downloaded here - The Study of Integrated Living Learning Programs

Transcription

Study of Integrated
Living Learning Programs
Findings from the Pilot
Fall 2015
Prepared by:
Dr. Matthew J. Mayhew
Laura Dahl
Ethan Youngerman
Study of Integrated
Welcome
Study of Integrated Living Learning Programs
In late summer, at colleges across the United States, residential campuses experience a flurry of activity as
students fill their halls. For an increasing number of our students, their housing could be a place where the
learning continues and is integrated with their living experience. Upon returning from a busy day, these
students may practice their foreign language major on a culturally-themed floor, discuss their academic and
professional goals with a residence-based peer advising group, plan a philanthropic event with their serviceoriented community, or even use medieval recipes to prepare dinner with the history professor who lives
down the hall. These integrative experiences, and the living learning programs (LLPs) in which they occur,
are a lot of work – even when they are excellent examples of collaborations between academic affairs and
student affairs. But the Study of Integrated Living Learning Programs is agnostic about the administrative
systems that create LLPs. Our focus, instead, is firmly on the students: SILLP is invested in increasing our
understanding of LLPs’ impact on student development and academic success.
We already understand a lot, thanks in no small part to Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas and Aaron Brower, who
launched the National Study of Living Learning Programs (NSLLP) over a decade ago. That study led to a
body of literature suggesting that LLPs are a high-impact practice. We know that, in general, students in LLPs:
have a smoother academic transition to college; have a smoother social transition to college; apply critical
thinking skills more frequently; are more committed to civic engagement; and binge drink less frequently,
among many other positive outcomes. We also know that LLPs can look very different from one campus to
the next. And so the goal of this report is to help you and your department continue to move from research
to practice. We don’t believe that all LLPs should look the same; nor do we believe that LLPs are a cure-all.
Instead, we believe, as we know you do, that this powerful practice can have a profound influence on our
students. We’re hopeful that this report helps you understand how your good and hard work is positively
influencing your students, and how you might alter that good and hard work to improve the impacts of the
LLP experience on particular outcomes.
Sincerely,
Dr. Matthew Mayhew
SILLP Principal Investigator
Associate Professor, New York University
Executive Summary
Living Learning Experiences
•• When compared with their peers residing in Traditional Residence Halls, students participating in Living
Learning Programs reported a higher mean tendency to discuss learning experiences with their peers.
•• Students residing in Traditional Residence Halls reported a higher mean level of engagement with
co-curricular/out of classroom learning opportunities and a lower mean level of engagement with
extracurricular/student activities than their peers who participate in Living Learning Programs.
•• Between the two groups, students participating in Living Learning Programs reported a higher mean
perception that their residence hall environment was socially supportive than their peers residing in
Traditional Residence Halls.
•• Within Living Learning Programs themselves, students participating in theme-oriented LLPs reported
higher mean perceptions of the campus climate for racial and spiritual /religious diversity than their
peers residing in major-focused LLPs.
•• Amongst the different types of Living Learning Programs, Residential College and Honors College
participants reported lower mean engagement in co-curricular/out-of-classroom learning opportunities
than their peers in theme-oriented LLPs.
•• Students participating in theme-oriented LLPs reported a higher mean level of engagement with
extracurricular/student activities than their peers in academically-oriented LLPs.
Student Outcomes
•• When compared with their peers residing in Traditional Residence Halls, students participating in Living
Learning Programs reported a higher mean disposition toward critical thinking.
•• In terms of social integration, students participating in Living Learning Programs reported higher mean
sense of belonging both within their residential environment and on the broader campus than their
peers residing in Traditional Residence Halls.
•• Students participating in Living Learning Programs reported higher mean level of civic engagement on
campus than their peers residing in Traditional Residence Halls.
•• Residents of Traditional Residence Halls reported a higher mean level of participation in high-risk binge
drinking than their peers participating in Living Learning Programs.
•• Amongst the different types of Living Learning Programs, students participating in theme-oriented LLPs
reported higher means on self-efficacy within their major; perception of having mastered the liberal arts
as a subject area; disposition toward critical thinking; confidence in their academic progress; and civic
engagement on campus than their peers residing in academically-focused LLPs.
•• Students participating in major-focused LLPs reported higher mean career self-efficacy than their peers
participating in theme-oriented LLPs.
•• Residential College and Honors College residents reported higher mean confidence in their academic
progress than their peers participating in academically-focused LLPs.
Acknowledgements
We would like to offer sincere thanks to the incredible team of scholars at the NYU Center for Research on
Higher Education Outcomes who helped prepare this report: Dr. Gregory Wolniak, Marc Lo, Chris Stipeck, and
Tiffani Williams.
Advisory Board
We would also like to thank the distinguished members of the SILLP Advisory Board, who as experienced
practitioners and researchers offer invaluable insight and guidance.
Lisa Diekow - Director of Housing for Residence Life and Education, The University of Florida
Merrily Dunn - Associate Professor, The University of Georgia
Amber Fallucca - Director of Assessment for University Housing, The University of South Carolina
Kate Fitzgerald - Director of Residence Education, The University of Iowa
Denise Gowin - Associate Director for Academic Initiatives and Services, Indiana University
Dawn Johnson - Associate Professor, Syracuse University
Emily Lardner - Co-Director of The National Resource Center For Learning Communities
Leon McClinton - Director of Housing and Residential Life, Oklahoma State University
Frankie Minor - Director, Residential Life, The University of Missouri
Billy Molasso - Director of Education and Research, ACUHO-I
Michael Puma - Co-Director Living Learning Communities Program, Loyola University Maryland
Brad Zakarin - Director of Residential Academic Initiatives, Northwestern University
Table of Contents
Welcome 
Executive Summary 
Acknowledgements 
i
iii
v
Introduction: Study Overview 
About SILLP 
Instrument and Data Collection 
Using This Report 
Chapter One: Living Learning Experiences 
Measuring Living Learning Experiences 
LLPs vs. Traditional Residence Halls 
Analysis by LLP Type 
Chapter Two: Student Outcomes 
Measuring Student Outcomes 
LLPs vs. Traditional Residence Halls 
Analysis of LLP Type 
Chapter Three: Discussion and Implications 
Living Learning Experiences 
Student Outcomes 
Limitations 
1
2
6
7
11
12
13
14
19
20
21
22
29
30
31
32
Appendix A: Reading the Tables 
Reading the Tables 
Appendix B: All Data Tables 
Student Characteristics 
Factor Analysis 
33
34
37
38
44
Introduction:
Study Overview
2
The Study of Integrated Living Learning Programs
About SILLP
Overview of Study
Living learning programs (LLPs), defined as “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,” are some of the most popular
innovations in higher education today (Inkelas & Associates, 2008).
