 31–42. BGSU Office of Residence Life. (n.d.). Educators in context and community. Retrieved from http://www.bgsu.edu/residence-life/learning-and-theme-communities/educatorsin-context-and-community.html Blimling, G. S. (2001). Uniting scholarship and communities of practice in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 381–396. Blimling, G. S. (2015). Student learning in college residence halls: What works, what doesn’t, and why. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

157

Kurotoschi.indb 157

25-05-2018 20:31:25

158

REFERENCES

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Stony Brook: State University of New York at Stony Brook. Braxton, J. M. (2004). New institutional theory and student departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 257–274). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. 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. Brown, S. D., Ryan Krane, N. E., Brecheisen, J., Castelino, P., Budisin, I., Miller, M., & Edens, L. (2003). Critical ingredients of career choice interventions: More analyses and new hypotheses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(3), 411–428. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3–7. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Collier, P. J. (2015). Developing effective student peer mentoring programs. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Cox, B. E., & Orehovec, E. (2007). Faculty-student interaction outside the classroom: A typology from a residential college. Review of Higher Education, 30, 343–362. Craig, R., & Williams, A. (2015, August 17). Data, technology, and the great unbundling of higher education. Educause Review, 50(5). Retrieved from http:// er.educause.edu/articles/2015/8/data-technology-and-the-great-unbundling-ofhigher-education Ellertson, S. L. (2004). Mid-career faculty involvement in learning communities: An exploration of outcomes and vitality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, IA. Elon University Center for Engaged Learning. (2015). Recommendations from the think tank on residential colleges, living learning communities, and other academicresidential partnerships. Elon, NC: Author Felten, P., Dooley, J., & Moore, J. L. (2015, August 11). Recommendations for new research on residential colleges, learning communities, and other academic-residential partnerships [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www .centerforengagedlearning.org/recommendations-for-new-research-on-residentialcolleges-learning-communities-and-other-academic-residential-partnerships/ Felten, P., Gardner, J. N., Schroeder, C. C., Lambert, L. M., & Barefoot, B. O. (2016). The undergraduate experience: Focusing institutions on what matters most. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Felten, P., Moore, J. L., & Dooley, J. (2015, September 29). Recommendations for practitioners and advocates of residential learning communities [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/rlc-recommendationspart1/ Fink, J. E., & Hummel, M. L. (2015). With educational benefits for all: Campus inclusion through learning communities designed for underserved student

Kurotoschi.indb 158

25-05-2018 20:31:25

REFERENCES

159

populations. In M. Benjamin (Ed.), Learning communities from start to finish (New Directions for Student Services no. 149, pp. 29–40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fink, J. E., & Inkelas, K. K. (2015). A history of learning communities within American higher education. In M. Benjamin (Ed.), Learning communities from start to finish (New Directions for Students Services no. 149, pp. 5–15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Finley, A., & Kuh, G. D. (2016). The case for connecting first-year seminars and learning communities. In L. C. Schmidt & J. Graziano (Eds.), Building synergy for high-impact educational initiatives: First-year seminars and learning communities (pp. 3–18). Columbia: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Swimming in unchartered waters: Understanding and developing the faculty role in residential education. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 38(1), 70–78. Frederiksen, C. F. (1993). A brief history of collegiate housing. In R. B. Winston, Jr., S. Anchors, & Associates (Eds.), Student housing and residential life: A handbook for professionals committed to student development goals (pp. 167–183). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 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 no. 41). San, Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Galizzi, M. (2014). Bringing Adam Smith’s pin factory to life: Field trips and discussions as forms of experiential learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(5), 27–47. doi:10.14434/josotlv14i5.12938. Garner, L. C., & Gallo, M. A. (2005). Field trips and their effects on student achievement and attitudes: A comparison of physical versus virtual field trips to the Indian River Lagoon. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(5), 14–17. Golde, C. M., & Pribbenow, D. A. (2000). Understanding faculty involvement in residential learning communities. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 27–40. Gore, P. A., Jr., & Metz, A. J. (2008). Advising for career and life planning. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, T. J. Gries, & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (2nd ed., pp. 103–117). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Graziano, J., & Schmidt, L. C. (2016). Introduction. In L. C. Schmidt & J. Graziano (Eds.), Building synergy for high-impact educational initiatives: First-year seminars and learning communities (pp. xv–xxv). Columbia: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Grills, C. N., Fingerhut, A. W., Thadani, V., & Machon, R. A. (2012). Residential learning communities centered within a discipline: The psychology early awareness program. In K. Buch & K. E. Barron (Eds.), Discipline-centered learning

