Incorporating Advisement, First Year Seminar and Freshman Writing into the Student Living Learning Community
Incorporating
Advisement, First
Year Seminar and
Freshman Writing
into the Student
Living Learning
Community
Lisa Bortman, Dean of First Year Programs and Advising
Charles Eastman, Director of the Writing Program
Whittier College Whittier, California
This assessment model was a joint effort
between the Dean of First Year Programs and
the Writing Department
The model was a comprehensive assessment that examined
the first year programs: academics, advising residential life
Benefits • Examine the student experience in its entirety
• Combined efforts
• Input and Analysis from more than one
perspective
Two Year Study
• 2006-2007
• 2007-2008
We combined our assessment effort with the
Assessment Committee’s examination of our
Liberal Education Program—the “4 C’s.”
Whittier College: Study Site
Whittier College is a four-year, independent, residential, liberal arts college
Interdisciplinary programs, and diverse student population
59 % of the faculty are men and 41 percent are women
20 % belong to minority and international ethnic groups
The student-faculty ratio is 13 to 1.
As of fall 2006, Whittier College enrolls 1,427 students from 16 states
55% are women and 45% are men. 41% percent are American minorities,
and 5% are international students
More than 27 % of Whittier’s student body is Hispanic—one of the highest
percentages among the 73 independent colleges in California.
Whittier College: Integrated First Year Experience
• Associate Dean of First Year Programs
• Director of Writing Programs
• Faculty Based Advising ----- First Year Advisors -- Mentors
• Clustered Freshman Writing Course
Freshman Writing, 3 credit course
Housed in Interdisciplinary Studies
Linked with another First year Course
Class size – 16 or less
All classes have a peer mentor
27 sections offered fall 2007
Freshman Writing Seminar (non-writing faculty)
• Living Learning Communities
• Peer Mentors
• Poet to Poet Seminar
Assessment Model: Research
Based
The assessment culture at Whittier emphasizes a
research model:
Step One: pose a research question
Step Two: Develop a method
Step Three: Decide on analysis
Step Three: Reflect on Results
Step Four: Discuss and report to
a wider audience
Step Five: Recommend and adopt change
Our Question Are students academically engaged and socially
integrated having gone through the first year
programs at Whittier College?
Theory: Good educational practice leads to Academic
Engagement and Involvement.
Indicators of engagement and involvement are
Engaged in Academics
Development of Faculty/Advisor- Student relationships
Student to Student relationships
Academic Engagement
Programs • First Year Writing
Program
• Clustered First Year
Courses
• Living Learning
Communities
• Peer Mentor
Program
Theoretical Framework
• Academic Performance
• Faculty Student
Relationships
• Student to Student
Relationships
Academic Involvement Alexander Astin 1984
Academic Involvement
• “Refers to the quantity and quality of the physical and
psychological energy that students invest in college
experience”
• Greater involvement leads to greater learning and personal
development
• Examples: enrollment in classes, studying, attendance
Academic Engagement
George Kuh 1998
Academic Engagement is: The extent to which students take part in educationally productive activities that are linked to desired outcomes of college.
Kuh (2003) states “ students who are involved in educationally productive activities in college are developing habits of the mind and heart that enlarge their capacity for continuous learning and personal development” (p.8).
Writing Across the Curriculum
• The freshman writing seminars at Whittier College are organized on the “Writing Across the Curriculum” model.
• “Writing Across the Curriculum” (or “WAC”) is difficult to define succinctly.
W.A.C.: UNDERLYING IDEALS
• C. W. Griffin, surveying 194 programs in "Programs for Writing Across the Curriculum: A Report" (1985), identified three recurrent ideals which form a core WAC ethos: 1) Writing must be practiced and reinforced throughout the curriculum in order to maintain skills learned at the beginning of one’s education; 2) To write is to learn; and 3) Since written discourse is central to higher education, the quality of student writing is a university-wide responsibility. (398-403)
W.A.C. and ENGAGEMENT
• As Karen Spear describes it in “Controversy and Consensus in Freshman Writing: An Overview of the Field” (1997), the increasing acceptance of WAC has been accompanied by a shift in focus within composition programs from the production of documents to the use of process and interaction to deepen and extend learning, the building of communities of faculty and students across disciplines, and the development of better critical thinking and engagement (322-3; 332-4).
