CHAPTER 1: Introduction - Catholic Universities



THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES AND RETENTIONA dissertation submittedbyIAN MILLERtoBenedictine Universityin partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of EducationinHigher Education and Organizational ChangeThis dissertation has been accepted for the facultyof Benedictine University__________________________Andrew Carson, Ph.D.________Dissertation Committee DirectorDate__________________________Anne Cubilie, Ph.D.________Dissertation Committee ChairDate__________________________Amanda Turner, Ph.D.________Dissertation Committee ReaderDate__________________________Sunil Chand, Ph.D. ________Program Director, FacultyDate__________________________Eileen Kolich, Ph.D.________FacultyDate___________________________Ethel Ragland, Ed.D., M.N.,R.N. __________Dean, College of Education and Health Services DateACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to acknowledge all the individuals who have helped and supported me through this long and challenging journey. My committee members—Dr. Andrew Carson, Dr. Amanda Turner, and Dr. Anne Cubilie—have provided an enormous amount of encouragement for me to finish this dissertation. I would also like to mention my family—Grace, Jethro, and Bert—who supported me through many long nights of researching, typing, and being grumpy. To my supervisor, Jenna Hyatt, who has been on a similar journey and understands what it means to be a doctoral student and a full-time employee. Additionally, to Richard DeShields, Eric Scott, John Mounsey, and Anna Cairns who have been so supportive. The process of completing this dissertation has been an experience I will never forget. Thank you to Dr. Sunil Chand, Dr. Eileen Kolich, and the wonderful faculty of the Ed.D. Program at Benedictine University.TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u CHAPTER 1: Introduction PAGEREF _Toc467513006 \h 7Statement of the Problem PAGEREF _Toc467513007 \h 10Theories of retention PAGEREF _Toc467513008 \h 10Theories of living-learning communities PAGEREF _Toc467513009 \h 11Purpose of Study PAGEREF _Toc467513010 \h 12Hypotheses PAGEREF _Toc467513011 \h 14Importance of the Study PAGEREF _Toc467513012 \h 15Contributions to research and literature PAGEREF _Toc467513013 \h 15Who will benefit and be interested? PAGEREF _Toc467513014 \h 16Summary. PAGEREF _Toc467513015 \h 16CHAPTER 2: Literature Review PAGEREF _Toc467513016 \h 17Theories of Retention PAGEREF _Toc467513017 \h 17History of Living-Learning Communities PAGEREF _Toc467513018 \h 19Structure of Living-Learning Communities PAGEREF _Toc467513019 \h 22Linked courses PAGEREF _Toc467513020 \h 23Clustered courses PAGEREF _Toc467513021 \h 23Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs). PAGEREF _Toc467513022 \h 24Federated learning communities and coordinated studies PAGEREF _Toc467513023 \h 24Curricular learning communities PAGEREF _Toc467513024 \h 24Classroom learning communities PAGEREF _Toc467513025 \h 25Special population or Student-type learning communities PAGEREF _Toc467513026 \h 26Residence-based programs (LLCs). PAGEREF _Toc467513027 \h 28Challenges of creating and sustaining living learning communities PAGEREF _Toc467513028 \h 30Research Studies of Living-Learning Communities PAGEREF _Toc467513029 \h 35Outcome-oriented studies. PAGEREF _Toc467513030 \h 35Practice-oriented studies. PAGEREF _Toc467513031 \h 37Living-Learning Communities Today PAGEREF _Toc467513032 \h 38Summary PAGEREF _Toc467513033 \h 39CHAPTER 3: Methodology PAGEREF _Toc467513034 \h 41Introduction PAGEREF _Toc467513035 \h 41Participants PAGEREF _Toc467513036 \h 41Instrumentation PAGEREF _Toc467513037 \h 43Data Collection PAGEREF _Toc467513038 \h 43Constructs PAGEREF _Toc467513039 \h 44Data Analysis PAGEREF _Toc467513040 \h 46Delimitations PAGEREF _Toc467513041 \h 48Limitations PAGEREF _Toc467513042 \h 49CHAPTER 4: Results and Analysis PAGEREF _Toc467513043 \h 50Introduction PAGEREF _Toc467513044 \h 50CHAPTER 5: Discussion PAGEREF _Toc467513045 \h 55Summary PAGEREF _Toc467513046 \h 55Interpretation of results PAGEREF _Toc467513047 \h 55Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Future Research PAGEREF _Toc467513048 \h 60REFERENCES PAGEREF _Toc467513049 \h 63Appendix A: Colleges and Universities with LLCs PAGEREF _Toc467513050 \h 77Appendix B: Learning Community Typologies PAGEREF _Toc467513051 \h 79Appendix C: Living-Learning Community Definitions PAGEREF _Toc467513052 \h 80Appendix D: Successfully Created LLC PAGEREF _Toc467513053 \h 81Appendix E: LLC Research Studies PAGEREF _Toc467513054 \h 82Appendix F: Participant Study Descriptive Statistics PAGEREF _Toc467513055 \h 86Appendix G: Retention factors and LLC status PAGEREF _Toc467513056 \h 92ABSTRACTStudent retention is one of the key outcome variables in higher education. It suggests the presence of student success and satisfaction (Levitz, Noel, & Richter, 1999). It also serves as one of the most visible institutional performance indicators (Kahrig, 2005), important from the perspectives of accreditation (given its correlation with graduation rates) as well as the business survival of an institution.This study focused on determining whether or not residential first-year freshman students in a living-learning community (LLC) were retained at a higher rate than those not in one. The study focused on a single, public, comprehensive university located in the Pacific Northwest. Data were collected using archival data from the Making Achievement Possible (MAP)-Works First Year Fall Transition Survey (MAP-Works) administered during fall 2014.The results indicated no significant association between LLC status and retention. Specifically, LLCs do not appear to result in improved retention at the institution studied. Follow-up research may seek replication at other institutions. Additional recommendations for research are suggested. This study has implications for theories of student retention in higher education, the rationale of LLC design, and choices in higher education funding.CHAPTER 1: IntroductionOver the last 30 years, United States higher education has been in the spotlight of critics calling for numerous reforms. Several reports highlight the need for colleges and universities to address issues such as cost of tuition, remedial education, accountability, and retention. The National Commission of Excellence in Education (1983) focused on the readiness of high school graduates entering college, as well as college graduates entering the workforce. The Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education (1984) focused on issues related to student involvement and motivation. These reports also offered recommendations for colleges and universities to improve in those areas. The American Association for Higher Education, the American College Personnel Association and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (1998), the Kellogg Commission (1997), and the American College Personnel Association (2008) highlighted the need for change and offered recommendations (Kahrig, 2005). Thus, student retention is one of the ways to measure whether institutions meet the broad areas of student success and satisfaction (Levitz, Noel, & Richter, 1999). Student retention also serves as one of the most visible institutional performance indicators (Kahrig, 2005). Therefore, the calls for a more seamless educational experience for undergraduate students to bridge their academic and personal lives contributed to the creation of living-learning communities at colleges and universities throughout the country (Inkelas, Vogt, Longerbeam, Owen, & Johnson, 2006, p. 40).Researchers such as Tinto (1975) and Astin (1977, 1993) have developed and revised retention theories since the 1970s. The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (2010) reported that students were more likely to drop out of postsecondary education in year one than in any other year. According to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (NSCRC), the retention rate for all students beginning college for the first time in fall 2012 was 58.2 percent (2014). Beginning college for the first time refers to students enrolled for the first time at a U.S. Title IV degree-granting institution and who had not previously completed a college degree. This definition is based on institutions that have submitted student enrollment data to the Clearinghouse since at least June 1, 2005 (NSCRC, 2014). The NSCRC also reported that the retention rate of students who entered college at age 20 or younger remained almost constant; however, the retention rate of those who entered college at age 24 or older has fallen 1 percentage point between 2009 and 2012. Retention is defined as continued enrollment (or degree completion) within the same higher education institution in the fall semesters of a student’s first and second year (NSCRC, 2014). As a result of these decreasing retention rates, institutions across the country are assessing and evaluating ways to increase retention of first-year students.One such way has been with learning communities (LCs), which have their roots going back to the early 1920s (Smith, MacGregor, Matthews, & Gabelnick, 2004). They encompass a variety of curricular and co-curricular structures that intentionally link at least two academic courses and involve a common cohort of students (Smith et al., 2004). Examples of the various structures include: freshman seminar or interest groups, integrative seminar or colloquy learning communities, linked or clustered courses, team-taught courses, and residential-learning communities also known as living-learning communities (Smith et al., 2004).Living-learning communities (LLCs) are a subset of LCs. They combine shared academic experiences such as a common course, or even linked courses, with a shared living environment. LLCs are usually designated communities in on-campus residence halls. Students with common academic interests live together in the same residence hall and develop personal and academic relationships with other students and faculty from a particular field of study. Students are able and encouraged to participate in out-of-classroom enrichment activities that support their academic pursuits. LLCs help bridge the gap between students' academic interests with their residence hall living experience. They are one of the ways universities have responded to address the issue of retention (Smith et al., 2004).Dozens of colleges and universities have established LLCs, offering them as opportunities to engage with faculty, develop peer connections, and establish academic connections; Swail (2004) championed these activities as important contributors to retention in post-secondary education. Students are often able to voluntarily select the LLC that best fits their interest. (See Appendix A for examples of institutions with LLCs.) The intention with such LLCs is to help to bridge the gap between a student’s living environment and their learning environment (Blimling, 1998; Borst, 2011; Smith et al., 2004; Wawrzynski & Jessup-Anger, 2010). Existing research supports LLC proponents’ claims that they provide students with such benefits as increased faculty interactions, peer interactions, and social integration (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003; Wawrzynski & Jessup-Anger, 2010; Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). These studies focused on student outcomes and student perceptions. However, none of these studies directly addressed the retention rates of students participating in LLCs.Statement of the ProblemThere are increasing calls for higher education institutions to reform their teaching and learning practices to meet the changing demographics of students and to address demands for accountability by legislators (Smith et al., 2004). Part of reforming teaching and learning practices is to better understand issues of retention and build models to effectively address those issues. Previous research studies provided data indicating that student retention is negatively impacted by lack of academic and social engagement (Eck, Edge, & Stephenson, 2007). Kahrig (2005) noted that several investigators, including Tinto, Astin, and Pascarella and Terenzini, examined social and academic integration and their interconnections to retention.Theories of retention. According to Tinto (1987, 1993), there are three major reasons a student may decide to leave an institution: academic difficulties, the inability of individuals to resolve their educational and occupational goals, and their failure to become or remain incorporated in the intellectual and social life of the institution. Tinto's (1987, 1993) "model of institutional departure" stated that, to persist, students need integration into formal (academic performance) and informal (faculty and staff interactions) academic systems and formal (extracurricular activities) and informal (peer-group interactions) social systems. Therefore, it is important for institutions to understand whether LLCs are indeed able to reduce the major reasons why students may decide to leave. If so, institutions could use LLCs as a mechanism to address student retention (Tinto, 1997).Astin’s (1984) student involvement theory provided a lens through which to view issues relevant to a student’s transition to college that may also impact retention. The research suggested a student’s successful transition to college is enhanced by his or her on-campus living experience, participation in organized social groups (e.g., fraternities and sororities), working part-time on campus, and making other connections within the institution (Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Leonard, 2007). Given that LLCs are, by design, intended to foster student interactions with and connections to others within the institution, they may represent a tool to boost student involvement and improve retention.Although much of Tinto’s retention research considered LCs as the mechanism for colleges and universities to address retention, what he said for LCs could presumably apply also to LLCs. For example, Tinto (1999) reported there are four conditions that help support retention: information/advice, support, involvement, and learning. LLCs may boost student retention because they create an environment where students are active participants in their learning. LLCs begin to move students and faculty away from the traditional model of learning and teaching as individuals to a more collaborative learning environment in which students become active members of their learning experience (Gabelnick, 1997). Inkelas and Weisman (2003) found LLC students perceived their residence environment to be more supportive than did non-LLC students. Students feel more comfortable confronting each other, engaging with students and faculty, and experiencing how group work deepens individual knowledge (Gabelnick, 1997).Theories of living-learning communities. While we do not know the exact number of LLCs, based on the 2004 and 2007 National Study of Living-Learning Programs (NSLLP), we do know there are at least 600 different LLCs offered at over 50 different institutions throughout the United States (Inkelas & Associates, 2007). Understanding the basic LC typologies is also important to distinguishing how LLCs impact retention. A number of researchers, including Shapiro and Levine (1999), Smith et al. (2004), Lenning and Ebbers (1999), and Gabelnick et al. (1990) developed several LC typologies (see Appendix B for overview of LC typologies). This study of LLCs will focus around the typology Shapiro and Levine (1999) described as “residence-based programs,” Smith et al. (2004) describe as “living-learning communities,” and Lenning and Ebbers (1999) describe as “residential learning communities.” Inkelas and Weisman (2003) reported, “the critical difference between living-learning programs and other types of learning communities is that the participants not only partake in coordinated curricular activities, but also live together in a specific residence hall ” (p. 335).Purpose of Study. Consistent with Swail’s (2004) theory of factors that serve to promote retention, this study examined whether first-year freshman students participating in LLCs have better retention rates than those who do not participate in LLCs. It also analyzed the effectiveness of LLCs to