Kurotoschi.indb 159

25-05-2018 20:31:25

160

REFERENCES

communities: Creating connections among students, faculty, and curricula (New Directions for Teaching and Learning no. 132, pp. 43–55). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Haynes, C., & Janosik, S. M. (2012). Faculty and staff member benefits from involvement in living-learning programs. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 38(2), 32–45. Henning, G. W., & Roberts, D. (2016). Student affairs assessment: Theory to practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Henscheid, J. M. (2015). It is time to count learning communities. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 3(2), 9. Retrieved from http://washingtoncenter .evergreen.edu/lcrpjournal/vol3/iss2/9 Herr, E. L., Cramer, S. H., & Niles, S. G. (2004). The practice of career development in higher education. In Career guidance and counseling through the lifespan (6th ed., pp. 454–482). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555–575. Hu, Y. L., Ching, G. S., & Hung, C. H. (2015). Comparison of concepts within the residential colleges in Taiwan. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(12), 936–940. doi:10.7763/IJIET.2015.V5.641. Hutchings, K. P. (1998, July–August). Why learning communities? Why now? About Campus, 3(3), 4–8. Indiana University of Pennsylvania. (2017). Living-learning faculty recognition award. Retrieved from http://www.iup.edu/teachingexcellence/awards-andgrants/faculty-recognition-awards/categories/living-learning/ Inkelas, K. K. (2000). Participating in living-learning programs at the University of Michigan: Benefits for students and faculty. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. Inkelas, K. K. (with others). (2007). National study of living-learning programs: 2007 report of findings. College Park, MD: Authors. Inkelas, K. K. (2016). Good practices in living-learning programmes. Asian Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 64–76. Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Brown Leonard, J. (2007). Livinglearning programs and first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in Higher Education, 48(4), 403–434. doi:10.1007/ s11162-006-9031-6. Inkelas, K. K., & Soldner, M. (2011). Undergraduate living-learning programs and student outcomes. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 26, 1–55. Inkelas, K. K., Soldner, M., Longerbeam, S. D., & Brown, Leonard J. (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., & Weisman, J. (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), 335–368.

Kurotoschi.indb 160

25-05-2018 20:31:25

REFERENCES

161

Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in today’s higher education. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 3–25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jehangir, R. R. (2009). Cultivating voice: First-generation students seek full academic citizenship in multicultural learning communities. Innovative Higher Education, 34(1), 33–49. Jessup-Anger, J. E. (2012). Examining how residential colleges inspire the life of the mind. Review of Higher Education, 35(3), 431–462. Jessup-Anger, J. E., Dowdy, R. P., & Janz, M. (2012). Social justice begins at home: The challenges and successes of a social justice living-learning community. Journal of College and Character, 13(4), 1–7. Jessup-Anger, J. E., Johnson, B., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2012). Exploring livinglearning communities as a venue for men’s identity construction. Journal of College and University Student Housing: Special Issue on Men and Masculinity, 39(1), 162–174. Jessup-Anger, J. E., Wawrzynski, M. R., & Yao, C. W. (2011). Enhancing undergraduate education: Examining faculty experiences during their first year in a residential college and exploring the implications for student affairs professionals. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 38(1), 56–68. Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Brown Leonard, J., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., RowanKenyon, H., & Longerbeam, S. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–542. Kamal, L., Stein, S. G., Baxter, J., King, P., Inkelas, K., Tanzer, K., & Merritt, G. (2014). Living-learning research report: University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.eypae.com/sites/default/files/pdf/EYP_Living-Learning%20Report_ University%20of%20Michigan.pdf Kamal, L., Stein, S., Inkelas, K., Goldblatt, P., Durbin, J., & Lock, L. (2015). Livinglearning research report: Michigan State University residence hall spaces and their contributions to student learning. Retrieved from http://www.eypae.com/sites/ default/files/pdf/EYP_Living-Learning%20Report_Michigan%20State%20 University.pdf Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and the American College Personnel Association. Keeling, R. P., Wall, A. F., Underhile, R., & Dungy, G. J. (2008). Assessment reconsidered: Institutional effectiveness for student success. Washington, DC: NASPA. Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (2001). Returning to our roots: Executive summaries of the Reports of the Kellogg Commission on the future of state and land-grant universities. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Kennedy, K. (2011). Understanding faculty motivation to interact with students outside of class. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 38(1), 10–24.