Methodology: Qualitative Component
• Phenomenological
• A gathering and analysis of student perspectives
Two Strands of Academic Engagement and Involvement
Pedagogical
Practices
Relationship between
student-focused classroom
practices and engagement and
involvement
Relational Dimensions
Academic interactions
and relationships,
between….
Students and their faculty/advisor
Students and their peer mentors and classmates
Measurements
Data were derived through multiple means
Overlapped questions and asked
multiple times in each tool
2006-2007
• 2 questionnaires (fall)
• 1 questionnaire (spring)
• 2 surveys/writing evaluation (fall)
• classroom observations (fall)
• focus groups (fall)
• review of course materials
• NSSE
• WABASH
2007-2008
• 1 questionnaire (fall)
• 2 questionnaires (spring)
• 2 surveys/writing evaluation (fall)
• classroom observations
• focus groups (fall and spring)
• review of course materials
• Questionnaire of Faculty
opinions/perspective
• NSSE
Qualitative Analysis
Constant Comparative Analysis
• Axial Coding: initial categories were developed from a Pilot Study
• Open Coding: during the analysis new categories were identified
• Researcher and two Research Assistants coded the questionnaires
Analysis: Pattern Matching Involved the predication that pedagogical practices as well as the
interactions occurring with faculty and among students affect
academic involvement and engagement in First Year Programs
Writing Program Assessments
Portfolio-based assessment of student skill growth
Quantitative survey (end of semester— also serves as course evaluation)
Student evaluations of peer mentors
Student focus groups
Class observations
FRESHMAN WRITING PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FALL 2007
• A sample of 39 freshman writing students, representing a little over 10% of the incoming freshman class, was selected randomly for this assessment by the writing director. One paper from each student was included in the portfolio. The evaluations were conducted by a team of six faculty.
• The following areas were assessed:
• This paper is grammatically and mechanically sound at the sentence level. (GM)
• This paper has a coherent, developable thesis. (TH)
• The thesis for this paper is adequately supported and developed. (SD)
• This author employs a style comprehensible to all members of the Whittier College community. (CS)
• The author incorporates, cites, and documents material from external sources appropriately in this paper. (DS)
• The author is aware of multiple perspectives on his/her topic. (MP)
• The author is able to define relationships between elements of a problem. (ANL)
• The author is able to synthesize ideas and information from multiple sources. (SYN)
• The scale for evaluation was as follows:
• 6=Very Well Demonstrated
• 5=Well Demonstrated
• 4=Mostly Demonstrated
• 3=Occasionally Demonstrated
• 2=Minimally Demonstrated
• 1=Inadequately Demonstrated
Summary Data on Fall 2007 FWS Evaluation
Raw Data
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Means
Grammar/Mechanics 2 4 14 48 38 11 117 4.3
Thesis 2 5 8 39 51 12 117 4.4
Support/Development 4 14 20 40 33 6 117 3.9
Comprehensible style 2 9 16 32 41 17 117 4.3
Documentation 10 16 22 35 24 9 116 3.6
Multiple Perspectives 5 14 26 45 21 6 117 3.7
Analysis 1 7 31 37 30 11 117 4.0
Synthesis 12 19 22 33 26 5 117 3.5
Total 38 88 159 309 264 77 935 4.0
Biographical Information
Demographics
Fall 2006 12
weeks
Male 115
Female 165
Instate 173
Out-of-State 100
Resident 224
Commuter 47
Demographics
Fall 2007 #
Female 121
Male 100
In State 124
Out State 70
N/A 27
N 221
Demographics
Fall 2006 4-5
weeks
Male 110
Female 146
Instate 152
Out-of-State 85
Resident 207
Commuter 46
Demographics
Spring 2008
Female 84 50.0%
Male 84 50.0%
In-State 54.8% 54.8%
Out-of-
State 37.5% 37.5%
No
Respons
e 7.7% 7.7%
African-
American 7 4.2%
Asian 11 6.5%
Caucasia
n 97 57.7%
Hispanic 28 16.7%
Other 25 14.9%
Pedagogical
Practices Results
Pedagogy: Discussions Fall 2006, Week 4-5
Qualitative
Question 3: Do you participate in classroom discussions?