Based on the assumption that “there is natural overlap between students’ academic and social
learning activities,” living learning programs bridge the gap between students’ in- and out-of-class
experiences (Shapiro & Levine, 1999, p. 36). These programs are driven by the belief that learning
can occur outside of the classroom and in the residence hall, thereby providing unique avenues for
creativity, deep learning, and innovative pedagogy (Brower & Dettinger, 1998; Inkelas, 2013; Inkelas
& Weisman, 2003).
Early research has documented that undergraduates participating in LLPs benefit across academic
and social contexts, including the transition to college, first-year retention, grade point average,
civic engagement, critical thinking, and engaging in deep intellectual inquiry (Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, &
Brown Leonard, 2007; Inkelas & Weisman, 2003).
The Study of Integrated Living Learning Programs (SILLP), led by Dr. Matthew J. Mayhew, furthers
the conversation by assessing the influence of LLPs on the academic, intellectual, and social
development of college students. Drawing from the knowledge of seasoned residential life and
housing professionals as well as scholars of student learning and development, its primary purpose
is to help institutions understand how their living learning programs shape students’ learning and
development while providing multi-institutional data.
The study has been, and will be, administered to a diverse and representative sample of colleges
and universities, which allows for national benchmarking. Our 2015 pilot year had nearly 3,000
responses from students at seven institutions, public and private, urban and rural, from New York
to New Mexico. The research collected on this data will inform the conversation about effective
living learning practices in higher education for years to come.
Defining Key Terms
Because the survey is designed to capture the student’s perception of their residential experience,
we pay careful attention to the various residential options students can select. Below are
definitions of several terms that may prove helpful when interpreting report findings:
•• Living Learning Program (LLP): We use the Inkelas et al. (2008) definition of living learning
programs, described above. We acknowledge, though, that best practices around extracurricular programming in residence life departments have advanced in the past decade: by
this definition, many institutions could classify ALL residence halls as LLPs. The broadness
of this definition is also useful: we use LLP as an umbrella term to describe many different
integrations of residential and intellectual experiences, including these sub-categories of LLPs:
»» Theme LLP: Students living in Theme LLPs live together based on a common interest,
such as social justice or wellness.
»» Academic LLP: Students living in Academic LLPs live together based on either a common
major (such as engineering or international affairs) or a common academic unit (such as
the Undergraduate Business School or the College of Arts and Science).
Pilot Report of Findings
Introduction: Study Overview
•• Residential College: Residential Colleges, or colleges-within-a-college, are attempts to make
larger institutions feel smaller by creating cross-sectional communities. Residential Colleges
(sometimes called RCs) are more likely than LLPs to have three characteristics (though none of
these are, individually, litmus tests): RCs may create multi-year experiences and environments for
their students; RCs may integrate academic advising into the hall; RCs may integrate academic
coursework into the residential environment.
•• Honors College: Incoming high school GPA, standardized test scores, or other achievement-based
criteria for admittance are defining attributes of most Honors Colleges; some Honors Colleges also
have college GPA or other additional requirements students must meet to maintain membership.
Honors Colleges are not necessarily residential; some may have a residential option that does not
include all Honors College students on that campus.
Theoretical Framework
Using Astin’s (1993) Input-Environment-Outcome college impact model, shown in Figure 1 below, we’ve
developed a framework to conceptualize the influence of residential experiences on student outcomes.
As Inkelas et al. (2008) describe, in Astin’s model outcomes (student characteristics after exposure
to college) are influenced by both inputs (demographic and pre-college characteristics, beliefs, and
expectations) and environments (the various programs, policies, relationships with faculty and peers,
and other educational experiences in which students are engaged).
Environment
Inputs
Outcomes
Figure 1: Astin’s I-E-O model (1993)
For SILLP, we consider several different inputs and the influence of integrated residential experiences
(environments) - including academic experiences, campus climate, social experiences, and residential
functional spaces - on the development of specific academic and social outcomes. See Figure 2 for the
specific inputs, experiences, outcomes.
SILLP Measures
This study seeks to understand the influence of living learning programs on the academic, intellectual,
and social development of college students. SILLP measures living learning experiences and student
outcomes, briefly summarized below:
Integrated Living Learning Experiences
•• Perception of Major-Related Support System: Students report on the people who are
supporting them in their major, including: role models, teachers, mentors, family members, and
friends; students report on the extent to which they feel supported by parents, siblings, high school
peers and high school teachers.
•• Course-Related Faculty Interaction: Students report the frequency of discussions with faculty
about course policies, course assignments, and students’ own performance in course.
•• Discussed Learning Experiences with Peers: Students report the frequency of discussions
about courses, assignments, content of courses, and academic problems.
3
Inputs
Figure 2: SILLP Conceptual Framework

Social
Socially Supportive Residence Hall Environment
Non-Course-Related Faculty Interaction
Residence Hall Resource Engagement
Co-Curricular Programming Engagement
Co-Curricular Activities Engagement
Campus Climate – Race
Campus Climate – LGBTQ
Campus Climate – Spiritual/Religious/Worldview
Campus Climate – International
Campus Climate
Course-Related Faculty Interaction
Discussed Learning Experiences with Peers
Discussed Sociocultural Issues with Peers
Academically Supportive Residence Hall Environment
Residential Environment's Influence on Major
Perception of Major-Related Support System
Academic
Hall-specific co-curricular spaces
Hall-specific academic resource spaces
Campus-wide resource spaces
Hall-specific computer labs
Functional
Integrated Living Learning Experiences
Gender
Sexual Orientation
Race
Nationality
Worldview
ACT/SAT Scores
High School GPA
Parental Education
Financial Aid
Class Year
Academic Major
Transfer Status
Parent Nationality
4

• Campus sense of belonging
• Residential environment sense of belonging
• Campus engagement
• Bystander intervention
• High-risk binge drinking
Social
General
• Academic Confidence
• Self-reported academic progress
• Academic Satisfaction
• Self-reported critical thinking disposition
Career
• Career self-efficacy
• Perception of college’s role in career
Major
• Self-efficacy in major
• Perception of STEM mastery
• Perception of liberal arts mastery
• Intent to persist in major
Academic
Outcomes
•• Discussed Sociocultural Issues with Peers: Students report the frequency of discussions: about
diversity; about major social issues; with students who have different values; with students who hold
different religious worldviews.
•• Academically Supportive Residence Hall Environment: Students report their perceptions of
residence hall academic support, peer and staff academic support in the residence hall, and overall
studiousness of students. Only students who lived in an LLP received this battery of questions.
•• Residential Environment’s Influence on Major: Students report on whether they feel supported
in pursuit of their major by the people associated with their residence (e.g., peers, faculty, and staff).
Only students who lived in an LLP received this battery of questions.