Kurotoschi.indb 161

25-05-2018 20:31:25

162

REFERENCES

Kennedy, K., & Townsend, B. K. (2008). Faculty motivation to participate in residential learning community activities at research-extensive universities. Journal of the Professoriate, 3(1), 29–53. Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 5(3), 292–314. Kinzie, J. (2012). Optimizing high impact practices in the senior year. In M. S. Hunter, J. R. Keup, J. Kinzie, & H. Maietta (Eds.), The senior year: Culminating experiences and transitions. Columbia: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. 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 & Universities. Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0099. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(5), 1–200. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education. Lardner, E. D. (2003). Approaching diversity through learning communities (Occasional Paper no. 2). Olympia, WA: Washington Center for Improving the Quality of the Undergraduate Experience. Lardner, E. D. (2004). Approaching diversity through learning communities. In J. L. Laufgraben and N. S. Shapiro & Associates (Eds.), Sustaining and improving learning communities (pp. 114–129). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Laufgraben, J. L., & Shapiro, N. S. (with others). (2004). Sustaining and improving learning communities. San Francisco, CA: 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 Vol. 26, No. 6). Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Lenning, O. T., Hill, D. M., Saunders, K. P., Solan, A., & Stokes, A. (2013). Powerful learning communities: A guide to developing student, faculty, and professional learning communities to improve student success and organizational effectiveness. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Levine, A., & Dean, D. R. (2012). Generation on a tightrope: A portrait of today’s college student. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Magolda, P. M. (2005). Proceed with caution: Uncommon wisdom about academic and student affairs partnerships. About Campus, 9(6), 16–21.

Kurotoschi.indb 162

25-05-2018 20:31:25

REFERENCES

163

Magolda, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2011). Contested issues in student affairs: Diverse perspectives and respectful dialogue. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Manning, K., Kinzie, J., & Schuh, J. (2014). One size does not fit all: Traditional and innovative models of student affairs practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Maslow, A. (1954/1987). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper/ Addison-Wesley. Matthews, R. S., Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J., & Gabelnick, F. (1997). Creating learning communities. In J. Graff, J. Ratcliff, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of the undergraduate curriculum (pp. 457–475). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2016). NACE 2015–2016 career services benchmark survey for colleges and universities. Bethlehem, PA: Author. National University of Singapore. (2010, September 9). Distinguished diplomat and renowned China historian to helm Singapore’s first residential colleges. Singapore Government News. Retrieved from http://navigator-iup.passhe.edu/ login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/750119745?accountid=11652 National University of Singapore. (2011, April 11). Singapore prime minister launches Yale-NUS College. Singapore Government News. Retrieved from http:// navigator-iup.passhe.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/861259 840?accountid=11652 Nelson Mandela University. (n.d.). Living-learning communities. Retrieved from http://studenthousing.mandela.ac.za/Living-Learning-Communities Newman, L. E., Carpenter, S., Grawe, N., & Jaret-McKinstry, S. (2015). Creating a culture conducive to integrative learning. Peer Review, 16(4), 14–15. Nosaka, T., & Novak, H. (2014). Against the odds: The impact of the key communities at Colorado State University on retention and graduation for historically underrepresented students. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 2(2), 3. Retrieved from http://washingtoncenter.evergreen.edu/lcrpjournal/vol2/iss2/3 O’Hara, R. J. (2016). The collegiate way: Residential colleges and the renewal of university life. Retrieved from www.collegiateway.org Parker, J. (2012). Does living near classmates help introductory economics students get better grades? Journal of Economic Education, 43(2), 148–164. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. PBS NewsHour. (2017, April 9). Is college worth the cost? [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/college-worth-cost/ Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Pike, G. R. (1999). The effects of residential learning communities and traditional residential living arrangements on educational gains during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40(3), 269–284. Reese, R. J., & Miller, C. D. (2006). Effects of a university career development course on career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(2), 252–266. doi:10.1177/1069072705274985.