Question 3: Do you participate in classroom discussions?
N 254
Y 211 79 %
N 43 16 %
Voice Opinion 79 30%
Ask Questions 32 12 %
Answer Questions 50 19 %
Feedback/Reflections/Roundtable discussions 106 40 %
3b. Reason for Participation
(267 comments)
CODE
D
0
50
100
150
200
250211
43
79
32 50
106
Pedagogy: Discussions Fall 2007, week 12
Qualitative
2. When classroom discussions occur do you participate? Explain
When classroom discussion occur do you participate?
Positive Comments 11 4.98%
Frequently 12 5.43%
Often 28 12.67%
Infrequently 27 12.22%
When I Have an answer 28 12.67%
When interested 50 22.62%
Positive remark about the teacher 6 2.71%
Positive remark about the class 15 6.79%
Positive remark about classmate 0 0.00%
Positive remark about self 44 19.91%
221 100.00%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Classroom discussions
Pedagogy: Discussions
Spring 2008, 12 weeks
Qualitative
Do you actively participate in your classes?
Active Participation in Classes
Y 153 92.7%
N 12 7.3%
0
50
100
150
200
Y N
153
12
Number of Responses
Q16 Count Percentages
0 15 6.4%
1 26 11.0%
2 81 34.3%
3 114 48.3%
Total 236 100.0%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 1 2 3
15 26
81
114
Count
Percentages
Pedagogy: Discussions
Fall 2006 Evaluative Survey
Question 16: In this Course class discussions are
o=completely unhelpful 1=not very helpful 2=somewhat helpful 3= extremely helpful
Average 3.191 Percentage
4 90 41%
3 89 40.6%
2 32 14.6%
1 8 3.8%
Total 219 100%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
90 89
32
8
Pedagogy: Discussions
Fall 2007 Evaluative Survey
Question 16: In this Course class discussions are
1=completely unhelpful 2=not very helpful 3=somewhat helpful 4= extremely helpful
Pedagogy: Discussions Spring 2008 Evaluative Survey
I participate in…
Participate in:
Classroom Discussion 147 87.5%
Out of class, course related 124 73.8%
Group work 152 90.5%
Ask questions in Class 141 83.9%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160 147
124
152 141
Number of Responces
Percentage
Academic Challenge
Fall 2006 How challenged are you academically in ALL of your classes and course work?
Very Challenged 4 3 2 1 Not Challenged
Question 5. How challenged are you
academically in your classes and course
work?
N 276
Four-Excellent 77 27.90%
Three 146 52.90%
Two 48 17.39%
One-Poor 5 1.81%
276 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Four-Excellent Three Two One-Poor
Fall 2006 Q5
Academic Challenge
Fall 2007
How challenged are you academically in ALL of your classes and course work?