•• Campus Climate by Demographic: LGBTQ students, students of color, international students,
and students holding historically underrepresented religious worldviews report on the campus
climate for their population, including perceived faculty attitudes, perceived interactions between
students from particular populations and the “majority” group students, general campus
commitment to support their student populations, etc.
•• Non-Course-Related Faculty Interaction: Students report the frequency of discussions with
faculty about academic problems, personal problems, career ambitions, and other non-courserelated topics.
•• Residence Hall Resource Engagement: Students report the frequency with which they used
computer labs, academic advisors, peer counselors, etc. Only students who lived in an LLP received
this battery of questions.
•• Co-curricular Programming Engagement: Students report the frequency of participation in
events associated with their residential environment, including: multicultural programming, cultural
outings, and career workshops.
•• Extracurricular Engagement: Students report the extent to which they are involved in
extracurricular activities, including fraternity/sorority, marching band, armed services ROTC, or work
study.
•• Socially Supportive Residence Hall Environment: Students report their perceptions of how
other students in the residence hall support each other, and how other students respond to racial
diversity, religious worldview diversity, students from different backgrounds; students also report
perceptions of intellectual stimulation of residence hall, and general satisfaction with the residence
hall.
Student Outcomes
•• Self-efficacy within the Major: Students report their confidence in their ability to persist in their
major, excel in their major, and complete their major with a B average.
•• Intent to Persist in Major: Students report their plans to persist in their major and commitment
to graduating from their major.
•• Perception of STEM Mastery: Students report their confidence in their math, science, and
engineering courses.
•• Perception of Liberal Arts Mastery: Students report their confidence in their English, writing,
and social science courses.
•• Career Self-efficacy: Students report their confidence in their ability to get a job, have a successful
career, and have career/life balance.
•• Perception of College’s Role in Career: Student perception of how graduating will influence
landing a job, getting a good salary, doing meaningful or satisfying or exciting work, and doing work
that utilizes skills from their major.
5
6
•• Self-Report of Critical Thinking Disposition: Students report their attitudes toward critical
thinking habits of mind, such as: questioning a professor; disagreeing with texts; arguing with
people; exploring new ideas; and critically analyzing different points of view.
•• Self-Report of Academic Progress: Students report the extent to which they are excelling in
coursework and studying, persisting in their major, completing courses and requirements, and
generally comprehending course materials.
•• Academic Confidence: Students report their confidence in their ability to persist to graduation
despite various obstacles, reach academic goals (e.g. overall B average; graduation with honors),
and stay at their current institution.
•• Academic Satisfaction: Students report their satisfaction with their major, coursework, level of
intellectual stimulation, how much they have learned, and general “academic life” satisfaction.
•• Campus Sense of Belonging: Students report the extent to which they feel comfortable in, are a
part of, are committed to, are supported in, and are accepted on campus.
•• Residential Environment Sense of Belonging: Students report the extent to which they
feel comfortable in, are a part of, are committed to, are supported in, and are accepted in their
residential environment.
•• Campus Engagement: Students report the extent to which they are involved with some kind of
community, including volunteering for the community and working to make the community better;
students also report on self-efficacy in terms of their impact on community.
•• Bystander Intervention Intentions: Students respond to scenarios (e.g. a male and female
student are leaving a party together and the female student is drunk; or, a male and female student
couple are audibly fighting in an adjoining apartment), describing which instances they would
intervene in and what ways they would intervene; if the student respondents would not intervene,
they are prompted to explain why.
Confirmatory factor analysis of the pilot data revealed that all scales loaded. We’ve determined that our
scales were reliable, with Cronbach Alphas for most of the factors in the .8 and .9 range (no scales had
an alpha value below .738).
In addition to the above factors, SILLP also reports on several single-item outcomes, including:
•• Binge Drinking Habits: Students report how many times they had 5 or more drinks in a typical
two week period.
•• Intent to Persist: Students report whether they plan to return to the same college/university next
year.
•• GPA: Students self-report their current GPA.
Instrument and Data Collection
Survey Items
The survey was adapted from the 2007 National Study of Living Learning Programs (NSLLP) and was
designed to focus more on assessment and less on research. Students are asked to self-report their
demographics at the beginning of the survey before being asked about their residential experiences. All
students are asked the same battery of questions regardless of their reported residential experiences.
Students in LLPs and Residential Colleges are asked a few specific additional questions related to their
LLP experience that students living in traditional residence halls or living off-campus are not asked.
We understand that LLPs/Residential Colleges/Honors Colleges look different depending on the
institution. Additionally, we understand that students are not always aware of their placement in an LLP.
Therefore, we ask students to describe their residential living experience in a number of ways to best
capture what their experience looks like. Please see Figure 3 for the logic tree describing this process.
Timeline
Over 21,000 students at seven institutions were invited to take the SILLP survey between March and
April of 2015. Students had, on average, two weeks to complete the survey.
Participating Institutions
The SILLP pilot was administered across a diverse and representative sample of 7 colleges and
universities, including public and private schools in urban and rural places from New York to New
Mexico. Of these 7 institutions, one is classified as a Research University - very high, five are classified
as Research Universities - high, and one is classified as a Master’s Larger. The number of living learning
programs at each institution range from 4 to 40 while only two have residential or honors colleges.
Response Rates
A total of 21,087 students were invited to participate in the SILLP pilot. A total of 2,781 students
responded, while usable data for students who completed the entire survey was obtained for 1,370
respondents, yielding a response rate of 13.2%, and a completion rate of 6.5%.
Of these 1,370 students, 728 reported living in a traditional residence hall while 616 reported living in
some type of living learning program.
Using This Report
The findings presented in this report should be considered as part of a larger whole. No single
percentage or mean can capture the essence of a college or university nor does this report claim to
represent. Rather than place tremendous weight on any particular numerical result, these findings
are best viewed as pieces of a larger picture explaining how students broadly experience residential
environments and the possible outcomes associated with these environments. The intent of this report
is to better understand how students in traditional residence halls and LLPs who completed the pilot
study differ across residential experiences and outcomes.
Report Sections
This report is divided into three chapters and two appendices. In the first two chapters we focus
on the results from the study. The third chapter is dedicated to providing some discussion and
recommendations for improving residential programs. You’ll find the results for the student
demographics and further analysis of the student experiences and outcomes in the appendices. If you
would like more information on a specific factor or question, please contact us at [email protected].
In the first chapter, we focus on the integrated living learning experiences by residential programs. We
compare the results for traditional residence halls to those of LLPs as well as how the types of LLPs
compare to each other. The second chapter concentrates on the student outcomes we measured. This
chapter also includes analysis of how LLPs compare to traditional residence halls as well as how LLPs
compare to each other.