Kurotoschi.indb 163

25-05-2018 20:31:25

164

REFERENCES

Rieske, L. J., & Benjamin, M. (2015). Utilizing peer mentor roles in learning communities. In M. Benjamin (Ed.), Learning communities from start to finish (New Directions for Student Services no. 149, pp. 67–79). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Rowan-Kenyon, H., Soldner, M., & Inkelas, K. K. (2007). The contributions of living-learning programs on developing sense of civic engagement in undergraduate students. NASPA Journal, 44(4), 750–778. Rullman, L., & van den Kieboom, J. (2012). Creating community: Designing spaces that make a difference. Planning in Higher Education, 41(1), 1–16. Schneider, C. (2016). Foreword. In R. Bass & B. Eynon, Open and integrative: Designing liberal education for the new digital ecosystem. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities. Schoem, D. (2004). Sustaining living-learning programs. In J. L. Laufgraben, N. S., Shapiro, & Associates (Eds.), Sustaining and improving learning communities (pp. 130–156). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schroeder, C. C. (1999). Forging educational partnerships that advance student learning. In G. S. Blimling & E. J. Whitt (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs (pp. 133–156). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schuh, J. H. (1999). Student learning in college residence halls: What the research shows. In J. H. Schuh (Ed.), Educational programing and student learning in college and university residence halls (pp. 1–20). Columbus, OH: Association of College and University Housing Officers–International. Scott, A. B., & Ciani, K. D. (2008). Effects of an undergraduate career class on men’s and women’s career decision-making self-efficacy and vocational identity. Journal of Career Development, 34(3), 263–285. doi:10.1177/089484530731.1248. Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical guide to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Shulman, L. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34(6), 36–44. Shushok, F., Henry, D. V., Blalock, G., & Sriram, R. (2009). Learning at any time: Supporting student learning wherever it happens. About Campus, 14(1), 10–15. Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R. S., & Gabelnick, F. (2004). Learning communities: Reforming undergraduate education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Smith, B. L., & Williams, L. B. (2007). Academic and student affairs: Fostering student success. In B. L. Smith and L. B. Williams (with others) (Eds.), Learning communities and student affairs: Partnering for powerful learning (pp. 1–34). Olympia, WA: Evergreen State College, Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education. Soldner, M., Rowan-Kenyon, H., Inkelas, K. K., Garvey, J., & Robbins, C. (2012). Supporting students’ intentions to persist in STEM disciplines: The role of living-learning programs among other social-cognitive factors. Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 311–336. Sriram, R., Shushok, F., Perkins, J., & Scales, T. L. (2011). Students as teachers: What faculty learn by living on campus. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 38(1), 40–54.

Kurotoschi.indb 164

25-05-2018 20:31:25

REFERENCES

165

Stassen, M. L. A. (2003). Student outcomes: The impact of varying living-learning community models. Research in Higher Education, 44, 581–612. Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2015). Designing for learning: Creating campus environments for student success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Talburt, S., & Boyles, D. (2005). Reconsidering learning communities: Expanding the discourse by challenging the discourse. Journal of General Education, 4(54), 209–236. Terrion, J. L., & Leonard, D. (2007). A taxonomy of the characteristics of student peer mentors in higher education: Findings from a literature review. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15(2), 149–164. doi:10.1080/13611260601086311. Tinto, T. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167–177. United States National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author. University of Macau. (2017). The residential college system. Retrieved from https:// rc.umac.mo/the-residential-college-system Upcraft, M. L., & Schuh, J. H. (1996). Assessment in student affairs: A guide for practitioners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Varlotta, L. (2000). Service as text: Making the metaphor meaningful. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 76–84. 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 environments. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 201–217. Wawrzynski, M. R., Jessup-Anger, J., Stolz, K., Helman, C., & Beaulieu, J. (2009). Exploring students’ perceptions of academically based living-learning communities. College Student Affairs Journal, 28(1), 138–158. Wawrzynski, M. R., Madden, K., & Jensen, C. (2012). The influence of the college environment on honors students’ outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 53(6), 840–845. Whiston, S. C., Brecheisen, B. K., & Stephens, J. (2003). Does treatment modality affect career counseling effectiveness? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(3), 390–410. Whitt, E. J. (2011). Academic and student affairs partnerships. In J. Schuh, S. Harper, & S. Jones (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (5th ed., pp. 482–496). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Whitt, E. J., Elkins-Nesheim, B., Guentzel, M., Kellogg, A., McDonald, W., & Wells, C. (2008). Principles of good practice for academic and student affairs partnership programs. Journal of College Student Development, 49, 235–249. YaleNUS College. (2017a). Residential living. Retrieved from https://studentlife .yale-nus.edu.sg/residential-living/

Kurotoschi.indb 165

25-05-2018 20:31:25

166

REFERENCES

YaleNUS College. (2017b). Week 7: Learning across boundaries. Retrieved from https://cipe.yale-nus.edu.sg/co-curricular-programs/week-7/ Yousey-Elsener, K. (2013). Assessment fundamentals: The ABC’s of assessment. In D. M. Timm, J. D. Barham, K. McKinney, & A. R. Knerr (Eds.), Assessment in practice: A companion guide to the ASK standards (pp. 9–18). Washington, DC: ACPA. Zeller, W., James, L., & Klippenstein, S. (2002). The residential nexus: A focus on student learning. Columbus, OH: Association of College and University Housing Officers–International.