support first-year freshman students in developing peer connections, faculty interactions, and being academically engaged at a university. From these data, we determined whether first-year freshman students participating in LLCs had better retention rates than those who do not.When examining LLCs as a possible model to address issues of retention, identifying the appropriate LLC structure to test becomes a challenge. While LLCs have a history going back as early as the 1920s, it has only been since the 1980s that higher education institutions have really begun to establish LLCs. There are no specific or national data on the exact number of institutions that have LLCs or the exact number of individual LLCs (Smith et al., 2004). However, some research data suggest that LLCs are effective in improving student outcomes in important areas. For example, Brower and Inkelas (2010) indicated critical thinking, application of knowledge, commitment to civic engagement, academic transition, and social transition as key areas. Organizations such as the Association of American Colleges and Universities (ACC&U) have developed initiatives such as Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP), which focus on issues such as retention, first-year students, and LLCs, but only to a limited extent (Brower & Inkelas, 2004). ACC&U’s LEAP initiative identified 10 high-impact educational practices, including learning communities. However, LLCs were not specifically mentioned. LCs, as defined by LEAP, “are to encourage integration of learning across courses and to involve students with ‘big questions’ that matter beyond the classroom” (Kuh, 2008, p. 10). LEAP also articulated LCs as students taking two or more linked courses as a group (Kuh, 2008). There was no mention of students living together as part of a community or program.The literature surrounding LLCs often focuses on analyzing or referencing the 2004 and 2007 NSLLP (Brower & Inkelas, 2010; Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Leonard, 2007; Inkelas, Soldner, Longerbeam, & Leonard, 2008; Inkelas, Vogt, Longerbeam, Owen, & Johnson, 2006; Soldner & Szelenyi, 2008). The NSLLP focused on assessing LLCs’ impact on student outcomes such as intellectual growth, civic engagement, sense of belonging, and enjoyment of challenging academic pursuits (Brower & Inkelas, 2010; Inkelas & Associates, 2007). Additional literature regarding LLCs focuses on typology and assessment of a variety of student outcomes (Wawrzynski & Jessup-Anger, 2010; Inkelas et al., 2008) or has a practitioner-based focus on implementation and sustaining LLCs (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011).Brower and Dettinger (1998) summarized that LLCs are designed to do the following:Develop a sense of group identity, while recognizing individual accomplishments as learners.Provide a physical space for students and faculty to engage in intentional learning activities.Create a supportive and encouraging environment that helps new students navigate the institution.Integrate students’ social and academic experiences.Foster connections among academic disciplines.Provide the context for critical thinking skills, social cognition, creativity, and civic, professional, and ethical responsibility.Continually assess and evaluate processes, procedures, and intended outcomes.The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether or not first-year freshman students in an LLC were retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman students not in an LLC. In addition, if LLC participation is associated with improved retention rates, further investigation may be warranted: would any association between LLC participation and improved retention be accounted for by intermediate constructs, such as those identified by Brown and Dettinger (1998)?HypothesesThe primary purpose of this study was to determine whether or not first-year freshman students in an LLC are retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman students not in an LLC. Although there are several different definitions and variations of LLCs, the definition used for this study was based on the 2007 NSLLP: “programs in which undergraduate students live together in a discrete portion of a residence hall (or the entire hall) and participate in academic and/or extracurricular programming designed especially for them” (p. 2). The hypothesis for this study was that first-year freshman students in an LLC will be retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman students not in an LLC. The associated research question is “What is the relationship between retention and LLC status of first-year freshman?”Importance of the StudyContributions to research and literature. Through creating and sustaining LLCs, institutions may be better able to provide unique opportunities for students that combine their academic experiences with their living experiences. Prior research studies, including those by Tinto (2000), Brower and Kettinger (1998), Kuh (2008), Eck, Edge, and Stephenson (2007), and Garrett and Zabriskie (2003), focused on such areas as developing autonomy, increasing connection with the institution, improving self-efficacy, creating faculty-interactions, fostering peer-interactions, and raising academic performance. Important as these issues may be, they do not directly answer the retention question: are first-year freshman students in an LLC retained at a higher rate than those who are not?Institutions across the country appear to invest significant resources in the retention of first-year students. Retention is an important topic of discussion, debate, and even contention (Vostad, 2004). In particular, this study contributes to the research on the effectiveness of LLCs regarding the rate at which first-year freshman students retain to their second-year.Who will benefit and be interested? By examining the results of this study, university administrators, faculty, and housing staff may be able to better understand whether LLCs have a positive impact on first-year freshman student retention. From there, administrators, faculty, and housing staff may be able to make decisions developing policies and procedures for eliminating, sustaining, and creating new LLCs. Additionally, administrators and housing staff may be better able to understand the qualities and characteristics of first-year freshman students who live in the LLCs, thus being able to recruit new first-year freshman students to join them. This study may also serve as a model for administrators, faculty, and housing staff to better understand the characteristics of developing and implementing effective LLCs as a way to improve student retention.Summary. I have provided a brief overview of the calls for reform in the United States higher education system. I identified living-learning communities (LLCs) as a potential method of enacting change. I discussed theories of retention and LLCs as it relates to the impacts of LLCs on retention. I also identified gaps in the previous literature and explained how this research will contribute to the existing body of research.CHAPTER 2: Literature ReviewThis literature review includes theories of retention, the history and structure of LLCs, prior research, and an overview of LLCs today. Understanding theories of retention helps to provide the context for the creation of LLCs. Reviewing the history and structure of LLCs shows how institutions have applied the theories of retention to address the specific needs of their students. Through a review of the literature, we may be able to understand the importance of LLCs and how they exist today. From here we analyzed the effectiveness of LLCs to support first-year students in developing peer connections, faculty interactions, and academic engagement at a university. From these data, we may determine whether first-year students participating in LLCs have better retention rates than those who do not.Theories of RetentionResearchers such as Astin (1977) and Tinto (1987) have studied retention for the past 40 years. Tinto’s (1987) research provided us his model for “institutional departure,” where individuals enter institutions of higher education with a given set of knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences. Then, individuals interact within that system either positively or negatively, coming to a final decision of staying or leaving (Tinto, n.d, 1987, 1993, 2004). These interactions within the institution include academic performance, faculty and staff interactions, extracurricular activities, and peer group interactions. Building on this early research, one of Tinto’s subsequent areas of focus was learning communities as a method to help support retention. He offered recommendations for institutions to take action and create conditions where students can succeed. These conditions included setting high expectations; providing clear and consistent advising; establishing academic, social, and personal support; recognizing students as valued members of the institution; and creating an environment that fosters and encourages learning (Tinto, n.d, 2002). Institutions have attempted to create LLCs that provide students with the opportunity to engage with faculty and peers inside and outside the classroom. Many LLCs have dedicated advisors or faculty who work to advise students specifically within the LLC. LLCs often also create a smaller sense of community that supports members’ feelings of being valued members of the community (Schoem, 2004).Astin’s (1993) “input-environment-outcome (I-E-O)” model has been a significant conceptual model to LLC research, most notably the NSLLP 2004 and 2007. According to the model, “inputs” refer to students and what they bring with them at the time of initial entry into the institution (e.g., gender, grades, ethnicity, etc.). “Environment” refers to the institutional experiences to which the student has access, such as programs, policies, faculty, and peers. “Outcomes” refer to the student and what they bring with them after being introduced to the environments (Astin, 1993). One area of particular interest related to LLCs was Astin’s research on faculty/student interactions. According to the results of Astin’s 1993 study, satisfaction with faculty had a positive correlation with students’ academic performance. Additionally, Astin found that living on-campus had a positive effect on student satisfaction with faculty; however, living off-campus had a negative effect. Astin hypothesized the reason for these results had to do with the proximity associated with the two types of living arrangements (Astin, 1993, 1999). LLCs maximize the benefits of proximity by housing students on-campus within a dedicated residence hall. Based on Astin’s research focusing on student involvement, many LLCs attempt to create environments with intentional faculty and peer interactions. Thus, Tinto and Astin’s research programs legitimized the creation of LLCs in recent years.History of Living-Learning CommunitiesIn the United States, the concept of LLCs can be traced back to the “social clubs” at Oxford and Cambridge, which integrated a residential living component to students’ educational experience (Brower & Inkelas, 2010; Stier, 2014). Later manifestations can be found at the earliest Ivy League institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (Brower & Inkelas, 2010). Each of these institutions created educational environments that included not only classrooms but also eating commons, kitchens, libraries, and sleeping quarters (Ryan, 1992). Focused on the development of the “whole” student, these institutions created an all-inclusive learning and living environment. Students attended lectures, studied, ate, slept, and socialized all in the same building (Ryan, 1992). Additionally, tutors were housed in the same residence as their students, thus creating early versions of what we know today as LLCs.However, in the 1800s, United States higher education shifted away from the colonial model to the German model of higher education. As part of the German model, this meant students focused on more specialized professional or vocational areas of study, and faculty focused on research and their own scholarship. This also meant shifting away from the “communal” learning environment, and the living environment became secondary to the academic priority (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011; Ryan 1992).Powell (1981) credited Alexander Meiklejohn with the establishment of the first LLC with the creation of the Experimental College at the University of Wisconsin from 1927-1932. Meiklejohn wanted to create a practical liberal arts program designed to teach students how to think about relevant issues of their time. This concept included live-in faculty, specifically designed curriculum, academic advising, and team-teaching (Meiklejohn, 2001; Powell, 1981). Meiklejohn wanted to create an educational environment that would effectively integrate students’ curricular, co-curricular, and residential experiences (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011; Meiklejohn, 2001; Powell, 1981). The Experimental College lasted only five years, but introduced new teaching techniques that are still used today. Faculty and student affairs professionals still use terms introduced by Meiklejohn, such as team-teaching, clustered courses, and student field experience in undergraduate research (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011; Meiklejohn, 2001; Powell, 1981).It was not until the 1960s and 1970s, with the dramatic growth of higher education, that LLCs would again begin to make a broader appearance. Colleges and universities expanded to record enrollments. This rapid expansion nearly doubled the size of the United States higher education system (Smith et al., 2004). With such growth also brought widespread innovation, experiments in pedagogy, curriculum, and new roles for faculty and students (Smith et al., 2004). Joseph Tussman, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, would create the “Berkeley learning community,” which was based on Meiklejohn’s Experimental College (Smith et al., 2004). At the same time (1965 to 1969), San Jose State College would create a similar program called the “Tutorial Program.” These two programs employed a team-taught curriculum model, based on primary texts and seminars, and lasted for an entire academic year (Smith et al., 2004). Both the Berkeley learning community and Tutorial Program lasted four years, failing to sustain their momentum after key faculty left their respective institutions. Although these two programs focused on the curricular components instead of the residential one, technically making them LCs instead of LLCs, one of the main challenges of sustaining LLCs today remains the retention of key faculty or staff responsible for the initial design and implementation of the program. In business, when departure of key staff leads to problems in sustaining programs, it is known as a challenge with succession management, and this same issue appears to occur in relation to LLCs.As LLCs continued to change, The Evergreen State College, established in 1970 in Washington State, played an important role. The Evergreen State College’s curriculum used a model of team-taught, yearlong integrated programs, focused around interdisciplinary themes (Smith et al., 2004). Additionally, there were no faculty ranks, titles, or departments. Faculty were compensated using a uniform pay scale, reappointed based on team-teaching, and appointment to academic dean positions rotated throughout the faculty (Smith et al., 2004). Through this new teaching and learning model, the Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education was created (Washington Center, n.d.). The Washington Center provided a database for resources, established annual conferences, and became a leader in learning community initiatives (Smith et al., 2004). The Washington Center focuses on the curricular types of learning communities. LLCs are a subset of LCs, but there is almost no mention of LLCs in any of the resources provided by the Washington Center. They provided resources for two- and four-year institutions to create curriculum models such as linked or clustered courses. Therefore, the Washington Center is geared toward supporting academic affairs professionals rather than student