Very Challenged 4 3 2 1 Not Challenged
Academically
Challenged in ALL
classes # %
Very challenged
4 69 31.08%
3 116 52.25%
2 32 14.41%
Not Challenged
1 5 2.26%
222
100.00
%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
69
116
32
5
Academic Challenge
Academic Challenge
Academic Challenge
Spring 2008
How Challenged Are You Academically?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 (Not Challenged) 2 3 4 (VeryChallenged)
5
29
75
53
How Challenged Are You Academically
1 (Not Challenged) 5 3.1%
2 29 17.9%
3 75 46.3%
4 (Very Challenged) 53 32.7%
Fall 2006 Evaluative Survey Question 8: In this course I was able to…Ask questions whenever I wanted to:
0= strong disagreement 1=mild disagreement 2=mild agreement 3=strong agreement
Q8 Count Percentages
0 6 2.5%
1 7 3.0%
2 42 17.8%
3 181 76.7%
Total 236 100.0%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 1 2 3
6 7
42
181
Fall 2007 Evaluative Survey Question 8
In this course I was able to…Ask questions whenever I wanted to:
1= strong disagreement 2=mild disagreement 3=mild agreement 4=strong agreement
Average 3.5409 Percentage
4 150 68%
3 44 20%
2 21 10%
1 5 2%
Total 220 100%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160 150
44
21
5 68% 20% 10% 2%
Q10 Count Percentages
0 10 4.2%
1 25 10.5%
2 63 26.6%
3 139 58.6%
Total 237 100.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
01
23
Total
10 25
63
139
237
4.20% 10.50%
26.60% 58.60%
100.00%
Fall 2006 Evaluative Survey Question 10: In this Course I Understand how the assignments related to each
other
0= strong disagreement 1=mild disagreement 2=mild agreement 3=strong
N237
Fall 2007 Evaluative Survey In this Course I Understand how the assignments related to each other
1= strong disagreement 2=mild disagreement 3=mild agreement 4=strong agreement
Average 3.371 Percentage
4 117 53%
3 73 33%
2 27 12%
1 4 2%
Total 221 100%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4
117
73
27
4 53% 33% 12% 2%
Q13 Count Percentages
0 10 4.2%
1 24 10.1%
2 61 25.7%
3 142 59.9%
Total 237 100.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 Total
10 24
61
142
237
4.20% 10.10% 25.70% 59.90% 100.00%
Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey Question 13: : In this Course I get responses to my writing assignments in a reasonable
length of time
0= strong disagreement 1=mild disagreement 2=mild agreement 3=strong agreement
N 237
Fall 2007, Evaluative Survey In this Course I Get responses to my writing assignments in a reasonable length of time
1= strong disagreement 2=mild disagreement 3=mild agreement 4=strong agreement
Average 3.542 Percentage
4 147 67%
3 51 23%
2 19 8%
1 4 2%
Total 221 100% 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160147
51
19
4
Number of Responces
Percentage
Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey Question 22: My professor’s comments on my papers
0=completely unhelpful 1=not very helpful 2=somewhat helpful 3= extremely helpful
Q22 Count Percentages
0 5 2.10%
1 21 8.90%
2 68 28.70%
3 143 60.30%
Total 237 100.00%
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 Total
5 21
68
143
237
2.10% 8.90% 28.70% 60.30% 100.00%
Fall 2007, Evaluative Survey My professor’s comments on my papers
1=completely unhelpful 2=not very helpful 3=somewhat helpful 4= extremely helpful
Average 3.418182 Percentage
4 125 57%
3 67 30%
2 23 10%
1 5 3%
Total 220 100%
0
50
100
150
200
250
4 3 2 1 Total
125
67
23
5
220
57% 30% 10% 3% 100%
Q14 Count Percentages
0 10 4.3%
1 20 8.5%
2 46 19.6%
3 159 67.7%
Total 235 100.0% 0
50
100
150
200
250
01
23
Total
10 20 46
159
235
4.30% 8.50%
19.60%
67.70%
100.00%
Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey In this Course I confer with my teacher outside of class
0= strong disagreement 1=mild disagreement 2=mild agreement 3=strong agreement
N 235
Fall 2007, Evaluative Survey In this Course I confer with my teacher outside of class
1= strong disagreement 2=mild disagreement 3=mild agreement 4=strong agreement
Average 3.502 Percentage
4 143 65%
3 50 23%
2 19 9%
1 7 3%
Total 219 100%
0
50
100
150
200
250
4 3 2 1 Total
143
50
19 7
219
65% 23% 9% 3% 100%
Results Pedagogical Practices
This study found that students are more likely to
become actively engaged and involved in academics when they
• Participated in classroom discussions
• Found the discussions to be meaningful
• Collaborated productively
Results
Pedagogical Practices STUDENTS Had intellectual exchanges with their faculty member
and peers
Receive feedback from their faculty member
Felt supported intellectually by their classroom environment
RELATIONAL DIMENSION
Relational Dimension: Faculty
• Astin (1993) states, “Student-faculty interaction also has positive correlations with every self-reported area of intellectual and personal growth, as well as with a variety of personality and attitudinal outcomes” (p. 383)
• Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) state that the type of interaction matters. They speculate that for interactions to have a positive effect they must be more than superficial; they must be meaningful for students.