Kurotoschi.indb 166

25-05-2018 20:31:25

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas is an associate professor in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia (UVA). At UVA, she serves as research director of the Crafting Success for Underrepresented Scientists and Engineers Research Project, Undergraduate Initiatives for the Contemplative Sciences Center, and the Center for Advanced Study of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education (CASTL-HE) Research Lab. Inkelas was the principal investigator for the National Study of Living-Learning Programs from 2001 to 2011. The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Association of College and University Housing Officers International, the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Inkelas currently serves on the editorial board of College Teaching and recently served on the advisory board for the Journal of Higher Education. In 2008, she guest edited a special issue on living-learning communities (LLCs) for the Journal of College and University Student Housing. She has also been an invited keynote or plenary speaker on LLCs for the ACPA Residential Curriculum Institute (2014), the Annual Conference on the First-Year Experience (2010), the Conference on Living-Learning Programs and Residential Colleges (2004), and two different Academic Impressions Web Conferences (2011 and 2008). In addition, she has spoken at institutional workshops and conferences at the University of Colorado Boulder (2017), Indiana University of Pennsylvania (2017), James Madison University (2012), the University of Michigan (2010), the University of Puget Sound (2010), and Cornell University (2005). Finally, she has delivered international addresses on LLCs for the Second International Forum on Innovation in Higher Education at Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea (2016); the International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education at the National University of Singapore (2014); and the Macau Student Affairs Institute (2012). Inkelas earned her PhD from the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan in 2000, her MS in higher education administration from Northwestern University in 1994, and her BA in international and Asian studies from Northwestern University in 1992.

167

Kurotoschi.indb 167

25-05-2018 20:31:25

168

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jody E. Jessup-Anger is associate professor of higher education and program coordinator of the student affairs in higher education master’s program at Marquette University. Her research explores how student and collegiate environment interaction facilitates or impedes student development and learning. Jessup-Anger has written several research articles exploring the effectiveness of LLCs; authored a chapter about theoretical foundations of learning communities in the New Directions for Student Services monograph; and spent a sabbatical as a scholar-in-residence for Workshop Studios, a design and consulting firm specializing in higher education facilities and organizations. Jessup-Anger co-led the Elon University Center for Engaged Learning’s research seminar on residential learning communities. In addition, she served on the editorial board of the Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice and on ACPA’s Commission for Professional Preparation in Student Affairs. Before receiving her PhD, she spent 10 years as a student affairs administrator. Jessup-Anger earned her PhD in higher, adult, and lifelong education from Michigan State University; her MS in student affairs in higher education from Colorado State University; and her BA in international studies from American University. Mimi Benjamin is assistant professor of student affairs in higher education at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Her research interests include student cocurricular learning outcomes, learning communities, and faculty experiences. She is the editor of the 2015 New Directions for Student Services book Learning Communities from Start to Finish and served as a student affairs administrator for 19 years, during which time she worked extensively with residential programs and learning communities. She served as coleader for the Elon University Center for Engaged Learning’s 2017–2019 research seminar on residential learning communities and was a resource faculty member at the National Learning Communities Summer Institute in 2016. In 2011, Benjamin was a guest coeditor for a special issue of Journal of College and University Student Housing focused on faculty involvement in residence halls. She is also the coeditor, with Florence A. Hamrick, of the book Maybe I Should . . . Case Studies in Ethics for Student Affairs Professionals (UPA, 2009). Benjamin earned her PhD in educational leadership and policy studies with a focus on higher education from Iowa State University, her MEd in college student personnel from Ohio University, her MA in English from Clarion University of Pennsylvania, and her BS in secondary education–English from Clarion University of Pennsylvania. Matthew R. Wawrzynski is associate professor in the Department of Educational Administration and coordinator of the higher, adult, and lifelong

Kurotoschi.indb 168

25-05-2018 20:31:25

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

169

education program and the Center for Higher and Adult Education at Michigan State University. Previously, he was an AERA Research Fellow, and he has 15 years of student affairs experience in residence life, student activities, first-year programs, and orientation. He was executive editor for the Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice and a Faculty Fellow for the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Wawrzynski has also given invited talks on LLCs in China and South Africa and has presented on LLCs at the Association for College University Housing Officers–International Living Learning Conference, American College Personnel Association, and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators annual conferences. Wawrzynski earned his PhD in higher education from the University of Maryland, his MSEd in college student personnel from Indiana University, and his BA in biology from Canisius College.