7
Based on your current residence hall
experience, please select all that apply: [Faculty and staff interaction and
programs]
Do you live in a residence hall organized around a
major( e.g. international/global or engineering)?
Yes
Do you live in a living learning program?
Do you live in a residential college or a
collegewithinacollege?
Do you live in an honors college?
Do you live in a residence hall organized around a
theme( e.g. social justice or wellness)?
No
Survey
Questions
Yes
Why did you choose to
attend the residence
hall programming?
(select all that apply):
Even though you do not live in a
residence hall, have you attended any
event(s) sponsored by a residence hall?
No
Which of the following describes your
current offcampus living situation?
(select all that apply):
In which residence hall are you currently
living?
I live offcampus
Which of the following describes why you
do not live in a residence hall? (select all
that apply):
I live in an offcampus
residence hall.
Where you required to live in a residence
hall?
I live in campus housing that is not
affiliated with a residence hall( apartment,
house, fraternity, sorority, coop, etc.).
How would you describe
your offcampus
accommodations?
How would you describe
your oncampus
accommodations?
I live in an oncampus
residence hall.
I live offcampus.
Which of the following
describes your current
living situation?
I live oncampus.
Figure 3: Residential Experience Skip Logic Tree
ove from Sidebar
8
9
Important Terminology
•• All LLPs: It was challenging to group students explicitly by their residential environment because we
didn’t gather that information from the institutions. We instead asked students to self-describe their
residential environment so we could analyze the data based on their perceptions instead of their
actual placement (although with this process we did find that some students actually indicated they
lived in programs not existent on their campus). Since we asked students to select whether or not
they live in an LLP, Residential College, or Honors College, we grouped all the students who indicated at
least one type of LLP together as living in an LLP. These students were further sub-grouped based on
LLP type:
»» Residential/Honors College (R/HC): Students who selected they living in a RC or HC on the
survey. Although some students who indicated living in an HC may not be in a residential honors
college, that number is very low compared to the rest of the group.
»» Theme LLP: Students who selected they lived in a theme-based community or LLP/Theme hall on
the survey.
»» Academic LLP: Students who selected they lived in an LLP not associated with an R/HC or theme
on the survey.
•• Traditional Residence Hall (TRH): On-campus residential programs that do not fit the definition
of a living learning program. Students in this group did not indicate any of the LLP options as their
residential environment.
•• Factor Scale: A factor scale is a measure comprised of related survey items confirmed by a statistical
technique known as factor analysis. A factor scale is used to represent a concept that cannot be
measured with one question. We calculate the factor score by summing the item scores. For example,
if the factor has 6 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale, the minimum score for the factor is 6 while
the maximum score is 30.
•• Mean: The mean (M) reflects the average response for a given question or statement.
•• Standard Deviation: The standard deviation (SD) is a measure of the amount of variation in relation
to the reported mean. Larger SDs are indicative of more inconsistent responses across the sample,
while smaller SDs represent individual values closer to the reported mean.
•• Significance: Statistical significance indicates whether or not there is a statistical difference between
groups. The null hypothesis always assumes there is no statistical difference, though significance
values (often referred to as p-values) allow researchers to reject the null hypothesis and suggest a
difference does exist (p < 0.05). Put simply, a p-value less than .05 means there is a 95% chance the
difference found between groups is not simply due to chance. Differences found to be statistically
significant at the 95% level are labeled within each table.
It is important to note that while a given difference might be statistically significant, it may not be
practically significant. For example, a study comparing grade point averages among male and female
students may find that female students have statistically significant GPA differences, with females
averaging a 3.22 and males averaging a 3.01. Practically, however, each of these GPA values represent
a B average on a standard 4.0 grading scale. Ultimately, each institution must determine whether or
not the differences identified (significant or not) are of practical value.
•• T-Test: T-tests are used in SILLP to compare institutional mean values to both comparison institutions
mean values and the within group sample mean values. These tests reveal whether or not a significant
statistical difference exists between groups. As previously mentioned, SILLP measures significance at p
< .05.
•• H/M/L: When considering the factors, we provide the number and percentage of students who scored
1 SD or lower below the mean (L-low) and 1 SD or higher above the mean (H-high). The “middle”
scorers are everyone in between (1 SD below and 1 SD above the mean). This information gives you
an idea of how your students responded to the items in the factors.
10
References
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brower, A. M. & Dettinger, K. (1998). What is a learning community? About Campus, (November/
December), 15-21.
Inkelas, K. K. et al. (2007). The National Study of Living-Learning Programs. Report of findings.
Inkelas, K. K. (2013). Creating successful living learning programs for women in STEM. Report of findings.
Retrieved from http://livinglearningwomeninstem.com/.
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),
335-368.
Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z., Vogt, K. E., & Leonard, J. B. (2007). Living-learning programs and first-generation
college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in Higher Education, 48(4), 403434.
Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. J. (1999). Creating Learning Communities: A Practical Guide to Winning Support,
Organizing for Change, and Implementing Programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chapter One:
12
Measuring Living Learning Experiences
Students experience their residential environment in an integrated way. They don’t make a
distinction between learning with their peers or with a faculty/staff member, yet knowing when,
where, and with whom a student is learning or is supported can be valuable as you implement your
programs. Therefore our goal with SILLP is to understand how students perceive the different
aspects of their residential programs by exploring their academic experiences, campus climate, and
social experiences separately.
The purpose of this chapter is to understand how the living learning experiences of the students in
LLPs compare those in TRHs. Although the students in the pilot are not nationally representative,
these results give us a good idea of how LLPs currently compare to TRHs in terms of student
experiences as well as how LLP types compare to each other.
Additionally, we asked questions in a general way because we understand that no two residential
programs provide the same experience for residents. This provides us with the ability to combine
results across the sample and make comparisons.
In this chapter we present findings across the types living learning experiences:
Academic Experiences
We focus on aspects related to students’ academic experiences in a number of ways on the SILLP
survey. We measured students attitudes toward their major-related support system, course-related
faculty interaction, the level to which they discuss learning experiences and sociocultural issues
with peers, how academically supportive they perceive their residence hall, and their residential
environment’s influence on their major. Together these measures demonstrate how students
interact with their environment and pinpoint the ones with the most influence. Due to the skip-logic
in the survey, only students who selected any type of LLP, including R/HCs, were asked questions
regarding their residence hall’s academic support and influence on their major.
Campus Climate
How students perceive their campus climate varies based on their race, sexual orientation and
gender identification, worldview, and international status. The SILLP survey uses students’ reported
demographic data to determine which students should be asked the campus climate questions
for their population. This use of skip-logic explains the low numbers of students responding to
these questions. Questions included how they perceived faculty attitudes, perceived interactions
between students from particular populations and the “majority” group students, general campus
commitment to support their student populations.