affairs professionals; student affairs professionals are more often involved with LLCs.Structure of Living-Learning CommunitiesThis section of the literature review helps to clarify the differences among the various structures of LLCs. There does not exist a clear, specific, and universally held definition of the LLC (see Appendix C for various LLC definitions). Institutions have created and designated their communities under several different titles, such as living-learning communities (LLCs), living-learning programs (LLPs), residential-learning communities (RLCs), living-learning centers, theme houses, and residential colleges (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). One might classify LLCs as an instance of learning communities (LCs) (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). For example, Gabelnick, MacGregor, Matthews, and Smith (1990) provided the first outline of LC typologies and provided the foundation for future typologies to be developed. Shapiro and Levine (1999), Lenning and Ebbers (1999), and Smith et al. (2004) subsequently based their own classification systems on the work of Gabelnick et al. (1990).The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS, 2014) provides housing and residence life programs (HRLP) with guidelines on the development and structure of LLCs. According to CAS (2014), “guidelines are designed to provide suggestions and illustrations that can assist in establishing programs and services that more fully address the needs of students than those mandated by a standard.” To create and develop a successful LLC, CAS (2014) suggests HRLPs should explore LLC models that align with the institution’s mission, vision, and culture, ensure proper resources are allocated before LLCs are implemented, develop a marketing strategy, and establish clear roles and responsibilities for all LLC partners. Once the LLCs are developed HRLPs should facilitate regular communication among all LLC partners, ensure continued resource allocation, create mentorship opportunities, and establish a strong assessment program, which may include evaluation of learning outcomes, GPAs, and retention rates.CAS (2014) suggests HRLPs should identify strong academic focused learning outcomes to achieve desired results. HRLPs should also create LLCs that incorporate credit-bearing courses specific to the LLC curriculum, provide opportunities to engage with peers, staff and faculty members, and establish dedicated study spaces within the residence hall to achieve desired learning outcomes.The guidelines provided by CAS are helpful for HRLPs; however, they are not specific to size or type of institution. Therefore, institutions may decide to create LLCs that follow the CAS guidelines or develop their own independent structure.One may propose the following types of learning communities and their relationship to LLCs:Linked courses. Linked courses, also referred to as paired courses, provide students the opportunity to register for two consecutive courses where the instructors coordinate their curricula. This “linking” through shared readings or assignments helps students better understand the material. Linked courses provide the easiest and simplest LC structure (Shapiro & Levine, 1999).Clustered courses. Clustered courses are an expansion of linked courses. Students have the opportunity to register for a series of courses throughout a semester or year that are intentionally connected (Gabelnick et al., 1990; Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). Shapiro and Levine (1999) combined the linked courses and clustered courses from Gabelnick et al. to create “paired or clustered courses.” Paired or clustered courses follow the model of linking two courses using a cohort or block-scheduling model.Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs). FIGs use the clustered course model, but focus solely on first-year students. FIGs help first-year students with the transition to college by creating intentional connections to a variety of student support services. Many FIGs employ peer advisors or mentors to help assist these first-year students with their transition to the university (Gabelnick et al., 1990; Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). Shapiro and Levine (1999) based their “cohorts in large courses” on the FIG and federated learning community typology.Federated learning communities and coordinated studies. Federated learning communities are clustered courses organized around a particular topic such as business, technology, or ethics. Students are provided an opportunity to enroll in a series of courses that are related by the selected topic. A faculty member, who is not an instructor for any of the courses, assists students with understanding and relating to the different course curricula (Gabelnick et al., 1990; Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). Coordinated studies provide faculty and students a more focused opportunity where students only take courses based on a particular theme during a specified period of time. Then, the faculty of those courses teach only topics related to the identified theme. Shapiro and Levine (1999) referred to coordinated studies as “team-taught programs.”Curricular learning communities. Subdivided into three categories, curricular learning communities include: cross-curricular learning communities, curricular cohort learning communities, and curricular area learning communities (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). Lenning and Ebbers (1999) interpreted all five of Gabelnick et al.’s (1990) learning community typologies (linked courses, learning clusters, freshman interest groups, federated learning communities, coordinated studies) as “cross-curricular learning communities” (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). Lenning and Ebbers used Gabelnick et al.’s (1990) description of linked courses as the basis for describing cross-curricular learning communities as “purposely restructure(ing) the curriculum to link together courses or course work so that students find great coherence in what they are learning as well as increased intellectual interaction with faculty and fellow students” (Gabelnick et al., 1990, p. 5). Curricular cohort learning communities are those programs where students register for the same courses at the same throughout an entire program (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). If students miss or drop out of a course within their cohort, they must typically wait until the next cohort cycle to register. Curricular area learning communities are described as traditional coursework focused on a specific academic major. The method uses the traditional major model where juniors and seniors often are enrolled in common courses to leverage interactions with peers and faculty (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999).Classroom learning communities. Classroom learning communities are further subdivided into two categories: total-classroom learning communities and within-classroom learning communities (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). Total-classroom learning communities are based on the idea of the classroom being a learning community, such as in elementary schools. Teachers work to create a sense of “family” within their classroom and students view themselves as members (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). Within the context of a college classroom, the challenges of creating a total-classroom learning community are the timing and structure. In an effort to create a total-classroom learning community, Lenning and Ebbers (1999) recommended that instructors:Integrate the concept of democracy in their classrooms.Create a caring learning environment that meets the “real” needs of the students.Helps to facilitate discussions rather than lecture.Use innovative approaches involving sequential and developmental learning activities.Act as a change agent.Within-classroom learning communities are created when intentional smaller groups such as collaborative projects, group projects, and team learning are developed from the larger overall class. The main focus with this concept of learning community is to empower the students to engage in their own learning. This allows the instructor to facilitate and support active learning rather than simply having students be passive learners (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Inkelas & Soldner, 2011).Special population or Student-type learning communities. Special population learning communities, or student-type learning communities, begin to focus on the types of students within the learning community rather than the structure of the learning community. Love and Tokuno (1999) developed six types of learning communities based on the following types of students:Academically underprepared studentsStudents from underrepresented groupsStudent with disabilitiesHonors programsStudent with specific academic interests andResidential studentsEach of these learning communities would focus on the overall needs of those within each group. For academically underprepared students, the LC would provide resources to assist with academic advising, basic skills, and university navigation. For underrepresented students, the LC would provide resources to assist with finding mentors and supporting specific social and culture backgrounds (e.g., Hispanic Americans). For students with disabilities, the LC would provide resources to assist with finding support services, academic accommodations, and educating the campus community about students with disabilities. For honors students, the LC would usually provide specific courses and activities reserved only for honors students. For students with specific academic interests (e.g., English, law, or engineering), the LC groups these students as a cohort where they take the same classes (e.g. linked-course or clustered course). Residential students are addressed more in depth in under the subsequent section “Residence-based Programs (LLCs);” however, Love and Tokuno (1999) simply classified this LC as being within the residence halls (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). These types of learning communities break away from the assumption that students are entering college as a homogeneous group. Rather, students are heterogeneous with different interests, abilities, and needs (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). Student-type learning communities allow for students to be divided into meaningful learning groups based on needs, ability, and academic interest (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999).Residence-based programs (LLCs). When researchers such as Gabelnick et al. (1990) originally began creating their typologies for learning communities, they did not include residence-based programs (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). It was not until later that Shapiro and Levine (1999) included an LLC typology, and even then simply described them as “adapt(ing) a particular curricular model (linked courses, clustered courses, FIGs) to include a residential component” (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011).Schoem (2004) proposed that LLCs encompass a wide variety of educational initiatives based on individual college and university mission and goals. However, he categorized LLCs as being in one of three categories: residential colleges, residential learning communities, or residential education programs. The residential college model dates back to the Oxford residential colleges in England, and then in the United States at Harvard and Yale (Schoem, 2004). Even within the area of residential colleges, there are a variety of models. Schoem (2004) offers the following definition of residential colleges: “a multiyear residential academic program, sometimes degree granting or offering an academic concentration, whose primary feature is that it provides substantial faculty involvement with students through one or more means such as course, tutorials, advising, or live-in arrangements” (p. 140). Residential learning communities are those LLCs that integrate a curricular learning community model such as linked courses, clustered courses, or FIGs (Laufgraben, Shapiro, & Associates, 2004; Schoem, 2004). The goal of residential learning communities is to integrate the students’ living environment with their academic experiences (Laufgraben et al., 2004). Residential education programs are those LLCs that are not residential colleges and do not fit the framework of residential learning communities (Schoem, 2004). These types of LLCs are often structured around a common theme or area of interest such as international culture, world events, or environmental sustainability (Schoem, 2004). Instead of being focused on an academic curriculum, residential education programs focus on singular co-curricular activities such as dinners, lectures, and discussions (Schoem, 2004).While there is still an ongoing debate about the structure and definition of LLCs, it is the living in residence aspect of the LLC, regardless of the exact title or specific structure that separates the LLC from other learning communities (see Appendices B and C for a listing of typologies and definitions). Many of the LLCs focus on helping support undergraduate students’ transition to college by creating linkages between the academic, co-curricular, and residential environments (Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Leonard, 2007; Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). This partnership between the residence life area and academic affairs provides opportunities for faculty and staff to engage students outside the classroom and directly within the residence hall. In many cases, faculty teach courses from classrooms specifically designed within the residence hall (Laufgraben et al., 2004). In support of the LLC’s mission, the residence life staff develop activities such as study sessions, programs, lectures, and seminars within the residence hall. The residence hall provides an academically supportive environment outside the classroom where students and faculty can engage in intellectual discussions, reflection, and discovery (Schoem, 2004). Often these interactions are linked with social and cultural concerns specific to the unique population of the LLC (Schoem, 2004). Students are often better able to relate the information provided in the classroom to real-life experiences. This begins to transform the culture of learning from being only in the classroom to being a “never-ending series of lectures, exams, quizzes, papers, and grades to a core component of one’s identity, discussions, creativity, discovery, values, relationships, community, worldview, and life and professional choices” (Schoem, 2004, p. 132).Challenges of creating and sustaining living-learning communities. LLCs are often recognized for their ability to provide a feeling of community, rich learning environment, innovative teaching methods, and sense of pride for students and faculty (Schoem, 2004). However, the lack of a universally agreed upon LLC structure and definition, combined with a uniqueness of the variety of colleges and universities, often result in LLCs not reaching their full potential (Schoem, 2004). LLCs are often complicated to create and sustain because of the required commitment from a variety of areas: housing, residence life, faculty and deans, and academic colleges (Laufgraben et al., 2004; Shapiro & Levine, 1999). Additional challenges include the following: allowing non-LLC members to live in the designated LLC hall/area; irregular faculty involvement; lack of administrative and financial support; sustaining student engagement and community building; assessment; and fear of risk taking and innovation (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011; Schoem, 2004).Institutional relationships, political environments, and lean budgetary times create a difficult environment to create and sustain LLCs. Often within a single LLC, there are varying levels of support from the administration, faculty, and student affairs staff. Administrators may devote financial resources to the creation and sustainability of LLCs. Faculty can decide their level of involvement and participation. Student affairs staff help encourage student involvement through