Kurotoschi.indb 169

25-05-2018 20:31:25

Kurotoschi.indb 170

25-05-2018 20:31:25

INDEX

academically based, 32, 165 academic environment, viii, ix, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28, 49, 50, 53, 55, 57, 61, 63, 65–67, 84, 98, 99, 103, 115, 122, 127 academic-residential, 144, 158 ACPA (American College Personnel Association), 157, 166, 167, 168 ACUHO-I (Association of College and University Housing OfficersInternational), 157 adjunct faculty, 117, 131 administrators/administration, ix, x advising, 10, 11, 18–21, 23, 28, 29, 34, 49, 50, 53–55, 62, 64, 66, 67, 84–86, 88, 97, 98, 102, 105, 115, 118, 119, 128, 144, 148, 159 alumni, 14, 45, 46, 62, 63, 76, 79, 82, 90 architectural, 14, 40, 41, 45, 71, 95, 96, 97 assessment, 1, 12, 18, 22–25, 30, 39, 47, 84, 91–93, 94–98, 107, 108, 113, 123–25, 136, 142, 147, 148, 157, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166 Astin, A., 2, 56, 66, 67, 90, 128, 151, 157 athletics, 139

budget, 10, 11, 43, 47, 80, 101, 111, 113, 115, 121, 122, 139 capstone, 106, 136, 144, 147 career, 9, 10, 18, 22, 28, 33, 50, 54, 55, 62, 64–68, 74–76, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 106, 121, 122, 133, 158–60, 163–65 citizenship, 6, 141, 161 civic, 8, 9, 21, 57, 64, 120, 151, 164 civic-mindedness, 140 classroom(s), 6, 19, 24, 30, 31, 39, 45, 49, 57, 63, 64, 67–70, 73, 81, 85, 92, 114, 122, 131, 137, 140, 153, 158 climates, 21, 62, 63, 85, 86, 88, 89, 97, 119 academically supportive, 4, 18, 28, 49, 50, 55, 56, 66, 84, 95, 99, 104, 115, 117, 119, 120, 138 socially supportive, 18, 20, 21, 28, 49, 50, 57, 59, 60, 63, 66, 84–86, 89, 95, 105, 115, 120, 121

barriers, 6, 34, 129, 153 belonging, viii, 11, 21, 38, 57, 58, 62–64, 119, 121, 129, 141, 151, 161 benchmark, 74, 163 Benjamin, M., vii, xv, 60, 149, 157, 159, 164, 168 best practices model (BPM), 13, 14, 17–20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 49, 50, 67, 89–93, 100, 111–13, 114, 120, 122, 124–25, 127, 142, 151, 155 brick-and-mortar, 148

cocurricular, 1, 5, 7, 10, 12, 18, 19, 21–25, 28–31, 38, 41, 48, 50–52, 55, 58, 61, 63, 65–69, 71, 74, 76, 78–84, 86–89, 91–96, 96–98, 101, 106, 108, 109, 114, 121–123, 127, 128, 139, 152, 153, 168 cocurricular environment, 18, 21, 25, 28, 50, 66, 67, 79, 83, 84, 98, 106, 121, 127 benefits, 65, 67, 72, 88 career workshops, 65–68, 74–76, 79 K–12 outreach, 65–68, 71, 73, 77 study groups, 65–72, 75, 79 theme-related activities, 65, 66, 78, 80–82

171

Kurotoschi.indb 171

25-05-2018 20:31:25

172

INDEX

visiting work settings, 65–68, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79 cognitive, 37, 38, 54, 67, 72 collaboration, 1, 6, 10, 17–19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32–39, 43, 47–50, 84, 85, 89, 98, 100, 112, 113, 115, 117, 130–132, 134, 139, 142, 145, 147 community, 1–4, 6–11, 14, 19–21, 23, 24, 27–29, 31–33, 36–40, 43, 48, 50–53, 56–58, 60, 65, 67–73, 75, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 89–93, 97, 100, 101, 103, 106–108, 113, 119, 121, 123–25, 128–32, 134–40, 143, 145, 146, 153–55, 157, 161, 162, 164, 165 competencies, 140, 141, 143 courses for credit, ix, 18, 20, 23, 28, 49, 50, 53, 61, 63, 66, 67, 84, 88, 89, 97, 102, 112, 115, 118 cultural, 8, 12, 17, 21, 22, 34, 36, 58, 63, 78, 85, 106, 141 culture, 13, 33, 39, 49, 55, 58, 78, 80, 88, 125, 131, 132, 134, 135, 163