Social Experiences
Social experiences on campus and in the residence halls are just as important to assess as
academic ones. We consider aspects of the student experience such as interactions with faculty
unrelated to courses, engagement with residence hall resources, engagement with co-curricular
programming, extracurricular engagement, and perception of how socially supportive the residence
hall environment is when discussing social experiences. Similar to the academic experiences, only
students who selected any type of LLP, including R/HCs, were asked questions regarding their
engagement with their hall’s resources.
From here on, we compare the results for LLPs to those of the TRHs as well as the results across
LLP type.
Chapter 1: Living Learning Experiences
LLPs vs. Traditional Residence Halls
We analyzed how the students in LLPs responded versus the students in TRHs by conducting t-tests to
see which experiences significantly differed. Exhibit 1.1 provides a summary of the mean values (and
SDs) for each type of living learning experience we measured.
Overall, students in LLPs mirror those in TRHs across the student experience measures. The LLP
experiences that significantly differ from the TRHs, including discussed learning experiences with peers,
co-curricular programming engagement, extracurricular engagement, and socially supportive residence
hall environment, are detailed below.
Students in LLPs had higher reported scores for discussing learning experiences with peers when
compared to students in TRHs. This result reveals that LLP students, by comparison, discussed
something learned in class, discussed academic problems or concerns, and talked about future
academic plans or career ambitions more often than students in TRHs. Of the students in LLPs, 18% of
them reported low discussion of learning experiences compared to 15% for students at the comparison
institutions (see Chart 1.1).
Students in LLPs indicated lower involvement in co-curricular programming engagement. Co-curricular
programming engagement includes participation in special seminars and lectures, peer study groups,
career workshops, community service projects, cultural (e.g., arts, music) outings, and multicultural
programming, versus the comparison institutions. The mean score for LLPs is comparatively lower than
Exhibit 1.1.
Student Experiences in LLPs versus TRHs: Self-reported Mean (SD) Values
LLPs
TRHs
Major-Related Support System
39.8 (7.2)
39.5 (7.4)
13.0 (4.3)
13.1 (4.5)
17.8 (5.2)
17.3 (5.4)
14.7 (5.4)
14.1 (5.8)
Academically Supportive Residence Hall Environment*
17.7 (4.3)
Residential Environment’s Influence on Major*
Campus Climate
11.3 (2.4)
Campus Climate - Race
24.1 (4.0)
23.6 (4.5)
Campus Climate - LGBT
25.1 (3.6)
24.0 (5.0)
Campus Climate - Spiritual/religious/worldview
23.6 (3.9)
23.7 (4.3)
Campus Climate - International
Social Experiences
23.9 (3.7)
23.4 (4.4)
9.1 (3.6)
9.2 (3.8)
7.0 (1.9)
8.7 (2.3)
9.4 (2.4)
†
Extracurricular Engagement
23.3 (3.8)
22.7 (4.3)
†
22.0 (5.1)
20.3 (5.5)
†
† Statistically Significant Mean Difference
* Question only asked of students in LLPs
†
-
-
13
14
Chart 1.1: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Discussed Learning
Experiences with Peers
All LLPs
15%
66%
18%
Low
Medium
High
Traditional Residence Halls
17%
68%
15%
Chart 1.2: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Co-Curricular
Programming Engagement
All LLPs
22%
60%
18%
Low
Medium
High
15%
63%
23%
TRHs, demonstrated by the 22% of LLP students who reported low levels of participation in co-curricular
programming versus 15% of the TRH students. The low, medium, and high percentages for co-curricular
programming engagement are reported in Chart 1.2.
Students in LLPs indicated higher levels of extracurricular engagement than students in TRHs.
Extracurricular engagement includes active participation in activities such as fraternities and sororities,
marching band, student government, and work off-campus. Eleven percent of students in LLPs reported
high levels of engagement in extracurricular activities versus 9% of students in TRHs. See Chart 1.3 for
the low, medium, and high percentages for extracurricular activities.
Lastly, students in LLPs reported stronger perceptions of a socially supportive residence hall than
students in TRHs. A socially supportive residence hall environment is one in which students have an
appreciation for people from different ethnic groups or religions, are concerned with helping and
supporting one another, and interact with people from different backgrounds. Seventeen percent of the
students in LLPs indicated high support from their residence hall environment compared to only 13% of
students in TRHs.
Analysis by LLP Type
It is important to also understand how students in LLPs responded across the different types and which
experiences significantly differed. R/HCs students are those who indicated they lived in a residential
college and/or honors college. Students in Theme LLPs include those who selected that they live in
an LLP based on theme, while students in Academic LLPs indicated that they live in an LLP focused on
Chart 1.3: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Extracurricular
Engagement
All LLPs
7%
82%
11%
Low
Medium
High
11%
80%
9%
Chart 1.4: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Socially Supportive
Residence Hall Environment
All LLPs
8%
75%
17%
Low
Medium
High
16%
71%
13%
a major. Exhibit 1.2 provides a summary of the mean values (and SDs) for each type of living learning
experience we measured for three types of LLPs.
The results indicate that only a few student experiences were significantly different across the LLP types.
We provide more details on these experiences - campus climate for race and worldview, co-curricular
programming engagement, and extracurricular engagement - below.
Students of color participating in Theme LLPs reported a significantly more inclusive campus climate
than the students in Academic LLPs, with 19% of the students in Theme LLPs reported highly positive
campus climate, versus 12% of the students in Academic LLPs (see Chart 1.5). Students in Theme LLPs
with non-Christian worldviews also reported a more inclusive campus climate than students in Academic
LLPs, demonstrated by the 24% who selected high scores compared to 10% of students in Academic
LLPs. Chart 1.6 shows the low, medium, and high percentages for campus climate by worldview.
Students in R/HCs, however, reported less co-curricular programming engagement than students in
Theme LLPs, demonstrated by the 14% of R/HCs students who indicated high engagement compared to
22% of students in Theme LLPs (see chart 1.7).
Lastly, students in Theme LLPs indicated higher levels of extracurricular engagement than students
in Academic LLPs. Fifteen percent of students in Theme LLPs reported high levels of engagement in
extracurricular activities versus 9% of students in Academic LLPs. See Chart 1.8 for the low, medium,
and high percentages for extracurricular activities.
15
16
Exhibit 1.2.