marketing and programming. The partnership between academic and students affairs is important and should be based on shared educational goals, trust, and mutual respect. Issues that may impact this relationship include: control over physical space; budget allocation; hiring and evaluation processes and procedures; teaching calendars and time commitment; and terminology associated with the LLC (Schoem, 2004). Schoem (2004) noted there is often a lack of understanding between the role of academic affairs and student affairs: faculty may not be familiar with student affairs, and probably have not been inside a residence hall for several years. On the other hand, according to Schoem (2004), student affairs staff probably have not had the opportunity to teach courses or understand the life of a faculty member. Created as individual programs, LLCs are not setup within the overall institutional budget (Schoem, 2004). Often, individual academic departments or student affairs departments, such as housing, will fund the LLCs. The challenge becomes deciding how to allocate funds and how to sustain funding, especially in lean budgetary times. Related to funding are faculty involvement and the reward structure of the institution. In many cases, faculty volunteer their time working with the LLC. Working with an LLC in not usually included in the faculty time and reward structure. Faculty often volunteers their time because they enjoy working with students (Schoem, 2004).Characteristics for successful living-learning communities. While there are several challenges to creating and sustaining LLCs, there are several factors that help contribute to their success, including director commitment, faculty involvement, academic and student affairs partnerships, administrative champions, and program quality (Schoem, 2004). Having a strong LLC director to oversee and direct the mission, vision, and goals is an important component. The LLC director also involves faculty, fosters relationships between academic and student affairs, and ensures program quality. Involving faculty helps to create and sustain the academic link of the LLC. Faculty often give the LLC “credit” within the academic environment, helping to raise program quality and notoriety. Successful LLCs find a way to create effective partnerships between academic affairs and student affairs. These partnerships focus on student success and learning by navigating the political and institutional environments. Having senior administrative support from someone like a provost, dean of students, or college dean helps to align the objectives of the LLC with the institutions’ mission and vision. This alignment often results in stable financial support from the institution or individual college. Creating an LLC with these characteristics helps to develop a high standard of program quality. Successful LLCs often create their own “brand” helping to recruit additional faculty, staff, and students (see Appendix D for a list of examples of successfully created LLCs) (Schoem, 2004).Brower and Inkelas (2010) also credited successful LLCs as having the following characteristics:Creating a strong student affairs and academic affairs partnership byDeveloping well-defined program objectives for faculty, staff, and students.Maintaining communication among all faculty, staff, and students.Establishing a shared budget.Identifying clear learning objectives with a strong academic focus byHaving at least one credit-bearing course specifically for LLC participants.Establishing an intentional study area within the residence hall of the LLC.Creating co-curricular activities that support the academic objectives of the LLC such as internships, service learning, collaborative research, and career-development workshops.Capitalizing on the community setting to support learning whenever and wherever byIntentional programming, staff training, budgeting, student discipline, hall governance, etc.Purposeful design of the physical space (residence hall) to include study lounges, faculty offices, faculty apartments, multipurpose rooms, etc.Engaging faculty, staff, and students in multiple roles such as instructor, mentor, advisor, and counselor.Creating high and intentional engagement throughout all aspects of the LLC.Assist faculty with maximizing the use of the residence hall space (p. 42).While creating and sustaining successful LLCs may be challenging, it is not impossible. LLCs can be successful if there are intentional partnerships based on trust. Additionally, LLCs need to create specific learning objectives focused on student learning and development.Benefits of living-learning communities. LLCs help to provide a unique and intentional structure for both academic and social support. Students and faculty are often paired into smaller groups allowing for more one-on-one interactions (Shapiro & Levine, 1999). Course curriculum is often integrated through linked or paired courses and incorporated in students’ living environment through study groups, seminars, and discussions. Often, LLCs are associated with academic gains such as critical thinking, intellectual development, and aesthetic appreciation (Kuh, Douglas, Lund, & Ramin-Gyurnek, 1994). The living environment provides opportunities for students to engage with peers, thus reinforcing the values, attributes, behaviors, and skills needed to be a successful member of the community (Shapiro & Levine, 1999). Many LLCs are specifically designed to help students with their transition from high school to college. CAS (2014) believes institutions with successful LLCs should report the following outcomes related to student participation compared to traditional residence hall students:Smoother transition to college, both academically and socially.Stronger sense of belonging, including feeling that the institution is less overwhelming.Increased first-to-second year retention.Increased persistence toward graduation.Higher levels of academic self-confidence.Greater integration of students’ academic and non-academic lives.Increased participation and engagement in academic and co-curricular programs.Increased involvement in volunteer opportunities and/or enrollment in service-learning courses.Greater likelihood of serving as a mentor for other students.More frequent integration and application of knowledge from different sources across contexts (e.g., other courses or personal experiences).Universities and colleges nationwide have developed LLCs as a part of first-year experience programs to provide resources such as academic advising, tutoring, and mentoring (Laufgraben et al., 2004). It is not just students who benefit from participating in LLCs. Faculty can benefit as well. They have the opportunity to engage and collaborate with other faculty members. CAS (2014) notes that successful LLCs should report increased involvement and opportunities for rewards and recognition for LLC faculty and staff. Other outcomes for LLC faculty and staff include greater collaboration, enhanced communication, and a better understanding of student development.Research Studies of Living-Learning CommunitiesResearch studies about LLCs are divided into two categories: outcome-oriented and practice-oriented. Outcome-oriented studies focus on student outcomes using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research design. Practice-oriented studies focus on the processes of establishing and operating an LLC using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods design.Outcome-oriented studies. Inkelas and Soldner (2011) summarized several empirical studies conducted between 1980 and 2010. Their research led them to categorize several categories related to the LLC research (see Appendix E for a listing of various LLC empirically-based research studies):Performance, persistence, and attainmentIntellectual developmentFaculty and peer interactionsCollege transitionCampus life andAttitudes and beliefsAdditionally, the NSLLP consisted of two surveys conducted in 2004 and 2007. This comprehensive longitudinal study was based on Astin’s (1993) “Input-Environment-Outcome” model. The study classified inputs as gender, race/ethnicity, citizenship/generational status, parental education, and high school achievement. The environments consisted of academic class standing and financial aid, interactions with peers and faculty, use of residence hall resources and residence hall climate, diversity, and time spent on curricular and co-curricular activities. The study then focused on assessing LLCs impact on student outcomes such as social and academic transition, intellectual abilities and growth, confidence in academic, collegiate, and professional success, alcohol use, diversity, civic engagement, sense of belonging, and grade point average (Inkelas & Associates, 2007). Although these studies are based on empirical data, they are not without their challenges. Inkelas and Soldner (2011) pointed out one of the biggest challenges is that students self-select to participate in an LLC. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to conduct a true experiment using random sampling. Additionally, with the exception of the NSLLP, many of the research studies involve only a single institution or LLC, thus making it challenging to draw generalized conclusions. However, these studies do offer empirical data and when combined with the practitioner-based studies provide institutions with a guide for creating and sustaining LLCs.Mayhew, Dahl, and Youngerman’s (2015) Study of Integrated Living Learning Programs (SILLP) picked up where the NSLLP left off. The SILLP pilot study, which consisted of almost 3,000 responses from students from seven institutions across the United States (Mayhew et al.). Using Astin’s (1993) I-E-O model as the theoretical framework, the SILLP pilot study focused on student living-learning experiences and student outcomes. The SILLP is an on-going study seeking to understand the influence of living learning programs on the academic, intellectual, and social development of college students.Practice-oriented studies. Much of the literature involving LLCs tends to be practitioner-based, citing “best practices” or “lessons learned” (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011). The Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I) has even developed an annual conference, the ACUHO-I Living-Learning Programs Conference, where practitioners and administrators can share this information. Members of ACUHO-I can search past conference presentations and related information offering a treasure trove of best practices, lessons learned, and recommendations for creating and sustaining LLCs. The focus of these resources is often to provide recommendations based on the experience of LLCs created at individual institutions. Inkelas and Soldner (2011) summarized many of the practitioner studies and offer six general practices for LLCs:Establish a clear vision and objectives.Solicit campus leadership and support.Form academic and student affairs partnerships.Seek and maintain faculty involvement.Facilitate peer interaction and a healthy residence hall climate, andIntegrate and assess LLC activities.These six general practices for LLCs outlined by Inkelas and Soldner (2011) align with the characteristics for creating successful LLCs. Within these studies the researchers may provide empirical data; however, the studies are often restricted to a single LLC or institution (see Appendix E for a listing of LLC studies and their focus). Inkelas and Soldner (2011) also pointed out a few critiques of the practitioner-based studies: lack of specific or precise definition of an LLC, lack of comprehensive LLC typology, and lack of empirical data to support the “best practice” research. These critiques are not surprising or new; however, they do provide a context for future researcher to consider when developing future studies.Living-Learning Communities TodayWhile the concept of LLCs has been around since the 1920s, many of the LLCs we see today are relatively new. According to the NSLLP 2007 survey, only 16% of the programs had been around for at least 10 years. However, 17% were in their first year and 38% had only existed between two and four years (Soldner & Szelenyi, 2008). Most LLCs today consist of an average of 50 students who live on a designated floor within a residence hall. Due to the nature of LLCs being housed within a residence hall, most are entirely or at least partially under the responsibility of student affairs (Soldner & Szelenyi, 2008; NSLLP, 2007). Many LLCs involve collaboration between academic affairs and student affairs involving components from each area (Jones, 2000). Residence life staff members often handle the day-to-day operation of the LLCs with a faculty member acting as director. Institutional expenditures on LLCs range from $5,000 to $21,000. To help offset this cost, some institutions charge students additional fees for participating in an LLC. However, most institutions charged the standard room rate based on the type of residence hall or room type (Soldner & Szelenyi, 2008; NSLLP, 2007). Institutions have created a variety of LLCs to focus on a number issues. Some LLCs are geared toward specific academic programs such as engineering, honors, or science. Others focus on meeting the needs of a specific group of student such as international, Hispanic, Black, Asian, students with disabilities, transfer, first-year, or first-generation. At other institutions, students create LLCs based on their interests. (see Appendix A for a partial listing of institutions with the LLCs they offer).Both outcome and practice-oriented studies tend to include demographic variables such as race and gender as part of their descriptive statistics (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Inkelas, et al., 2006; Wawrzynski & Jessup-Anger, 2010; and Baker, 2013). Some research goes beyond simply describing race/ethnicity and gender as descriptive statistics; such studies further analyze data by race/ethnicity and gender (Inkelas, et al., 2006; Baker, 2013). Baker (2013) does not appear to base his research results related to gender on specific theories. Rather, variables such as gender are studied to understand the impacts of LLCs. Other research focused specifically on race/ethnicity or gender and the impacts of LLCs (Jones, 2003; Brewley, 2010; Yao & Wawrzynski, 2013; Mann, 2013). Yao and Wawrzynski (2013) used Astin’s input-environment-outcome (I-E-O) model to understand the influence of LLCs on men’s awareness and appreciation of diversity. No statistically significant results were found for men who participated in LLCs compared to men who lived in traditional residence halls (Yao & Wawrzynski, 2013). Mann’s (2013) research looked at the relationship of ethnic identity and LLCs. Gender was initially analyzed but no statistically significant results were found and later dropped from further analysis. Brewley’s (2010) research focused on the impacts of LLCs on specific ethnic groups and found no statistically significant results.Summary. This chapter provided a brief overview of the history and explanation of the various structures of LLCs. It explained the benefits and challenges with creating and sustaining LLCs. Additionally, it presented an overview of the types of research studies conducted previously and concluded with an outline of how LLCs are implemented at institutions today.CHAPTER 3: MethodologyIntroductionThe purpose of this study was to determine whether or not first-year freshman students in an LLC were retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman students not in an LLC. I conducted this study using archival data from a public, comprehensive, state university located in the Pacific Northwest, which will be referred to with the pseudonym “Pacific Northwest University” (PNU). This study used a quantitative approach that is standard in scientific and educational research to test the hypotheses. These analyses allowed me to test whether first-year freshman students participating in LLCs had better retention rates than did those who did not participate in LLCs. According to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (2017), in fall 2014 PNU had a 79% first-to-second-year retention rate for full-time, first-time, bachelor’s degree seeking undergraduates. I also analyzed first-year freshman students’ rate of