Experimental College, 2, 3, 7 EYP, Inc., 13, 41, 42, 45, 71, 161 faculty, 4–6, 8, 10–14, 18–24, 27–29, 31–47, 49–57, 61–68, 70, 76, 77, 79–81, 83–89, 97, 98, 101, 103, 107, 108, 112–120, 121, 123, 127–35, 138–41, 143–49, 152, 153, 158–62, 164, 168, 169 faculty in residence, 57, 132 faculty recognition awards, 160 faculty-student interaction, 50, 53, 55, 158 Felten, P., 40, 144, 149, 158 Freshmen Interest Groups (FIGs) 13, 44–47, 61–63, 79, 80, 86, 89, 90, 133, 135 garden, 73, 80, 82, 114 goals and objectives, v, vii–ix, 8, 11, 18, 22–24, 27–32, 35, 44, 47, 48, 50, 53, 82, 83, 91–97, 99, 100, 107–109, 112, 113, 122–124, 142

democracy, 2, 3 Dooley, J., xiii, 144, 149, 158

high-achieving 55, 56 high-impact practices (HIPs), viii, x, xi, 2, 3, 12, 142, 148

engagement, ix, xiii, xv, 1, 5, 8, 21, 39, 42, 49, 50, 52, 57, 63, 64, 66, 82, 90, 132, 136, 141, 148, 151, 162, 164 environment, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 18–21, 23, 25, 28–30, 32, 36, 38–41, 49–51, 53, 55–58, 61, 63, 65–70, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 88, 91, 94, 98, 99, 103–06, 113, 117, 119, 122, 127, 128, 137, 140, 146, 152, 153, 165, 168 equity, x, 14, 127, 130, 141, 145, 146, 149 expectation(s), xi, 39, 40, 56, 57, 70, 71, 121 expenses, 113, 119, 124

infrastructure, 18–21, 23, 25, 27–29, 32, 43, 44, 47–50, 65, 79, 83, 84, 87, 89, 92, 98, 109, 112, 113, 115, 127 Inkelas, K., vii,1–3, 5, 6, 8, 10–13, 21, 30, 36–38, 43, 49, 56, 57, 68–70, 119, 120, 131, 146, 149, 158–61, 164, 167 inputs-environments-outcomes, 151 institutional champions, x, 127, 134, 141, 148 integration, 1–5, 7, 8, 11, 18, 19, 22–25, 28–32, 37, 38, 49, 50, 57, 66, 68, 69, 78, 81, 82, 84, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94–98, 107, 109, 112, 123, 124, 142, 145–47

Kurotoschi.indb 172

25-05-2018 20:31:25

INDEX

international, 8, 58, 59, 105, 127, 139, 140, 157, 160, 167, 168 intramural, 86, 87, 105 Jessup-Anger, J., vii, xiv, xv, 19, 29, 38, 41, 43, 49, 52, 54, 56, 58, 131, 132, 134, 149, 161, 165, 168 Kinzie, J., xi, xiii, 36, 53, 66, 136, 149, 162, 163 Kuh, G., 1, 53, 66, 90, 136, 137, 139, 142, 144, 159, 160, 162 land-grant, 3, 7, 152, 161 leadership, 8–10, 13, 28, 32, 39, 42, 44, 60, 61, 67, 78, 79, 82, 85, 88, 124, 135, 139, 141, 153, 168 learning, vii–xi, xii–xv, 1–8, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 24, 29, 30, 32, 36–43, 45, 49, 51, 53, 56, 60, 61, 65–72, 77, 78, 80–83, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 97, 100, 127–32, 135–49, 153, 154, 157–69 LGBTQ, 9 living-learning community (LLC), 1, 2, 5–8, 10–12, 14, 18–25, 27–38, 40–43, 48–60, 64, 65, 68–79, 81–88, 90–120, 122–25, 128, 130–33, 135–38, 141, 142, 144–48, 151–54 lounge, 13, 40, 45, 46, 57, 70, 79, 85, 86, 90 marginalized, 9, 35, 42, 127, 129, 130 Maslow, A., 17, 163 Meiklejohn, A., 2, 3 mission, 28, 31, 35, 36, 38, 44, 100, 143, 153 mortar, 18, 22, 24, 84, 91, 124, 148 multicultural, 8, 12, 21, 59, 130, 161 multiculturalism, 21, 57, 64, 120 non-tenure-track, 131