Student Experiences by different LLPs: Self-reported Mean (SD) Values
R/HCs
Theme LLPs
Academic
LLPs
Major-Related Support System
39.9 (7.2)
39.4 (6.9)
40.1 (7.5)
13.3 (4.5)
13.2 (4.2)
12.6 (4.3)
17.9 (4.7)
17.5 (5.6)
18.2 (5.1)
15.0 (5.2)
14.7 (5.5)
14.4 (5.4)
Academically Supportive Residence Hall Environment
18.4 (4.0)
17.3 (4.1)
17.8 (4.7)
Residential Environment’s Influence on Major
Campus Climate
11.3 (2.3)
11.2 (2.1)
11.3 (2.7)
Campus Climate - Race
23.5 (4.5)
24.7 (3.5)
23.3 (4.6)
Campus Climate - LGBT
25.2 (4.0)
25.0 (3.5)
25.3 (3.7)
Campus Climate - Spiritual/religious/worldview
23.7 (3.8)
24.2 (3.9)
22.7 (4.0)
Campus Climate - International
Social Experiences
22.9 (4.4)
24.3 (3.6)
23.6 (3.3)
9.3 (3.8)
9.2 (3.5)
8.9 (3.5)
6.8 (1.5)
7.0 (2.2)
7.0 (1.8)
8.4 (2.1)
9.0 (2.3)
8.7 (2.3)
a
Extracurricular Engagement
23.3 (3.5)
23.9 (4.1)
22.7 (3.5)
c
22.5 (5.0)
22 (4.9)
21.8 (5.4)
a Statistically significant (p<0.05) difference: R/HCs vs. Theme LLPs.
b Statistically significant (p<0.05) difference: R/HCs vs. Academic LLPs.
c Statistically significant (p<0.05) difference: Theme LLPs vs. Academic LLPs.
c
c
Chart 1.5: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Campus Climate - Race
20%
Residential/Honors Colleges
64%
16%
Low
Theme LLPs
10%
72%
19%
Medium
High
Academic LLPs
14%
74%
12%
Chart 1.6: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Campus Climate Spiritual/Religious/Worldview
13%
Theme LLPs
14%
69%
18%
Low
61%
24%
Medium
High
19%
Academic LLPs
71%
10%
Chart 1.7: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Co-Curricular
Programming Engagement
22%
Theme LLPs
21%
64%
14%
Low
57%
22%
Medium
High
23%
Academic LLPs
61%
16%
Chart 1.8: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Extracurricular
Engagement
Residential/Honors Colleges 5%
88%
7%
Low
Theme LLPs
5%
80%
15%
Medium
High
Academic LLPs
9%
82%
9%
17
Chapter Two:
Student Outcomes
20
Measuring Student Outcomes
Student outcomes across both academic and social domains are the characteristics students
develop through participation in their residential program. We measured student outcomes to
determine whether or not students achieve the results we think they should. Most residential
programs, and specifically LLPs, have an academic component, which is why we measured
outcomes such as major efficacy and persistence, perceptions of subject mastery, career selfefficacy and perception of college’s role in career, as well as self-reported critical thinking disposition
and academic progress, confidence, and satisfaction. We also assessed social outcomes through
questions related to sense of belonging both on campus and in the residential environment,
campus engagement, high-risk binge drinking, and perceptions of bystander intervention.
The purpose of this chapter is to consider how LLPs measured by type on student outcomes.
Although the students in the pilot are not nationally representative, these results give us a good
idea of how LLPs currently compare to TRHs in terms of student outcomes as well as how LLP types
compare to each other.
In this chapter we present findings for the following academic and social outcomes:
Major Efficacy and Persistence
To measure major self-efficacy, we asked students to consider and rate their perceived ability to
complete the phases related to completing their academic major, including remain enrolled in
their intended major over the next two semesters, excel in their intended major over the next two
semesters, and complete the upper level required courses in their intended major with an overall
grade point average of B or better.
Additionally, we measured students’ intent to persist in their major by asking about their plans to
remain enrolled in their intended major, their thoughts about whether earning a bachelor’s degree
in their intended major/field is a realistic goal, and their commitment to getting a college degree in
their intended major/field.
Perceptions of Subject Mastery
To assess students’ perceptions of subject mastery we asked them to rate their confidence in
subject courses including math, science, and engineering courses (STEM) as well as English, college
writing, and social science courses (liberal arts). Although students vary by major, every participant
was asked this battery of questions.
Career Attitudes
We considered two categories of career attitudes: career self-efficacy and perceptions of college’s
role in career. To measure career self-efficacy we asked students to rate their confidence in their
ability to accomplish career goals such as getting a job, achieve success in a career, and combine a
professional career with having a balanced personal life.
We assessed students’ perception of college’s role in their career by asking them the extent to
which they think that graduating with an undergraduate degree will allow them to: receive a good
job (or graduate school) offer; earn an attractive salary; get respect from other people; do work that
they would find satisfying; do work that can “make a difference” in people’s lives; and apply skills
developed in their major to their job.
General
The general academic outcomes we measured include self-reported critical thinking disposition,
self-reported academic progress, confidence in academic progress, and satisfaction with academics.
Chapter 2: Student Outcomes
Sense of Belonging
When we measured sense of belonging, we asked students questions related to both campus sense
of belonging and residential environment sense of belonging. We used criteria such as comfort,
commitment, support, and acceptance to calculate both outcomes.
Campus Engagement
Campus engagement is measured by asking students to indicate the extent of their agreement with
aspects of community involvement, such as the importance of playing an active role in their community,
their belief that their work has a greater purpose for the larger community, and how much they work
with others to make their community a better place.
Risk and Intervention
We hypothesized that students who live together in a strong community would be more likely to
intervene when faced with a bystander situation and will binge drink less often. We assessed bystander
intervention by providing students with hypothetical sexual assault situations and asking them to rate
their likelihood to intervene based on their relationship with the parties involved. Additionally, we
assessed high-risk binge drinking by requesting students to state how often during a two week period
they had 5 or more drinks.
We conducted t-tests to analyze if the student outcomes for students in LLPs differed versus the
students in TRHs. Exhibit 2.1 provides a summary of the mean values (and SDs) for each type of
student outcome we measured. Students in LLPs mirrored those in TRHs across all student experience
measures, with a few exceptions: self-reported critical thinking disposition, campus sense of belonging,
residential environment sense of belonging, campus civic engagement, and high-risk binge drinking.
Students in LLPs self-reported higher critical thinking disposition versus those in TRHs, indicating they
were more likely to challenge professors’ statements before accepting them as right, enjoy discussing
issues with people who don’t agree with them, or critically analyze the strengths and limitations of
different points of view. Eight percent of students at NYU self-reported low critical thinking disposition,
compared to 13% of students at the comparison institutions. The low, medium, and high percentages
for self-reported critical thinking disposition are reported in Chart 2.1.
Students in LLPs also reported stronger sense of belonging for both their residential environments as
well as their campus. Twenty-four percent of students in LLPs indicated high levels of campus sense of
belonging versus 21% of students in TRHs. Additionally, 24% of students in LLPs indicated high levels of
residential environment sense of belonging, compared to 18% of students in TRHs (See Charts 2.2 and
2.3).