Relational Dimension: Faculty
what does the research tell us?
• Students who have frequent interactions with faculty members both in and out of class
• are more satisfied with their education,
• are less likely to leave college, and
• perceive themselves to have learned more than students who did not have this experience.
• Contact between students and faculty, through discussion and the sharing of ideas, results in enhanced intellectual commitment.
(Chickering & Gamson,1987; Cross,1998; Light, 2000)
Fall 2006, Questionnaire, Week 4-5
Relationship with Mentor-Advisor
Qualitative
Description of the type of relationship
N 275
Caring/Dependable/Approachable/Easy to talk
to/Friendly/ Supportive/Trustworthy
Helpful/Knowledgeable/Available 230 84 %
Not Helpful/Not Available
Not Caring/Not Approachable/Not Comfortable 45 16 %
N 247
Great 62 25 %
Good 95 38 %
Okay 29 12 %
Neutral 25 10 %
Not Good 24 10 %
No Response 12 5 %
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Great Good Okay Neutral Not Good No Response
62
95
29 25 24
12 25% 38% 12% 10% 10% 5%
Fall 2006, Questionnaire, Week 4-5 Relationship with Mentor-
Advisor
N 280
Four-Excellent 110 39 %
Three 117 42 %
Two 37 13 %
One-Poor 16 6 %
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
110 117
37
16
39% 42%
13% 6%
Fall 2006, Questionnaire,
Week 12-13
How do you view your relationship with your mentor?
Fall 2007
Relationship with Mentor
Relationship with Faculty Mentor
Great 17 8.59%
Good 29 14.65%
Dependable 3 1.52%
Caring/Supportive 5 2.52%
Helpful/Knowledgeable 39 19.70%
Approachable/Easy to talk to 48 24.23%
Not Helpful/Available 4 2.02%
Not Caring 2 1.00%
Not Approachable 11 5.56%
Have not met 1 0.51%
Teacher student relationship 15 7.58%
No Difference 24 12.12%
Total 198 100.00%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Relationship w/ Mentor
Spring 2008,
Questionnaire - Overall Relationship with Mentor
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 (Poor) 2 3 4 (Good)
20
32 56 48
Overall Relationship with Mentor
1 (Poor) 20 12.8%
2 32 20.5%
3 56 35.9%
4 (Good) 48 30.8%
Fall 2006 Questionnaire, Week 4-5, High Expectations
Question 5 : Has the faculty instructors given you any indication of what his or her expectations are
regarding your academic success in college? If so what is it and how do you know this?
High/Positive 130 94 %
Low 9 6 %
0
50
100
150
Fall 2006, Questionnaire, Week 4-5
High Expectations -- If so, how do you know this? N 318
One-on-one Meetings 61 19 %
Emails 16 5 %
During Class 105 33 %
Syllabi 32 10 %
Not Communicated 93 29 %
No Response 11 3 %
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Question 5 : If so,how do youknow this?
One-on-oneMeetings
Emails During Class Syllabi NotCommunicated
No Response
High expectations 2007
Fall 2007
Talk About Success 70 42.68%
Don't Know/ No 33 20.12% Talk about Academic Expectations 29 17.68%
Expectation for class 26 15.85%
Talk About Goals 5 3.07% Discuss fears & transition issues 1 0.60%
Group 0 0.00%
Discuss Responsibility 0 0.00%
164 100.00%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fall 2007 Q3
Fall 2007 Q3
Spring 2008, Questionnaire
Faculty Indications of Academic Success
100
51
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Y N
Series1
Faculty Indications of Academic Success
Y 100 66.2%
N 51 33.8%
Results: Faculty-Student
Major Findings
• They viewed faculty as caring, concerned, available and accessible
• They believed faculty were interested in their learning and had high expectations for their success in college
Relational Dimension: Faculty
Results
Students reported to have Rich Academic Relationships
• Caring, Supportive, Helpful
• Dependable, Accessible, Available
• Interested in their education
• Held high expectations
• “Felt Closer” “Easy to talk to” “I can ask her anything”
Relational Dimension: High Expectations
Results
High Expectations
In 2006, 77% of the students that responded reported faculty had high expectations for them and that faculty were interested in their learning.