Kurotoschi.indb 173

173

National Study of Living-Learning Programs (NSLLP), 7, 10, 11, 17–21, 23, 29, 37, 42, 43, 48–50, 52, 54, 57, 59, 63, 65, 68, 74, 76, 79, 81, 82, 91, 111, 119, 121, 128, 136, 151, 152 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), 149 Pace University, 13, 25, 44–47, 61–63, 68, 78–81, 86, 89–90, 135 paraprofessional, 114–117 partnership, 8, 10, 11, 19, 22, 29, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 44, 46, 117, 138, 145, 146, 165 pedagogical, 3, 35, 144 pedagogy, 37, 39 peer mentors, 60, 63, 70, 71, 78, 82, 115, 116, 148, 157, 165 perception(s), 21, 39, 69, 148, 151, 153, 165 pinnacle, 18, 22, 28, 50, 66, 83, 84, 88, 89, 91, 123, 127, 145 practitioners, 12, 25, 88, 128, 129, 131, 144, 145, 149, 158, 165 professional, 10, 12, 19, 33, 74–77, 84, 85, 98, 114, 116, 119, 125, 132–34, 138–40, 162, 168 psychological, 35, 59, 162 psychology, 40, 51, 70, 157, 159 psychosocial, 54 pyramid, 17–19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 83, 88, 91, 92, 109, 145, 147, 148, 162 qualitative, 17, 56, 94, 124, 153 quantitative, 17, 20, 94 residential learning communities, xiii, 4, 8, 132, 157–159, 163, 168 resources, 3–5, 10, 12, 18, 19, 24, 27–29, 37–39, 42, 43, 45–48, 50, 51, 64–66, 70, 76, 77, 84, 87, 93–97, 99, 101, 109–13, 116,

25-05-2018 20:31:25

174

INDEX

123–25, 128–30, 134, 138, 139, 142, 143, 147, 148 responsibilities, 19, 27, 33, 34, 60, 71, 72, 85, 113, 116, 117, 121, 123, 124 Returning to Our Roots, 3, 161 Residence Life and Housing (RLH), 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 21–23, 27, 32–34, 36–39, 42, 43, 48–50, 70, 71, 84–86, 98, 109, 111, 113–17, 121–23, 125, 134, 136, 139 salary, 47, 113, 116–18, 123 scholar-in-residence, 168 scholars, vii, 6, 9, 51, 86, 144 scholarship, 131, 157, 159, 160 Schuh, J., 5, 15, 36, 66, 93, 96, 162–65 self-actualization, 17 self-awareness, 140 self-confidence, 151 self-development, 141 self-efficacy, 76, 163, 164 seminar, 53, 57, 95, 136, 137, 168 sense of belonging, 62, 63, 64, 119–121, 129, 141, 151 service-learning, viii, 8, 22, 23, 71, 72, 78, 84, 90, 91, 119, 120, 136–38, 144, 147, 155, 161 social-cognitive, 164

Kurotoschi.indb 174

socialization, 34, 35 sociocultural, 21, 56 socioeconomic, 144, 151 stakeholders, 47, 81, 93, 96, 98, 99, 101, 111–12, 115 student-faculty, 20, 38, 54 sustainability, 3, 8, 14, 27, 32, 33, 36, 48, 81, 140, 145, 146–47 teaching, 2, 5, 6, 11, 20, 22, 24, 28, 33, 34, 40, 45, 50, 52, 53, 61, 70, 77, 80, 107, 108, 117–18, 128, 131, 133, 135, 138, 148, 149, 157, 159, 160, 167 tenure, 28, 29, 34, 118, 119, 131, 133–35 tenure-track, 118, 119, 131, 133 typology, 8, 10, 17, 36–38, 158, 160, 165 undergraduate 1–4, 6, 12, 20, 29, 40, 44, 52, 72, 120, 136, 138, 143, 144, 147, 151, 158, 160–64, 167 underrepresented 129, 144, 163, 167 Wawrzynski, M., vii, xiv, xv, 19, 21, 29, 34, 38–43, 49, 53–58, 69, 70, 161, 165, 168, 169

25-05-2018 20:31:25

Kurotoschi.indb 175

25-05-2018 20:31:25

The Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I) is a professional association that serves a global membership of higher education institutions representing all types and sizes. Founded in 1952 and home to more than 17,000 professionals, ACUHO-I is the leading organization of choice for campus housing and residence life professionals worldwide because it enhances their work to continuously optimize on-campus student living environments. With credible benchmarking data, research, and talking points, ACUHO-I demonstrates the positive impact that campus housing and residence life has on student recruitment, retention, growth, and achievement. ACUHO-I helps campus housing departments to elevate their profile, prioritize their needs, and inform the decisions that boost the reputation of their entire institution. ACUHO-I invests significant resources in the development of educational resources, research products, leadership tools, and training programs that housing departments can use to persuade influencers, perform better, and produce exceptional campus housing and residence life solutions. Among the professional development opportunities available to all members are an informative magazine, academic journal, content-rich conferences, focused institutes, a robust online community, and more all geared to help professionals prepare for challenges, gain skills, and amplify their voice. For more information about membership or opportunities to advance global practices for on-campus student living, please visit acuho-i.org.

Kurotoschi.indb 176

25-05-2018 20:31:25