THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIVING-LEARNING COMMUNITIES AND RETENTION
A dissertation submitted
by
IAN MILLER
to
Benedictine University
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
in
Higher Education and Organizational Change
This dissertation has been accepted for the faculty
of 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 Date
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge all the individuals who have helped and supported me through this long and challenging journey. My committee members—Dr. Andrew Carson, Dr. Amanda Turner, and Dr. Anne Cubilie—have provided an enormous amount of encouragement for me to finish this dissertation. I would also like to mention my family—Grace, Jethro, and Bert—who supported me through many long nights of researching, typing, and being grumpy.To my supervisor, Jenna Hyatt, who has been on a similar journey and understands what it means to be a doctoral student and a full-time employee. Additionally, to Richard DeShields, Eric Scott, John Mounsey, and Anna Cairns who have been so supportive. The process of completing this dissertation has been an experience I will never forget. Thank you to Dr. Sunil Chand, Dr. Eileen Kolich, and the wonderful faculty of the Ed.D. Program at Benedictine University.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Theories of retention
Theories of living-learning communities
Purpose of Study
Hypotheses
Importance of the Study
Contributions to research and literature
Who will benefit and be interested?
Summary.
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review
Theories of Retention
History of Living-Learning Communities
Structure of Living-Learning Communities
Linked courses
Clustered courses
Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs).
Federated learning communities and coordinated studies
Curricular learning communities
Classroom learning communities
Special population or Student-type learning communities
Residence-based programs (LLCs).
Challenges of creating and sustaining living learning communities
Research Studies of Living-Learning Communities
Outcome-oriented studies.
Practice-oriented studies.
Living-Learning Communities Today
Summary
CHAPTER 3: Methodology
Introduction
Participants
Instrumentation
Data Collection
Constructs
Data Analysis
Delimitations
Limitations
CHAPTER 4: Results and Analysis
Introduction
CHAPTER 5: Discussion
Summary
Interpretation of results
Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Future Research
REFERENCES
Appendix A: Colleges and Universities with LLCs
Appendix B: Learning Community Typologies
Appendix C: Living-Learning Community Definitions
Appendix D: Successfully Created LLC
Appendix E: LLC Research Studies
Appendix F: Participant Study Descriptive Statistics
Appendix G: Retention factors and LLC status
ABSTRACT
Student retention is one of the key outcome variables in higher education. It suggests the presence of student success and satisfaction (Levitz, Noel, & Richter, 1999). It also serves as one of the most visible institutional performance indicators (Kahrig, 2005), important from the perspectives of accreditation (given its correlation with graduation rates) as well as the business survival of aninstitution.
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 theMaking 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: Introduction
Over the last 30 years, United States higher education has been in the spotlight of critics calling for numerous reforms. Several reports highlight the need for colleges and universities to address issues such as cost of tuition, remedial education, accountability, and retention. The National Commission of Excellence in Education (1983) focused on the readiness of high school graduates entering college, as well as college graduates entering the workforce. The Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education (1984) focused on issues related to student involvement and motivation. These reports also offered recommendations for colleges and universities to improve in those areas.The American Association for Higher Education, the American College Personnel Association andthe 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 timerefers 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). TheNSCRC 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 decreasingretention 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, andresidential-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 (Smithet 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 benefitsas 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 Problem
There are increasing calls for higher education institutions to reform their teaching and learning practices to meet the changing demographics of students and to address demands for accountability by legislators (Smith et al., 2004). Part of reforming teaching and learning practices is to better understand issues of retention and build models to effectively address those issues. Previous research studies provided data indicating that student retention is negatively impacted by lack of academic and social engagement (Eck, Edge, & Stephenson, 2007).Kahrig (2005) noted that several investigators, including Tinto, Astin, and Pascarella and Terenzini, examined social and academic integration and their interconnections to retention.
Theories of retention.According to Tinto (1987, 1993), there are three major reasons a student may decide to leave an institution: academic difficulties, the inability of individuals to resolve their educational and occupational goals, and their failure to become or remain incorporated in the intellectual and social life of the institution. Tinto's (1987, 1993) "model of institutional departure" stated that, to persist, students need integration into formal (academic performance) and informal (faculty and staff interactions) academic systems and formal (extracurricular activities) and informal (peer-group interactions) social systems.Therefore, it isimportant 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 (seeAppendix 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 topromote retention, this study examinedwhether first-year freshman students participating in LLCs have better retention rates than those who do not participate in LLCs. Italso analyzed the effectiveness of LLCs to support first-year freshman students in developing peer connections, faculty interactions, and being academically engaged at auniversity. From these data, we determined whether first-year freshman students participating in LLCs hadbetter retention rates than those who do not.
When examining LLCs as a possible model to address issues of retention, identifying the appropriateLLC structureto 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. Thereare 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 wasno 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; SoldnerSzelenyi, 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 (InkelasSoldner, 2011).
Brower and Dettinger (1998) summarized thatLLCs 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 wasto determine whether or not first-year freshman students in an LLC wereretained 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 investigationmay be warranted: would any association between LLC participation and improved retention be accounted for by intermediate constructs, such as those identified by Brown and Dettinger (1998)?
Hypotheses
The primary purpose of this study wasto 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 wasbased 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 wasthat first-year freshman students in anLLC will be retained at a higher rate than first-year freshman students not in an LLC.The associated research question is “What is the relationship between retention and LLC status of first-year freshman?”
Importance of the Study
Contributions to research and literature.Through creating and sustaining LLCs, institutions may be better able to provide unique opportunities for students that combinetheir 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?