Peer Mentor
Q8 COUNT %
0 4 2%
1 8 4%
2 6 11%
3 59 26%
4 130 57%
TOTAL 227
0
100
200
1 2 34
5
4 8 6 59
130
2% 4% 11% 26% 57%
Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey Did you feel comfortable talking to your peer mentor about questions on class
readings?
0
50
100
150
200
250
01
23
4TOTAL
15 10 35
75 89
224
7% 3%
16% 33%
40%
Q13 COUNT %
0 15 7%
1 10 3%
2 35 16%
3 75 33%
4 89 40%
TOTAL 224
Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey Overall, I would rate my peer mentor's effectiveness in helping me
adjust to Whittier
Q9 COUNT %
0 5 2
1 8 4
2 21 9
3 51 22
4 140 62
TOTAL 225
0
50
100
150
200
250
01
23
4TOTAL
5 8 21 51
140
225
2 4 9 22
62
COUNT %
Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey Did you feel comfortable talking to your peer mentor about writing
questions?
0
50
100
150
200
250
01
23
4TOTAL
7 6 21
59
124
217
Q10 COUNT %
0 7 3
1 6 3
2 21 10
3 59 27
4 124 57
TOTAL 217
Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey Did you feel comfortable talking to your peer mentor about study skills questions?
Fall 2007
Relationship with Peer Mentor
Excellent 4 93 41.89%
3 88 39.64%
2 35 15.77%
Poor 1 6 2.70%
0
50
100
150
200183
60 40
121
196
58 54
139
Peer Mentor/Tutor
Peer TutorInteractions
Peer MentorInteractions
Relationship with Peer Tutor
Excellent 4 24 10.86%
3 46 20.81%
2 74 33.49%
Poor 1 77 34.84%
Peer Mentor Interactions
Poet to Poet Seminar 196 43.85% Individual conference out of c lass 58 12.85%
Individual conference in class 54 12.08%
Group meeting w/ classmates 139 31.09%
Peer Tutor Interactions
Poet to Poet Seminar 183 45.30% I individual conference out of c lass 60 14.85%
Individual conference in class 40 9.90%
Group meeting w/ classmates 121 29.95%
0
20
40
60
80
100
24
46
74 77 93 88
35
6
Peer Tutor/Mentor Relationship
Peer Tutor Relationship
Relationship with PeerMentor
Focus Groups
Valuable information about peer
relationships and peer mentors
Relational Dimension: Peer Mentor
Results
The role is somewhat unique to First Year Programs
identified with students—same institution, same experience, close to the same time
Represented success, successful transition
Peer Mentors provided a rationale for students to
establish a level of confidence, enough so to take the
risk of becoming involved through participation in class
discussion and sharing their views and expressing their
opinions
Relational Dimension: Peer Mentor
Peer Mentors ▫ Developing new knowledge requires taking risks.
Seeking help from the Peer Mentors was less
threatening.
▫ When the Peer Mentor was not active –students
expressed disappointment, reported they were not
useful.
▫ They perceived the Peer Mentors were interested in
their learning and success and had high
expectations for them.
Relational Dimension: Peer Mentor
When the relationship doesn’t
work….
Good Intentions Gone Bad
Poet to Poet Seminar……
Living Learning
Communities
Student to Student Relationships
Fall 2006, Open Ended 4 weeks Relationship with your Living Learning Community:
Describe your overall relationship with your Living Learning Community
members/classmates
N 252
Good/Like them/ Friendly 180 71 %
Positive to Neutral (okay) 45 18 %
Not Good 16 6 %
Do Not like Class 1 0 %
No Response 10 3 %
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Good/Likethem/ Friendly
Positive toNeutral (okay)
Not Good Do Not like Class No Response
Fall 2006, Open Ended 4 weeks
Type of relationship with Living Learning Community
8b.Type of relationship with Living Learning Community
N 152
Socialize together 85 56%
Study together 44 29%
Do Not Hang out together 23 15%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Socializetogether
Study together Do Not Hang outtogether
Series1
Fall 2007
What has been the most positive aspect of living together and taking classes
together?
What has been the most positive aspect of living together and taking classes together?