We also found that students in LLPs reported higher levels of campus civic engagement, indicating
more of them believed it is important to play an active role in the community, to volunteer time in
the community, their work has a greater purpose for the larger community, and they worked with
others to make the community a better place. Ten percent of students in LLPs expressed low levels
of engagement, compared to 14% of students in TRHs. The low, medium, and high percentages for
campus civic engagement are reported in Chart 2.4.
Lastly, students in LLPs indicated they were less likely to engage in high-risk binge drinking habits. Of the
students in LLPs, 80% revealed they had low levels of high-risk binge drinking instances, compared to the
74% of the students in TRHs. Chart 2.5 shows the low, medium, and high percentages for high-risk binge
drinking.
21
22
Exhibit 2.1.
Student Outcomes for LLPs versus TRHs: Self-reported Mean (SD) Values
LLPs
TRHs
Academic Outcomes
Self-efficacy in major
22.4 (3.8)
22.3 (4.2)
13.8 (2.3)
13.7 (2.3)
10.1 (3.1)
10.0 (3.1)
12.2 (2.6)
12.3 (2.7)
12.5 (2.7)
12.6 (2.7)
37.2 (6.2)
37.4 (6.6)
Self-reported critical thinking disposition
22.2 (4.2)
21.6 (4.6)
Self-reported academic progress
18.0 (2.9)
18.0 (3.0)
Confidence in academic progress
38.1 (6.1)
37.8 (6.5)
29.0 (5.6)
29.0 (5.6)
19.7 (4.1)
19.1 (4.3)
†
Residential environment sense of belonging
Engagement
19.1 (4.7)
17.9 (5.0)
†
Campus civic engagement
Risk & Intervention
14.7 (3.6)
14.3 (3.9)
†
Bystander intervention
82.3 (14.4)
80.8 (16.7)
1.7 (1.1)
1.9 (1.3)
Intent to persist in major
STEM
Liberal Arts
Career Attitudes
Career self-efficacy
Perception of college’s role in career
General
Satisfaction with academics
Social Outcomes
†
Sense of Belonging
Campus sense of belonging
High-risk binge drinking
†
† Statistically Significant Mean Difference
Analysis of LLP Type
We also conducted t-tests to analyze how the student outcomes for LLPs differed across the different
types. R/HCs students are those who indicated they lived in a residential college and/or honors college.
Students in Theme LLPs include those who selected that they live in an LLP based on theme, while
students in Academic LLPs indicated that they live in an LLP focused on a major. Exhibit 2.2 provides a
summary of the mean values (and SDs) for each type of student outcome we measured for three types
of living learning programs.
The results indicate that several of the student outcomes were significantly different across the LLP type.
We provide more details on these outcomes - Self-efficacy in major, liberal arts subject mastery, career
self-efficacy, self-reported critical thinking disposition, confidence with academic progress, and campus
civic engagement - below.
Chart 2.1: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Self-Reported Critical
Thinking Disposition
All LLPs
8%
77%
15%
Low
Medium
High
13%
73%
14%
Chart 2.2: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Campus Sense of
Belonging
All LLPs
14%
62%
24%
Low
Medium
High
20%
59%
21%
Chart 2.3: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Residential Environment
Sense of Belonging
All LLPs
11%
65%
24%
Low
Medium
High
17%
66%
18%
Students in Theme LLPs reported higher levels of major self-efficacy when compared to students in
Academic LLPs, indicating they were more confident in their ability to remain enrolled in their intended
major, excel in their intended major, and complete the upper level required courses in their intended
major with an overall grade point average of B or better. Of the students in Theme LLPs, 48% reported
high levels of self-efficacy, versus 41% of students in Academic LLPs (see Chart 2.6).
Students in Theme LLPs also reported higher perceptions of liberal arts mastery than students in
Academic LLPs. Twenty-nine percent of students in Theme LLPs reported high levels of liberal arts
mastery, compared to 21% of students in Academic LLPs. Chart 2.7 shows the low, medium, and high
percentages for perception of liberal arts mastery.
23
24
Chart 2.4: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Campus Civic
Engagement
All LLPs
10%
74%
16%
Low
Medium
High
14%
70%
16%
Chart 2.5: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for High-Risk Binge Drinking
All LLPs
80%
17%
Low
Medium
High
74%
21%
Although students in Theme LLPs indicated higher major self-efficacy and liberal arts mastery, students
in Academic LLPs reported higher levels of career self-efficacy than students in Theme LLPs. These
students are more confident in their abilities to get a job, achieve success in a career, and combine a
professional career with having a balanced personal life when compared to students in Theme LLPs.
Thirty-nine percent of students in Academic LLPs reported high levels of career self-efficacy, versus 29%
of students in Theme LLPs (see Chart 2.8).
However, students in Theme LLPs self-reported higher levels of critical thinking disposition than students
in Academic LLPs. This difference is indicated by the 16% of students in Theme LLPs who reported high
levels of critical thinking, compared to 12% of students in Academic LLPs. Additionally, 4% of students in
Theme LLPs reported low levels of critical thinking, versus 12% of students in Academic LLPs. Chart 2.9
shows the low, medium, and high percentages for self-reported critical thinking disposition.
When considering students’ confidence in academic progress, students in Academic LLPs indicated
less confidence than both students in R/HCs and Theme LLPs (there is no significant difference
between students in R/HCs and Theme LLPs). Students in Academic LLPs are less confident in their
abilities to cope with, or solve, problems related to completing their major, such as financial pressures,
communication problems with professors or teaching assistants in their courses, or feelings that,
socially, the environment in these classes was not very welcoming to them. Seventeen percent of
students in Academic LLPs reported low levels of confidence, compared to 13% of students in R/HCs and
8% of students in Theme LLPs (see Chart 2.10).
Exhibit 2.2.