developing peer connections, faculty interactions, and being academically engaged at PNU. The purposes of these additional analyses were to better understand the relationships between retention and the specific features of LLCs.ParticipantsThe student population selected for this study included only students who were given the Skyfactor Making Achievement Possible (MAP)-Works First Year Fall Transition Survey (MAP-Works). The criteria used to determine if students were given MAP-Works included all full-time freshman students. A full-time freshman is defined as being enrolled in an undergraduate program with more than seven credits, which included classes where the credits were not counted toward the students’ grade point average for the undergraduate degree. Excluded from the survey were students who were classified by the University as English as a Second Language (ESL), Running Start, staff, campuses other than the main campus, and on-line students.The study participants were limited to those students who were assigned to live in a residence hall and fully completed the (MAP)-Works survey. Excluded from the sample were students assigned to live in on-campus apartments, living off-campus, and students with incomplete survey data. In fall 2014, a total of 1,483 first-year freshmen were provided the MAP-Works survey and 166 of the 1,483 had selected to participate in an LLC. Of the 1,483 first year freshmen, excluded were 261 students who lived off campus, 35 who lived in on-campus apartments, 3 outliers who had no housing information, and 313 students with incomplete survey data.The adjusted sample for the study included 871 first-year freshmen living in residence halls during fall 2014 with 138 first-year freshman participating in an LLC. There were two samples: an LLC group and a non-LLC group. Within the LLC group, students had voluntarily selected to participate in one of the 11 LLCs: Flight Technology, Business, Latino/Latina Studies, Education, Sustainability, International House, Leadership, Music, Science, Civil Rights, or Honors.1 The participants within the sample were 44.8% male and 55.2% female. Within the LLC group 42.8% male and 57.2% female. Furthermore, 62.3% of the sample was White, 11.8% was Hispanic, 9.2% was two or more races, 5.7% was Nonresident alien, 4.2% was Black/African American; and 3.1% was Asian, 1.5% Race/ethnicity unknown, 1.3% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 0.8% American Indian or Alaska Native. The racial/ethnic composition of the LLC group included: 62.3% White, 15.9% Hispanic, 8.0% two or more races, 1.4% Nonresident alien, 4.3% Black/African American, 4.3% Asian, 2.2% Race/ethnicity unknown, 1.4% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 0% American Indian or Alaska Native. Also, 81.3% of students reported not having decided on a major and 18.7% reported having decided on a major. Within the LLC group 13.8% reported declaring a major and within the non LLC group 19.6% reported declaring a major. (see Appendix F for composition of gender and race/ethnicity of the LLC groups and non-LLC.)InstrumentationPNU administered the Making Achievement Possible (MAP)-Works First Year Fall Transition Survey (MAP-Works) assessment to all first-year freshmen students during fall 2014. MAP-Works has been administered since 2009 at PNU, but only data for 2014 academic year were sampled. The MAP-Works survey consisted of categorical, scaled, and open-ended questions. The categorical questions allowed the respondent to select from a predefined list of answers (male, female, other) or were yes/no closed-ended questions. The scaled questions relied on a 7-point Likert scale from (1): strongly disagree to (7): strongly agree. The open-ended questions were designed to encourage a meaningful answer from the participant. The MAP-Works survey contained 201 total questions. This archival study used three closed-ended and three scaled questions. (see Table 1 for a list of the specific questions used from MAP-Works)Data CollectionI selected PNU as a matter of convenience, but it offers the advantage of being similar to many other institutions that make use of LLCs, allowing the results presumably to generalize more readily to such institutions. I selected the department because I had first-hand experience and knowledge of the LLCs and assessment methods used to evaluate areas such as faculty and peer interactions and academic engagement. At PNU, the department administered MAP-Works electronically to all first-year freshman in fall 2014. The department identified those students who had selected to participate in an LLC through their office using Adirondack’s Housing Director Software (Adirondack Solutions, Inc., 2016). The residence life staff reminded students to check their university email and complete the survey. After the initial email with the survey information was sent out to students, those failing to complete it were sent a follow-up email encouraging them to do so.ConstructsThe study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of LLCs and determine their impact on retention of first-year freshmen students. To examine the hypotheses, I conducted a chi-square test to examine the relationship between retention and LLC status. I also analyzed three intermediate constructs using t-tests. I used MAP-Works question Q075, “on this campus, to what degree are you connecting with people who share common interest with you” as the measure to understand peer connections. I used MAP-Works question Q052, “to what degree are you the kind of person who communicates with instructors outside of class” as the measure to understand faculty engagement. I used MAP-Works question Q051 “to what degree are you the kind of person who participates in class” as the measure to understand academic engagement.Table 1 shows the variables (dependent and independent variables) used in this study, along with information about their possible range. The dependent variable for this study was retention. (Is a first-year student retained? Yes or No?) The independent variable included from MAP-Works used to determine peer connections was connecting with people who share common interests. The variable used to determine faculty interactions was communication outside of class. The variable used to determine academic engagement was participation in class. (See Table 1 for specific description of each variable.)Table 1Definition and Operationalization of Constructs2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall Transition SurveyFull variable nameSPSS variable nameDescription of Variable (Question from MAP-Works)Coding instructionsSourceIdentification numberIDParticipate IDWhole numberProvided as part of data set.SexSexSex of student as reported on survey0=Male, 1=Female, 2=OtherAs self-reported on the 2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall TransitionRace/EthnicityRaceRace/Ethnicity of student as reported on survey0=Nonresident alien, 1=Race/ethnicity unknown, 2=Hispanic of any race, 3=American Indian or Alaska Native, 4=Asian, 5=Black or African American, non-Hispanic, 6=Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 7=White, non-Hispanic, 8=Two or more racesUniversity data request: as self-reported on the 2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall TransitionMember of an LLCLLCMember of an LLC as reported by the student0=No, 1=YesUniversity data request from University HousingAcademic EngagementParticipationTo what degree are you the kind of person who participates in class1 to 7-Likert scale. 1=Not at all, 2, 3, 4=Half the time, 5, 6, 7=Always; 99=Not applicableUniversity data request: 2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall Transition Survey –Q0512014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall Transition SurveyFull variable nameSPSS variable nameDescription of Variable (Question from MAP-Works)Coding instructionsSourceFaculty InteractionCommunicationTo what degree are you the kind of person who communicates with instructors outside of class1 to 7-Likert scale. 1=Not at all, 2, 3, 4=Half the time, 5, 6, 7=Always; 99=Not applicableUniversity data request: 2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall Transition Survey –Q052Peer ConnectionsPeersOn this campus, to what degree are you connecting with people who share common interest with you1 to 7-Likert scale. 1=Not at all, 2, 3, 4=Moderately, 5, 6, 7=Extremely; 99=Not applicableUniversity data request: 2014-2015 EBI MAP-Works First Year Fall Transition Survey –Q075Student retained for fall 2015RetainedEnrolled as a full-time student for fall 20150=No, 1=YesUniversity Data RequestData AnalysisTo examine the hypotheses, I conducted linear regression to determine whether retention depends on LLC status. I next examined the relationship between LLC status and the various experience variables: peer connections, faculty interactions, and academic engagement. Linear regression is an appropriate analysis because the goal of this research is to determine a correlation between variables to predict retention. Linear regression provides a simple way to model the ability to predict one variable (the dependent variable) from another variable (the independent variable) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). The following regression equation was used: y = bx + a; where y = estimated dependent variable, b = regression coefficient, c = constant, and x = independent variable. The t-test was used to determine the significance of the predictor, and beta coefficients were used to determine the magnitude and direction of the relationship (Statistics Solutions, 2013). I used the t-test to examine the means of the LLC and non-LLC group.I also used forward stepwise regression to predict retention from LLC status and the experience variables. I wanted to first determine if retention depends on LLC status. Then, I wanted to understand of the variables selected within peer connections, faculty interactions, and academic engagement, which had the most impact related to LLC status. A quantitative analysis method was the best suited for testing these hypotheses. Forward stepwise regression allowed for creating a model starting with no a priori final set of constructs. Then, I added individual constructs to determine the effect on the model (Dell Inc., 2015). The construct with the smallest alpha was added first to the empty model. Each step thereafter then added the construct with the smallest alpha in relation to the constructs already present in the model (Dallal, 2012). Each construct added to the model had a p-value < .05. The analysis stopped once constructs had a p-value > .05. This allowed me to build a model and determine the effect of each construct as it was added.When using any kind of statistical tests it is possible for a Type I or Type II error to occur. In a Type I error, the null hypothesis is incorrectly rejected. Stated another way, the model detects an effect that is not actually present. In a Type II error, the model fails to detect an effect that is actually present. Additionally, the method of adding constructs one at a time may not create the “best” possible model in terms of total amount of variance predicted. The goal of the model was to intentionally focus on the specific constructs closely related to retention and the student outcomes of peer connections, faculty interactions, and academic engagement.The strengths of using stepwise regression are the model is relatively easy to use and understand, and it results in a parsimonious model that provides a reasonably optimal prediction of the criterion (Hunt, 2011; Maxwell, 2009). I used SPSS Version 24.0 (International Business Machines, 2016) to analyze the data.Finally, I calculated a table of correlations that included LLC status, peer connections, faculty interactions, academic engagement, and retention. I set alpha at p = .05 (two-tailed) for testing these correlations. The null hypothesis for my study was there were no relationships between LLC status and peer connections, faculty interactions, academic engagement, and retention. I reduced the number of such tests to these four to minimize the risk of experiment-wise error rate (and thus reporting a significant relationship when none in fact existed, also known as a Type I error). From there, I was able to better understand the degree to which LLC status was associated with these constructs. Specifically, this information helped me to determine if first-year students in an LLC were retained at a higher rate than first-year students not in an LLC.DelimitationsThe purpose of this study was to understand whether or not participation in an LLC resulted in improved retention rate in a higher education institution. I made a number of decisions delimiting the possible sample. First, I selected first-year students. I might have considered retention in any student population, but attrition tends to be a special problem for many institutions among first-year students, so that was where I placed my focus given constraints in resources. In addition, first-year students represent the largest single cohort of students (of any single year) at the target institution, as well as at most institutions, and relatively larger sample sizes are desirable. Second, I selected a single, mid-sized comprehensive, public university. I did this for two reasons: I had access to the data for the institution, so there was a strong argument from the perspective of it being a convenience sample; a second and compelling argument is that this type of institution is similar to that of many other institutions in the United States, and that I assumed that the results might generalize well to the broader population educated through those institutions. Third, I chose to not examine data from LLCs at other institutions in this study. There were two reasons for this: I had neither the resources nor time to enlist participation of other institutions; and there can be substantial variably in the design and function of LLCs across institutions. I wanted to focus on a single LLC, describe it well, and then test the hypothesis for that particular design of an LLC. My hope would be that subsequent research, perhaps through use of meta-analyses, might “knit together” data from multiple designs should it emerge that there exists substantial variability across LLC design in retention based on LLC participation. Fourth, I decided to conduct a quantitative study, and specifically one based on linear and multiple regression, because such a methodology was consistent with the goal of testing hypotheses related to prediction of one variable from another variable or variables; this method likewise supported testing of the key hypothesis identified for the study. Any other methods that I might use to achieve these goals would likely be both needlessly more complex as well as possibly not deliver the most direct way to test the key hypothesis. LimitationsThis research study examined LLCs at a single, mid-sized comprehensive, public university. As a result, generalizing the findings may not be as applicable to other types of universities. However, the variety and flexibility of LLC structures allow for alignment of program design with the unique needs and goals of each university. This makes LLCs a viable choice for many types of colleges and universities (Buch & Spaulding, 2011). Also, as noted above, subsequent research might serve to tease-apart any variability that emerges between particular elements of LLC design and student retention.CHAPTER 4: Results and AnalysisIntroductionThe purpose of this study was to determine whether or not first-year freshman students in an LLC were retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman students not in an LLC. I conducted this study using archival data from PNU, a public, comprehensive, state university located in the Pacific Northwest. I also analyzed intermediate constructs of first-year freshman students’ rate of connecting with people who share common interests, communication with faculty outside of class, and class participation. These constructs were grouped into the following categories: developing peer connections, engaging with faculty, and being involved academically at PNU. The purposes of these additional analyses were to better understand the relationships between retention and the specific features of LLCs.Retention. Controlling for the descriptive variables of gender, race/ethnicity, and major declaration, a Chi-square test for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) indicated no significant association between gender and LLC status, X2 (1, n = 871) = .18, p = .67, phi = .02 or major declaration and LLC status, X2 (1, n = 871) = 2.265, p = .132, phi = -.055. A Chi-square test for independence was used to determine if there was an association between race/ethnicity and LLC status; however, 4 cells (22.2%) had an expected count less than 5 when the minimum expected count was 1.11. (See Appendix F for additional information related to the Chi-square tests.)Analysis showed there were a higher percentage of students retained who were in the LLC group (85.5%) compared to students in the non-LLC group (78.9%). The retention percentage of 85.5% for the LLC group was also higher when compared to the total population of 79.9%. However, a Chi-square test for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) indicated no significant association between LLC status and retention, X2 (1, n = 871) = 2.801, p = .094, phi = .061. Therefore, it appears there is no association between LLC status and retention. Table 2 provides a summary of the analysis comparing the LLC group and non-LLC group with retention to fall 2015.Using SPSS version 24, a forward stepwise linear regression model was conducted to determine which variables best explained retention. However, none of the variables (gender, race/ethnicity, LLC status, peer connections, faculty interactions, and academic engagement) contributes to an effective multivariate model to explain retention.Table 2LLC Status and Retention for fall 2015LLCTotalNoYesRetained for fall 2015NoCount15520175% within Retained for fall 201588.6%11.4%100.0%% within LLC21.1%14.5%20.1%% of Total17.8%2.3%20.1%YesCount578118696% within Retained for fall 201583.0%17.0%100.0%% within LLC78.9%85.5%79.9%% of Total66.4%13.5%79.9%TotalCount733138871% within Retained for fall 201584.2%15.8%100.0%% within LLC100.0%100.0%100.0%% of Total84.2%15.8%100.0%Chi-Square TestsValuedfAsymptotic Significance (2-sided)Exact Sig. (2-sided)Exact Sig. (1-sided)Pearson Chi-Square3.202a1.074Continuity Correctionb2.8011.094Likelihood Ratio3.4171.065Fisher's Exact Test.082.044Linear-by-Linear Association3.1981.074N of Valid Cases871a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 27.73.b. Computed only for a 2x2 tablePeer connections. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the rate of developing peer connections between first-year freshman that were either in an LLC or not in an LLC. I used MAP-Works question Q075, “on this campus, to what degree are you connecting with people who share common interest with you” as the measure to understand peer connections.There was a significant difference in scores regarding level of connection with students who share similar interests for the LLC group (M = 5.59, SD = 1.642) and non-LLC group (M = 5.23, SD = 1.562) and; t (866) = -2.469, p = .014, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = -.361, 95% CI: -.648 to -.074) was small (eta squared = 0.007). Based on the independent samples t-test, it appears the level of connection with students who share similar interests was statistically significant. (see Appendix G, Figure G1 for summary of t-test related to peer connections.)Faculty interactions. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the level of faculty interactions outside the classroom for residential first-year freshman who were either in an LLC or not in an LLC. I used MAP-Works question Q052, “to what degree are you the kind of person who communicates with instructors outside of class” as the measure to understand faculty interactions.There was no significant difference in scores regarding the level of communication with faculty outside the classroom for the LLC group (M = 4.87, SD = 1.552) and non-LLC group (M = 4.58, SD = 1.738) and; t (866) = -1.804, p = .072, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = -.287, 95% CI: -.600 to .025) was small (eta squared = 0.004). Communication with faculty outside the classroom does not appear to be a statistically significant measure between the LLC group and non-LLC group. (see Appendix G, Figure G2 for summary of t-test related to faculty interactions.)Academic engagement. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the level of academic engagement for residential first-year freshman who were either in an LLC or not in an LLC. I used MAP-Works question Q051 “to what degree are you the kind of person who participates in class” as the measure to understand academic engagement.There was a significant difference in scores regarding the level of participation in class for the LLC group (M = 5.83, SD = 1.187) and non-LLC group (M = 5.59, SD = 1.342) and; t (867) = -1.991, p = .047, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = -.244, 95% CI: -.484 to -.003) was small (eta squared = 0.005). Based on the independent samples t-test, it appears the level of level of participation in class was statistically significant. (see Appendix G, Figure G3 for summary of t-test related to academic engagement.)CHAPTER 5: DiscussionIntroductionOver the last 30 years, United States higher education has been in the spotlight of critics calling for numerous reforms, including retention. Student retention is one of the ways to measure whether institutions meet the broad areas of student success and satisfaction (Levitz, Noel, & Richter, 1999). Retention also serves as one of the most visible institutional performance indicators (Kahrig, 2005). Therefore, the calls for a more seamless educational experience for undergraduate students to bridge their academic and personal lives has led to the creation of living-learning communities at colleges and universities throughout the country (Inkelas, Vogt, Longerbeam, Owen, & Johnson, 2006, p. 40). The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not first-year freshman students in an LLC were retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman students not in an LLC.I conducted this quantitative study using archival data from “Pacific Northwest University” (PNU, a pseudonym), a public, and comprehensive, state university located in the Pacific Northwest.Interpretation of resultsRetention. This study used Tinto's (1987, 1993) "model of institutional departure" to understand LLCs impact on retention. PNU was an example of how an institution, using Tinto’s model, created LLCs as a means to create conditions for student success and improve retention. These conditions included setting high expectations; providing clear and consistent advising; establishing academic, social, and personal support; recognizing students as valued members of the institution; and creating an environment that fosters and encourages learning (Tinto, n.d, 2002). Tinto (n.d., 1987, 1993, 2004) suggests students enter the institution with a given set of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other experiences. Then, those individuals interact within that system either positively or negatively, coming to a final decision of staying or leaving. These interactions within the institution include academic performance, faculty and staff interactions, extracurricular activities, and peer group interactions (Tinto, n.d, 1987, 1993, 2004). One would expect, based on Tinto’s theory, that LLCs would have had an impact on retention. The results from this study show a different conclusion.Neither LLC status nor the other predictors examined were associated with higher retention. There was also no statistically significant difference between race/ethnicity or gender and LLC status. The implications of the results indicate that LLCs at PNU, as currently designed do not produce higher retention as suggested by Tinto. Therefore, as a higher education practice, institutions will need to assess and evaluate LLC design as it relates to the institutional mission and vision. From a higher education policy perspective (investment and funding decisions), institutions may need to determine if LLCs are truly a value-added practice.Student Outcomes. Astin’s (1984) “input-environment-outcome (I-E-O)” model was used as a conceptual framework to understand whether LLCs were indeed able to reduce the major reasons why students may decide to leave. Intermediate variables were analyzed to determine if there was a relationship between being part of an LLC and peer connections, faculty interactions, and academic engagement. The results were mixed. Peer connections and academic engagement had a statistically significant result, while faculty interactions did not. The implications of these results suggest when designing LLCs it is important to create environments focused on providing opportunities for peer connections and academic engagement.Peer Connections. This study used the MAP-Works question, “on this campus (PNU), to what degree are you connecting with people who share common interest with you” to measure the rate of peer connections. There was a statistically significant result related to peer connections between the LLC group and non-LLC group. This is consistent with the current literature (Astin, 1977; Astin 1993; Gabelnick, et al., 1990; Tinto, 1999, Inkelas, et al., 2007; CAS, 2014) regarding this particular student outcome. According to Tinto (1999), the frequency and the quality of peer connections have been shown to be independent predictors of student retention (p 5). However, in this study there was no statistical significance indicating peer connections to be an independent predictor of student retention. The impact of PNU’s LLCs on peer connections were significant, indicating the LLCs provide the opportunity for students to connect with peers who share a common interest. This would seem logical since LLCs intentionally group students who report sharing similar interests. If peer connections are not directly impacting retention, institutions will need to assess and evaluate the value-added of LLCs related to possible other student outcomes. Regarding peer connections, successful LLCs should be able to report students having a smoother social transition to college, stronger sense of belonging, greater integration of student’s non-academic lives, and a greater likelihood of serving as a mentor (CAS, 2014). Colleges and universities may want to understand if peer connections are important to the mission and vision of the institution, then investigate the impacts of the associated student outcomes of peer connections on student success related to their mission and vision. This would allow administrators, faculty, and staff to determine if, when, where, and how to allocate appropriate resources that would support LLCs and their ability to create peer connections.Faculty Interactions. This study used MAP-Works question, “to what degree are you the kind of person who communicates with instructors outside of class” to measure the rate of faculty interactions. There was not a statistically significant result related to faculty interactions between the LLC group and non-LLC group. This is contrary to the current literature (Garrett & Zabriskie, 2003; Brower & Inkelas, 2010; Schoem, 2004); that literature supports the idea that students in an LLC have increased rates of interactions with faculty. This may provide an opportunity for PNU as well as other institutions to assess and evaluate student-faculty interactions. Academic and student affairs professionals may want to consider redesigning their LLCs to find ways to create both formal and informal ways for students and faculty to interact (Garret & Zabriskie, 2003). Aside from the potential benefits to students such as a smoother academic transition to college, higher levels of academic self-confidence, and increased integration of knowledge, there are several potential benefits for faculty (CAS, 2014). The implications for faculty include being able to work with and get to know students on a more individualized level (Inkelas, 2000). This relationship helps to create a learning environment where both students and faculty can benefit from each other.The design and structure of PNU’s current LLCs suggests that faculty did not create all of them. Student support offices that have full-time staff, but not faculty, facilitate some of the LLCs. Therefore, LLC design at PNU may have been the reason for getting a result that runs counter to the current literature.Academic Engagement. This study used MAP-Works question, “to what degree are you the kind of person who participates in class” to measure the rate of academic engagement. There was a statistically significant result related to academic engagement between the LLC group and non-LLC group. This is consistent with the current literature (Pike, 1999; Stassen, 2003; CAS, 2014) regarding this particular student outcome. For institutions that are seeking to renew their accreditation, this result is important because they are often required to provide evidence and examples of learning outcomes (Inkelas, Vogt, Longerbeam, Owen, & Johnson, 2006). University administrators may be able to use LLCs as an example of successful academic engagement.Conclusion. These findings are interesting for a several reasons. Based on the NSLLP and SILLP pilot study (Mayhew et al., 2015), students participating in LLCs report higher average scores regarding student outcomes such as critical thinking, social integration, civic engagement and self-efficacy. However, it is unclear from these studies if increased rates of student outcomes translate into increased retention. When interpreting the results of this study, institutions will need to determine the purpose of their LLCs. Is student retention the main goal? Or are student outcomes such as critical thinking, social integration, civic engagement, and self-efficacy the main reason for having LLCs? These results begin to challenge Tinto’s (1987, 1993) “model of institutional departure” that states if students are able to engage academically, interact with faculty, and develop peer connections then they are more likely to persist. This study found students in an LLC had a statistically significant increase in academic engagement and peer connections but where not retained at a higher rate. If retention is the main goal for institutions, further investigation may be needed to better understand the reasons for first-year students not being retained and if LLCs can be created to help students overcome those reasons. If improving student outcomes are the main reason for LLCs, institutions may need to think about being able to justify the benefits to institutional stakeholders, especially in lean budgetary times and during the accreditation process. Therefore, institutions may want to critically evaluate if LLCs should be established or sustained on their campus.Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Future ResearchLimitations. This study only used a sample from a single, mid-sized comprehensive, public university referred to as PNU. Therefore, generalizing the findings may not be applicable to all types of institutions. The LLCs analyzed in this study may not be representative of all types of LLCs nationally (Longerbeam, Inkelas, & Brower, 2007). The lack of specific standards when it comes to creating LLCs makes obtaining a representative sample a challenge. Currently, CAS only provides institutions with guidelines rather than standards when it comes to creating LLCs. As a result, this makes obtaining a representative sample for comparison very difficult. This study did not focus on comparing specific characteristics of each specific LLC. Instead, it generally compared retention rates of first-year students in an LLC with those not in an LLC. Specific factors such as self-selection into an LLC, socio-economic status, high school GPA, and first-generation status were not used as part of the analysis in this study (Inkelas & Soldner, 2011).Recommendations. The results from this study indicate first-year student retention is not improved by participating in an LLC. From a practical perspective, PNU may want to determine if it will continue to invest resources in their LLCs, and to what extent. Analysis of the intermediate constructs of peer connections and academic engagement determined there was a statistically significant result between the LLC group and non-LLC group. While retention is not improved, student outcomes such as peer connections and academic engagement were positively impacted. Another consideration might be to understand if there would be any benefit to sustaining or creating LLCs designed to support the needs for underrepresented student populations? This study did not find statistically significant results related to race/ethnicity or gender and LLC status. However, further research might explore retention rates for underrepresented student populations who participate in LLCs.Institutions such as PNU might want to consider the specific impacts of LLCs in an effort to justify their costs. LLCs are promoted as a high impact practice (Kuh, 2008); however, the implications of this research suggest a need to assess and evaluate their current design. The CAS (2014) guidelines for LLCs report that institutions with successful LLCs should be able to report increased first-to-second year retention. Despite the investment in resources, LLCs do not appear to result in improved retention, at least at this single institution. Efforts at replication may wish to study other institutions.This study examined first-year student retention from fall 2014 to the following fall 2015. Expanding the sample size to include sophomore, junior, and transfer students may provide additional insight to these student groups and LLC’s impact on retention beyond the first year. Beginning in fall 2015, Pacific Northwest University began administering the MAP-Works survey to all on-campus students. If this practice continues, an additional study may enable comparing retention rates of students in an LLC compared to those not in an LLC over span of four to six years. This would allow a study of a cohort of students comparing retention rates from their first to second year and persistence to graduation.At any rate, if LLCs themselves do not provide improved retention of students in higher education institutions, then how might they support the factors that do appear to improve retention? What factors lead students to want to complete a degree at a higher education institution? What factors lead students to want to return to their institution, and how can LLCs positively impact this?REFERENCESAdirondack Solutions, Inc. (2016). The housing director (Version 4.1.0) [computer software]. Available from Association for Higher Education, American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (1998). Powerful partnerships: A shared responsibility for learning. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from College Personnel Association. (2008). The student learning imperative. Retrieved from , J. H., Cabrera, A. F., & Brower, A. M. (2008). Moving into students’ spaces: The impact of location of academic advising on student engagement among undecided students. NACADA Journal, 28(1), 8-18.Association of College and University Housing Officers-International. (n.d.). Living-learning programs conference. Retrieved from , A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A development theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529. Retrieved from , A. R. (2013). Do residential-only learning communities affect measures of first-year student success and faculty interaction (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3612913). Retrieved from , A. K. (2006). Relationship between participation in a residentially-based freshman interest group and degree attainment (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3284760). Retrieved from , G. S. (1998). The benefits and limitations of residential colleges: A meta-analysis of the research. In. F. King Alexander & Don E. Robertson (Eds.), Residential colleges: Reforming American higher education (pp. 39-76). Murray, Kentucky: Oxford International Round Table and Murray State University Press.Borst, A. J. (2011). Evaluating academic and student affairs partnerships: The impact of living-learning communities on the development of critical thinking skills in college freshmen (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3461086). Retrieved from , J. L. (2010). Living-learning communities and ethnicity: A study on closing the achievement gap at regional university (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3417733). Retrieved from , A. M., & Dettinger, K. M. (1998). What "is" a learning community? Toward a comprehensive model. About Campus, 3(5), 15-22.Brower, A. M., & Inkelas, K. K. (2010). Living-learning programs: one high-impact educational practice we now know a lot about. Liberal Education, 96(2), 36-43.Buch, K., & Spaulding, S. (2011). The impact of a psychology learning community on academic success, retention, and student learning outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 38(2), 71-77. doi:10.1177/0098628311401589Central Washington University. (n.d). Orientation: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved August 7, 2016, from for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2014). Housing and residential life programs CAS standards and guidelines. Retrieved from , G. E. (2012). The little handbook of statistical practice. Retrieved from , Inc. (2015). General regression models. Statistics-textbook. Retrieved March 11, 2016, from , J. C., Edge, H., & Stephenson, K. (2007). Investigating types of student engagement through living-learning communities: The perspective from Rollins College. Assessment Update, 19(3), 6-8.Edwards, K., & McKelfresh, D. A. (2002). The impact of a living learning center on students’ academic success and persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 43(3), 395-402.Gabelnick, F. (1997). Educating a committed citizenry. Change, 29(1), 30.Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R. S., & Smith, B. L. (1990). Learning communities: Creating connections among students, faculty, and disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Garrett, M., & Zabriskie, M. (2003). The influence of living-learning program participation on student-faculty interaction. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 32(2), 38-44.Hunt, L. (2011). Predictors of student outcomes in developmental math at a public community and technical college (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Marshall Digital Scholar in Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Retrieved from , K. K. (2000). Participation in living-learning programs at the University of Michigan: Benefits for students and faculty (Report No. 15). The University of Michigan: The Center for Research on Learning and Teaching.Inkelas, K. K., & Associates. (2007). National study of living-learning programs: 2007 report of findings. College Park, MD: Authors. Retrieved from , K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Brown-Leonard, J. (2006). Living-learning programs and first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in Higher Education, 48(4), 403-434.Inkelas, K. K. & Soldner, M. (2011). Undergraduate living-learning programs and student outcomes. In J. Smart & M. Paulsen (Eds.), Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 26, pp. 1-56). New York, NY: Springer.Inkelas, K. K., Soldner, M. Longerbeam, S. D., & Leonard, J. B. (2008). Differences in student outcomes by types of living-learning programs: The development of an empirical typology. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 495-512.Inkelas, K. K., Vogt, K. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Owen, J., & Johnson, D. (2006). Measuring outcomes of living-learning programs: Examining college environments and student learning and development. Journal of General Education, 55(1), 40-76.Inkelas, K. K., & Weisman, J. L. (2003). Different by design: An examination of student outcomes among participants in three types of living-learning programs. Journal Of College Student Development, 44(3), 335-68.International Business Machines. (2016). Statistical package for the social sciences (Version 22) [computer software]. Available from , D. R., Soldner, M., Brown-Leonard, J., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H., et al. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525-542.Jones, J. B. (2000). A study of the effects that multiple living learning programs have on residence hall students at a large research university (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 9980621). Retrieved from , J. B. (2003). Effects of residential learning communities, on -campus housing, and gender on students' perception of their living environment (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (288090910). (Order No. 3080229). Retrieved from , T. (2005). An evaluation of the residential learning communities program at Ohio University: An analysis of student involvement, satisfaction, academic success, and retention (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3197298). Retrieved from Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities. (1997). Returning to our roots: The student experience. Washington, D. C.: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Retrieved from , J. L. (2009). The association of critical thinking and participation in living and learning programs: Residential honors compared to civic/social leadership programs and non-participation in living and learning programs (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3391377). Retrieved from , H. C. (2014). Cronbach’s alpha. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. California: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118445112.stat06959Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Kuh, G. D., Douglas, K. B., Lund, J. P. & Ramin-Gyurnek, J. (1994). Student learning outside the classroom: Transcending artificial boundaries (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No, ED394443). Washington, DC: George Washington University. Retrieved from , J. L., Shapiro, N. S. & Associates. (2004). Sustaining and improving learning communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Lenning, O. T., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). The powerful potential of learning communities: Improving education for the future. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(6). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.Levitz, R. S., Noel, L. & Richter, B. J. (1999). Strategic Moves for Retention Success. New Directions for Higher Education, 1999(108), 31–49. doi: 10.1002/he.10803Longerbeam, S. D., Inkelas, K. K. & Brower, A. M. (2007). Secondhand benefits: Student outcomes in residence halls with living-learning programs. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 43(2), 20-30.Longwell-Grice, R., & Longwell-Grice, H. (2008). Testing Tinto: How do retention theories work for first-generation, working-class students? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(4), 407-420.Love, A. G., & Tokuno, K. A. (1999). Learning community models. In J. H. Levine (Ed.), Learning communities: New structures, new partnerships for learning. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.Mann, D. S. (2013). The relationship between ethnic identity and residence hall preference (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3602147). Retrieved from , K. (2009). Logistic regression analysis to determine the significant factors associated with substance abuse in school-aged children (Master’s thesis). Available from the department of Mathematics and Statistics at ScholarWorks at Georgia State University. Retrieved from , A. (2001). The experimental college. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin.National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Retrieved March 3, 2016, from Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Retrieved January 10, 2017, from Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (2010). First-year retention: Retention rates - first-time college freshmen returning their second year. Retrieved from Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved from Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2014). Report: Snapshot report-persistence-retention. Retrieved from , E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Student-faculty and student-peer relationships as mediators of the structural effects of undergraduate residence arrangement. Journal of Educational Research, 73(6), 344-353.Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Student-faculty and student-peer relationships as mediators of the structural effects of undergraduate residence arrangement. Journal of Educational Research, 73(6), 344-53.Pasque, P. A., & Murphy, R. (2005). The intersections of living-learning programs and social identity as factors of academic achievement and intellectual engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 429-441.Pike, G. R. (1999). The effects of residential learning communities and traditional residential living arrangements on educational gains during the first year in college. Journal of College Student Development, 40(3), 269-284.Powell, J. W. (Ed.). (1981). The experimental college. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin.Purdie, I. I., J. R., (2007). Examining the academic performance and retention of first-year students in living-learning communities, freshmen interest groups and first year experience courses (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3322736). Retrieved from , M. B. (1992). Residential colleges. Change, 24(5), 26-35.Schoem, D. (2004). Sustaining living-learning programs. In J. L. Laufgraben & N. S. Shapiro (Eds.), Sustaining and improving learning communities. San Francisco: Wiley.Schroeder, C. C. (1994). Developing learning communities. In C. C. Schroeder and others (Eds.), Realizing the educational potential of residence halls. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical guide to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R.S., & Gabelnick, F. (2004). Learning communities: Reforming undergraduate education. San Francisco: Wiley.Smith, T. L. (2008). The impact of residential community living learning programs on college student achievement and behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3320200). Retrieved from , M. & Szelenyi, K. (2008). A national portrait of today’s living-learning programs. The Journal of College and University Student Housing, 35(1), 14-31.Stassen, M. A. (2003). Student Outcomes: The Impact of Varying Living-Learning Community Models. Research In Higher Education, 44(5), 581-613.Statistics Solutions. (2013). Data analysis plan: Linear Regression [WWW Document]. Retrieved from , M. M. (2014). The relationship between living learning communities and student success on first-year and second-year students at the University of South Florida (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3617192). Retrieved from Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education. (Stock No. 065-000-00213-2). Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Swail, W. S. (2004, June). The art of student retention: A handbook for practitioners and administrators. Paper session presented at the 20th Annual Recruitment and Retention Conference of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Austin, Texas.Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Tinto, V. (n.d.). Student success and the building of involving educational communities. Retrieved from , V. (n.d.). Tinto's theoretical model of suicide and the study of departure from higher education. [PDF document]. Retrieved from 'sPresentation.pdfTinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, (2nd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599-623.Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA Journal, 19(2), 5-9.Tinto, V. (2000). What have we learned about the impact of learning communities on students? Assessment Update Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Education, 12(2) 1-2, 12.Tinto, V. (October, 2002). Enhancing student persistence: Connecting the dots. Presentation at the Optimizing the Nation’s Investment: Persistence and Success in Postsecondary Education Conference, Madison, Wisconsin. Retrieved from , V. (2004, July). Student retention: What next? Presentation at the National Conference on Student Recruitment, Marketing, and Retention, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from , V., & Pusser, B. (2006). Moving from theory to action: Building a model of institutional action for student success. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, 1-51.Vostad, J. J. (2004). Why living-learning community students decide to return for their second year of college: Academic and social integration (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3138440). Retrieved from Center. (n.d.). The national resource center for learning communities. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from , M. R. & Jessup-Anger, J. E. (2010). From expectations to experiences: Using a structural typology to understand first-year student outcomes in academically based living-learning communities. Journal of College Student Development, 51(2), 201-217.Wawrzynski, M. R., Jessup-Anger, J. E., Stolz, K., Helman, C., & Beaulieu, J. (2009). Exploring students' perceptions of academically based living-learning communities. College Student Affairs Journal, 28(1), 138-158.Yao, C.W., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2013). Influence of academically based living-learning communities on men’s awareness of and appreciation for diversity. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 39(2), 32-47.Footnotes1 Pseudonyms were used to help protect the specific identity of the individual LLCs and identity of the institution.Appendix A: Colleges and Universities with LLCsColleges and universities around the country have created LLCs, with structured as partnerships between the housing/residence life offices and various academic departments. Most LLCs are advertised to students as an opportunity to live and connect with peers who have a common interest, develop relationships with faculty both inside and outside the classroom, assist with navigating the institution, and helping with the transition to college. Refer to Table A1 for a brief listing of institutions with LLCs.Table A1Colleges and Universities with LLCsInstitutionWebsiteLLCs Offered*University of Minnesota interest-specific (e.g. Honors, Biology, ROTC, STEM)University of Denver & Entrepreneurship, Environmental Sustainability, International Social Justice, WellnessCentral Washington University (e.g. Aviation, Casa Latina, Leadership, Business)The University of Utah, Fine Arts, Law, Social Justice, Business, SustainabilityDartmouth Entrepreneurial Network, Design your Own, Triangle HouseUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Crossroads, Health Professions, Honors, SustainabilityMiami University, Emerging Leaders, First Year Research, Global ConnectionsEast Tennessee State University, First Year Experience, Pre-Health, Sophomore ExperienceSaint Mary’s University of Minnesota, Wellness, AthletesUniversity of Southern Maine, Leadership and Service, Environment & SustainabilityUniversity of California Santa Barbara Living Experience, First Generation, Outdoor Adventure, Substance-FreeUniversity of Connecticut, Humanities, Innovation, LeadershipKent State University, Business, Honors, International Village ExperienceTruman State University, Service Learning, Romance Languages, Sustainability, TransitionsNote: Only a few of the LLCs for each institution are listed due to the large variety and complexity of each institutions LLC structure. This list serves only as an example of the LLCs offered to students at each institution and does not represent all institutions with LLCs. Additionally, the list was created from conducting a Google search using the term “Living Learning Communities” and the institutions listed are in no way being endorsed or receiving any benefit.Appendix B: Learning Community TypologiesWhile learning communities have, in essence, been around since the 1920s and possibly earlier, it has been in the last 25 years that researchers have started to categorize LCs into different typologies. It has only been in the past two decades that LLCs have been thought of as their own separate typology. Refer to Figure B1 for a listing of typology by researcher.Figure B1LC TypologiesGabelnick et al. (1990)Shapiro & Levine (1999)Lenning & Ebbers (1999)Smith et al. (2004)Linked coursesPaired or clustered coursesCurricular learning communitiesCross-curricularCurricular cohortCurricular areaLinked or clustered coursesLearning clustersCohorts in large courses or first-year groupsClassroom learningTotal-classroomWithin-classroomTeam-taught coursesFreshman interest groups (FIGs)Team-taught coursesStudent typeCurricular cohort programsCoordinated studiesResidence-based programsResidential learning communitiesResidential collegesResidential FIGsHonorsAcademic themesLiving-learning communitiesNote. Adapted from “Comparison of learning community typologies” by K. K. Inkelas and M. Soldner, 2011, Handbook of Theory and Research, 26, p. 7. Copyright 2011 by Springer Science + Business Media B. V. With permission of SpringerAppendix C: Living-Learning Community DefinitionsAs researchers have specifically identified LLCs as their own unique typology a variety of definitions for LLCs have also emerged. Figure C1 helps to show the progression of LLC definitions over the past 25 years.Figure C1 Definitions of Living-Learning CommunitiesGabelnick et al.(1990)Schroeder(1994)Schoem(2004)Inkelas & Associates(2007)Any one of a variety of curricular structures that link together several existing courses, or actually restructure the material entirely, so that students have opportunities for deeper understanding and integration of the material they are learning, and more interaction with one another and their teachers as fellow participants in the learning enterprise.Learning communities are fostered by commonality and consistency of purpose, shared values, and transcendent themes.Living-learning programs are defined broadly as programs organized to introduce and integrate academic and social learning in residence hall settings through faculty involvement with the goal of an enriched learning experience for all participants.Programs in which undergraduate students live together in a discrete portion of a residence hall (or the entire hall) and participate in academic and/or extracurricular programming designed especially for them.Appendix D: Successfully Created LLCSince the 1960s and 1970s, several colleges and universities have addressed the need to help students transition to the institution, create a sense of community, and take an active role in their learning. Figure D1 provides a list of institutions and their successful LLCs. These institutions have been able to address and overcome challenges and sustain their LLCs.Figure D1Examples of Successful LLCsInstitutionName of LLCWebsiteUniversity of Maryland at College ParkCollege Park Scholarsscholars.umd.eduUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonBradley Learning Communityhousing.wisc.edu/bradleyUniversity of MichiganThe Residential Collegerc.lsa.umich.eduIndiana UniversityCollins Living-Learning Programindiana.edu/~llc/University of Missouri at ColumbiaFreshman Interest Group (FIG) Program of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignUnit One. Lawrence UniversityFirst-Year Programstlawu.edu/fypUniversity of Southern MaineRussell Scholars Program Green State University (BGSU)Chapman Learning Community: See Laufgraben & Shapiro, 2004, for additional information outlining why each of these LLCs have been successful.Appendix E: LLC Research StudiesSeveral empirically based research studies related to LLCs have been conducted between 1980 and 2010. Depending on the study there are varying degrees of support regarding the impacts of LLCs on the areas of performance, persistence, and attainment, intellectual development, faculty and peer interactions, college transition, campus life and attitudes and beliefs. Figure E1 provides an overview of the various studies conducted and their focus.Figure E1Empirically-Based LLC Research StudiesAuthorsTitle of StudyFocus of StudyPascarella & Terenzini, 1980Student-faculty and student-peer relationships as mediators of the structural effects of undergraduate residence arrangementFirst-year students GPA and LLC participationEdwards & McKelfresh, 2002The impact of a living learning center on students’ academic success and persistenceAcademic performance and natural science LLC participationStassen, 2003Student outcomes: the impact of varying living-learning community modelsThe effect of three distinct LLC models on a variety of student experience and academic performance outcomes.Pasque & Murphy, 2005The intersections of living-learning programs and social identity as factors of academic achievement and intellectual engagementThe effect of living LLCs relating to social identity on academic achievement and intellectual engagementPurdie, 2007Examining the academic performance and retention of first-year students in living-learning communities, freshmen interest groups and first year experience coursesThe relationship between first-year students compared to non-participants in LLCs, FIGs, and first-year experience coursesBeckett, 2006Relationship between participation in a residentially-based freshman interest group and degree attainmentThe relationships between residentially-based FIGs and degree attainment related to socioeconomic statusPike, 1999The intersections of living-learning programs and social identity as factors of academic achievement and intellectual engagementUnderstanding impacts of LLCs on academic achievement and intellectual engagementInkelas et al., 2006Measuring Outcomes of Living-Learning Programs: Examining College Environments and Student Learning and DevelopmentRelationship between LLCs and intellectual developmentEck et al., 2007Investigating Types of Student Engagement through Living-Learning Communities: The Perspective from Rollins CollegeRelationship between LLCs and student engagementKohl, 2009The association of critical thinking and participation in living and learning programs: Residential honors compared to Civic/Social leadership programs and non-participation in living and learning programsRelationship between LLCs and critical thinkingGarrett & Zabriskie, 2003The influence of living-learning program participation on student-faculty interactionLLCs and faculty interactionInkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Brown-Leonard, 2006Living-learning programs and first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to collegeLLCs and college transitionInkelas & Weisman, 2003Different by Design: An Examination of Student Outcomes among Participants in Three Types of Living-Learning ProgramsLLCs and campus lifeJohnson, et al., 2007Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups.LLCs and campus life related to a sense of belongingArms, et al., 2008Moving into students’ spaces: The impact of location of academic advising on student engagement among undecided studentsLLCs and student engagementNote: See Inkelas and Soldner, 2011, for additional information summarizing the studies included in Figure E1.Appendix F: Participant Study Descriptive StatisticsThe participants within the sample were 44.8% male and 55.2% female. In the non-LLC group the sample were 45.2% male and 54.8% female. In the LLC group the sample were 42.8% male and 57.2% female. Table F1 shows the percentage allocations for the entire sample, non-LLC group, and LLC group.Table F1Gender and LLC StatusLLCTotalNoYesSexMaleCount33159390% within Sex84.9%15.1%100.0%% within LLC45.2%42.8%44.8%% of Total38.0%6.8%44.8%FemaleCount40279481% within Sex83.6%16.4%100.0%% within LLC54.8%57.2%55.2%% of Total46.2%9.1%55.2%TotalCount733138871% within Sex84.2%15.8%100.0%% within LLC100.0%100.0%100.0%% of Total84.2%15.8%100.0%Chi-Square TestsValuedfAsymptotic Significance (2-sided)Exact Sig. (2-sided)Exact Sig. (1-sided)Pearson Chi-Square.271a1.602Continuity Correctionb.1831.669Likelihood Ratio.2721.602Fisher's Exact Test.641.335Linear-by-Linear Association.2711.603N of Valid Cases871a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 61.79.b. Computed only for a 2x2 tableSymmetric MeasuresValueApproximate SignificanceNominal by NominalPhi.018.602Cramer's V.018.602N of Valid Cases871The race/ethnicity composition of the sample was 62.3% White, 11.8% Hispanic, 9.2% two or more races, 5.7% nonresident alien, 4.2% Black/African American; 3.1% Asian, 1.5% unknown, 1.3% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 0.80% American Indian or Alaska Native. Table F2 shows the percentage allocations for the entire sample, non-LLC group, and LLC group.Table F2Race/Ethnicity and LLC StatusLLCTotalNoYesRace/EthnicityNonresident alienCount48250% within Race/Ethnicity96.0%4.0%100.0%% within LLC6.5%1.4%5.7%% of Total5.5%0.2%5.7%Race/ethnicity unknownCount10313% within Race/Ethnicity76.9%23.1%100.0%% within LLC1.4%2.2%1.5%% of Total1.1%0.3%1.5%Hispanic of any raceCount8122103% within Race/Ethnicity78.6%21.4%100.0%% within LLC11.1%15.9%11.8%% of Total9.3%2.5%11.8%American Indian or Alaska NativeCount707% within Race/Ethnicity100.0%0.0%100.0%% within LLC1.0%0.0%0.8%% of Total0.8%0.0%0.8%AsianCount21627% within Race/Ethnicity77.8%22.2%100.0%% within LLC2.9%4.3%3.1%% of Total2.4%0.7%3.1%Black or African American, non-HispanicCount31637% within Race/Ethnicity83.8%16.2%100.0%% within LLC4.2%4.3%4.2%% of Total3.6%0.7%4.2%Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific IslanderCount9211% within Race/Ethnicity81.8%18.2%100.0%% within LLC1.2%1.4%1.3%% of Total1.0%0.2%1.3%White, non-HispanicCount45786543% within Race/Ethnicity84.2%15.8%100.0%% within LLC62.3%62.3%62.3%% of Total52.5%9.9%62.3%Two or more racesCount691180% within Race/Ethnicity86.3%13.8%100.0%% within LLC9.4%8.0%9.2%% of Total7.9%1.3%9.2%TotalCount733138871% within Race/Ethnicity84.2%15.8%100.0%% within LLC100.0%100.0%100.0%% of Total84.2%15.8%100.0%Chi-Square TestsValuedfAsymptotic Significance (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square10.574a8.227Likelihood Ratio13.2408.104Linear-by-Linear Association.0311.860N of Valid Cases871a. 4 cells (22.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.11.Symmetric MeasuresValueApproximate SignificanceNominal by NominalPhi.110.227Cramer's V.110.227N of Valid Cases871Participants within the sample who reported not having decided on a major composed 81.3% and 18.7% reported having decided on a major. Table F3 shows that for those having decided on a major within the LLC group was 13.8% compared to 19.6% in the non-LLC group. Also, those who reported not having decided on a major within the LLC group was 86.2% compared to the 80.4% in the non-LLC group.Appendix G: Retention factors and LLC statusFigures G1, G2, and G3 provide a summary of the independent-samples t-tests for the intermediate constructs of peer connections, faculty interactions, and academic engagement.Figure G1Peer Connections t-test resultsGroup StatisticsLLCNMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error MeanPeer connectionNo7305.231.562.058Yes1385.591.642.140Independent Samples TestLevene's Test for Equality of Variancest-test for Equality of MeansFSig.tdfSig. (2-tailed)Mean DifferenceStd. Error Difference95% Confidence Interval of the DifferenceLowerUpperPeer connectionEqual variances assumed1.086.298-2.469866.014-.361.146-.648-.074Equal variances not assumed-2.386186.815.018-.361.151-.659-.063Figure G2Faculty Interactions t-test resultsGroup StatisticsLLCNMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error MeanCommunication with instructor outside of classNo7314.581.738.064Yes1374.871.552.133Independent Samples TestLevene's Test for Equality of Variancest-test for Equality of MeansFSig.tdfSig. (2-tailed)Mean DifferenceStd. Error Difference95% Confidence Interval of the DifferenceLowerUpperCommunication with instructor outside of classEqual variances assumed3.748.053-1.804866.072-.287.159-.600.025Equal variances not assumed-1.949205.343.053-.287.147-.578.003Figure G3Academic Engagement t-test resultsGroup StatisticsLLCNMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error MeanParticipation in classNo7315.591.342.050Yes1385.831.187.101Independent Samples TestLevene's Test for Equality of Variancest-test for Equality of MeansFSig.tdfSig. (2-tailed)Mean DifferenceStd. Error Difference95% Confidence Interval of the DifferenceLowerUpperParticipation in classEqual variances assumed3.713.054-1.991867.047-.24s4.122-.484-.003Equal variances not assumed-2.164208.768.032-.244.113-.466-.022 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download