Fall 2007
Socialize together/ few friends 83
Study together 44
Helpful 37
No Answer 37
OK/ neutral 10
Does not live with them 5
Living situation is good 4
Good I like them 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Socializetogether/
few friends
Studytogether
Helpful No Answer OK/neutral
Does notlive with
them
Livingsituation is
good
Good I likethem
Fall 2007
What has been the most negative aspect of living
together and taking classes together?
What has been the most negative aspect of living together and taking classes together?
None 88
Get tired of each other 63
No Answer 35
N/A or live in separate dorm 6
Don't study with them 4
Don't socialize with/ Don't like them 2
197
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
None Get tired ofeach other
No Answer N/A or live inseparate
dorm
Don't studywith them
Don'tsocialize with/
Don't likethem
Series1
Spring 2008 Survey
Living Learning Community Relationship
124
102
113
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Take ClassesTogether
Study Together Socialize Together
Series1
Living Learning Community Relationship
Take Classes Together 124 73.8%
Study Together 102 60.7%
Socialize Together 113 67.3%
Living Learning Communities
Focus Groups
2006-2007
• Focus groups students reported that the LLC’s provided an instant group of friends and students to study with
• Enormous stress reliever
• Helped with academics
• Supported each other
• Studied in the residence halls
• Looked out for each other
2007-2008
• Same as 2006
• They continued to be friendly
and study together
• Immensely valuable to their
transition in the first year
Conclusions on LLC
• Students reported that having that immediate peer group
was more positive than the limitation of being with the same
people in 2 classes and living together
• Focus groups supported this conclusion
• The studied and socialized together
• Spring they met new students in their other classes but kept
their friendships with their LLC’s
Fall 2006
Best Experience to Date
4-5 weeks
What has been your best experience to date?
Week 4-5
N 286
Social Aspect 110 38 %
Clubs/Activities/Societies (K-Poets, Pres.
Dinner, Convocation, homecoming) 38 13%
Sports 35 12%
Teachers/Classes/Academics 31 11%
Residence Hall/Living Learning Community 12 4 %
None Yet 23 8%
Being Independent 12 4 %
No Answer 25 8 %
Fall 2006
Most positive aspect
12-13 weeks What has been the most positive aspect of your education to date?
Week 12-13
N 238
Faculty/Staff/Tutors/Mentors/Advisors (available help) 67 28 %
Academic (s)-Structure/Classes 96 40 %
Social Aspect/Events/Living Learning Community 52 22 %
Independence/Finances (scholarships/awards)/Working 18 8 %
Resources 5 2 %
Fall 2006
Challenge at week 4-5 Question 15: What has been your biggest challenge to date?
Question 15: What has been your biggest challenge to date?
Week 4-5
N 272
Academics 132 48 %
Money/Finances/Working 6 2 %
Transition/Homesick 26 9 %
Time Management 53 19 %
Friends/drama/conflicts 11 4 %
Residence Hall/Living Learning
Community 19 7 %
Athletics 7 3 %
Being on Campus 3 1 %
No Answer 15 5 %
Fall 2007 General
What has been your best experience to date? What has been your best experience to date?
Social 84
Activities 34
Sports 33
Academics 14
Teachers (+)/ mentors 13
No answer/ Don't know 12
Whole thing 10
Good relationships/friends for life 7
Self-sufficient/ Independence 7
Work 4
NWC 4
222
What did we do with all of this
data???
Reporting and Sharing
Everyone loves good news…..
Tie it in with retention numbers and exit interviews
Change!!!!
• Peer Mentor Program
• Writing Instructor Training
• Choice of Writing Instructors
• Whittier Seminar
• Advising
LIMITATIONS of our Findings
• Study was conducted at a single institution
• Not a Random Sample
• Self-selected faculty
CONCLUSION
Assessment
Joint effort
– Was comprehensive
– Good use of time
– Better analysis
– Better buy in
Our Study…
Supportive academic
relationships with faculty
advisors and peer mentors
encourage involvement and
engagement
• Use of student focused
pedagogies encourage
involvement and engagement
• Peer Mentors were models for
involvement and engagement
Thank-You!