Student Outcomes by Different LLPs: Self-reported Mean (SD) Values
R/HCs
Theme LLPs
Academic
LLPs
22.4 (4.0)
22.9 (3.1)
21.8 (4.3)
13.7 (2.4)
13.9 (1.9)
13.7 (2.5)
10.3 (3.1)
9.8 (3.2)
10.2 (3.0)
12.3 (2.5)
12.5 (2.4)
11.9 (2.7)
c
12.6 (2.7)
12.2 (2.8)
12.8 (2.6)
c
37.1 (6.1)
36.8 (6.0)
37.7 (6.3)
Self-reported critical thinking disposition
22.3 (4.1)
22.8 (3.9)
21.5 (4.4)
Self-reported academic progress
18.3 (2.9)
18.0 (2.7)
17.8 (3.1)
Confidence in academic progress
38.9 (5.5)
38.4 (5.3)
37.2 (7.1)
29.0 (5.6)
29.4 (5.0)
28.6 (6.3)
20.1 (3.9)
19.9 (3.9)
19.3 (4.5)
Residential environment sense of belonging
Engagement
19.7 (4.5)
18.9 (4.4)
18.9 (5.1)
Campus civic engagement
Risk & Intervention
14.7 (3.4)
15.2 (3.5)
14.3 (3.8)
Bystander intervention
81.9 (14.9)
83.3 (13.8)
81.5 (14.8)
1.7 (1.1)
1.7 (1.2)
1.6 (1.1)
Academic Outcomes
Self-efficacy in major
Intent to persist in major
STEM
Liberal Arts
Career Attitudes
Career self-efficacy
Perception of college’s role in career
General
Satisfaction with academics
Social Outcomes
c
c
b, c
Sense of Belonging
Campus sense of belonging
High-risk binge drinking
c
a Statistically significant (p<0.05) difference: R/HCs vs. Theme LLPs.
b Statistically significant (p<0.05) difference: R/HCs vs. Academic LLPs.
c Statistically significant (p<0.05) difference: Theme LLPs vs. Academic LLPs.
Finally, students in Theme LLPs reported higher levels of campus civic engagement than students in
Academic LLPs, meaning they more-often volunteer their time to the community, believe it is important
to play an active role in the community, and work with others to make the community a better place.
Eighteen percent of students in Theme LLPs indicated high levels of campus civic engagement, versus
15% of students in Academic LLPs. Additionally, 5% of students in Theme LLPs reported low levels,
compared to 14% of students in Academic LLPs.
25
26
Chart 2.6: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Self-Efficacy in Major
13%
39%
49%
Low
Theme LLPs
8%
44%
48%
Medium
High
Academic LLPs
17%
42%
41%
Chart 2.7: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Perception of Liberal Arts
Mastery
11%
Theme LLPs
14%
66%
22%
Low
58%
29%
Medium
High
Academic LLPs
19%
60%
21%
Chart 2.8: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Career Self-Efficacy
13%
52%
35%
Low
Theme LLPs
16%
54%
29%
Medium
High
Academic LLPs
13%
50%
37%
Chart 2.9: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Self-Reported Critical
Thinking Disposition
10%
74%
16%
Low
Theme LLPs 4%
80%
16%
Medium
High
Academic LLPs
12%
76%
12%
Chart 2.10: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Confidence in Academic
Progress
13%
39%
49%
Low
Theme LLPs
8%
44%
48%
Medium
High
Academic LLPs
17%
42%
41%
Chart 2.11: Low, Medium, and High Percentages for Campus Civic
Engagement
10%
74%
16%
Low
Theme LLPs
6%
77%
18%
Medium
High
Academic LLPs
14%
71%
15%
27
Chapter Three:
Discussion and Implications
30
Students in living learning programs discussed their courses with each other more frequently than
students in traditional residence halls; this difference was statistically significant, and suggests that
LLPs are successful at creating the kind of “seamless” learning environments that are often named
as an LLP goal. This academic atmosphere in the residence halls, however, did not extend to
faculty interactions: students in LLPs were no more likely to talk to faculty about courses than were
there traditional residence hall peers. In fact, on a different but related measure – co-curricular
programming engagement – traditional residence hall students actually reported being more
involved than LLP students. Living learning program administrators may want to examine best
practices for creating approachable faculty and co-curricular events, including: in-residence offices,
academic support events, service learning programs, etc.
Surprisingly, students in historically underrepresented populations – including students of various
races, sexual orientations, religious/worldviews, and nationalities – reported no better sense of
inclusivity in the campus climate when they lived in LLPs than when they lived in traditional halls.
While the questions in these factors are about the campus and not individual LLPs, it is certainly
the expectation of many Residence Life departments that their specific programs will work to make
targeted populations feel more accepted on campus. This non-finding is cause for reflection about
ways in which living learning programs can promote inclusive campus cultures (and, perhaps, the
limitations that LLPs face in this important work).
The social experience of living learning programs seems to be significantly different from traditional
residence halls. Students report a more socially supportive residence hall environment; double the
percentage of traditional residence hall students reported the lowest levels of support compared to
the living learning program students.
LLP students are also more engaged in extracurricular activities. Paired with the previously
mentioned finding about co-curricular engagement, this finding suggests an intuitive but often
unnoticed implication: co- and extra-curricular engagement may be negatively correlated. Given
the multiple demands on their time, this makes sense from the students’ perspectives. LLP
practitioners may want to examine the ratio of co-curricular to extra-curricular opportunities that
are presented to residents, cognizant of the fact that students may not have time (or inclination) to
choose both.
Analysis by LLP Type
Students in theme-based living learning programs reported statistically significantly higher levels
of campus climate inclusivity than did students in major-based living learning programs for two
groups: students in targeted racial groups, and students holding historically underrepresented
spiritual/religious/worldview beliefs. In our sample, there were larger percentages of Asian,
Black, and Hispanic students in the theme-based LLPs compared to the major-based LLPs. This
demographic difference alone may have influenced the campus climate responses and experiences.
But this demographic difference may also be representative of particular kinds of structured
communities: living learning programs specifically designed to create inclusive environments for
particular racial populations on campus (e.g. an Af-Am House, or La Communidad) would most likely
fall into theme-based categories rather than major-based groups. Indeed, 24% of theme-based LLP
students reported the highest levels of religious campus climate inclusivity, compared to just 10% of
students in major-based LLPs.
2: Student
Outcomes
Chapter 3: Chapter
Discussion
and Implications
Theme-based living learning programs also appear to create more engaging social experiences for
students. Theme LLP students reported higher levels of co-curricular engagement than did residential
college/honors college students, and Theme LLP students also reported higher levels of extracurricular
engagement than did major-related LLP students. Residential colleges, which are designed to be a
cross-section of the undergraduate population, may foster less of a sense of community excitement over
programming compared to theme-based LLPs, where students have consciously joined other students
with similar interests. It’s also not surprising that major-based LLP students report lower extra-curricular
engagement than theme-based LLP students, since the raison d’etre of the LLPs organized around a
major is explicitly curricular/academic (as opposed to social, cultural, or even intellectual). Nonetheless,
individual programs and campus-wide systems may want to look to theme-based LLPs for best-practices
in terms of event programming.
Student Outcomes
Students in living learning programs reported very similar academic outcomes to their traditional
residence hall peers. LLPs did not seem to influence self-efficacy or intent to persist in the major;
students in LLPs don’t feel more confident about their abilities in either STEM or liberal arts courses;
even general outcomes like academic progress, confidence in continued academic progress, and overall
satisfaction with courses showed no difference between traditional halls and LLPs. The one exception
is that LLP students reported higher levels of critical thinking disposition compared to students in
traditional residence halls.
In contrast, social outcomes reveal multiple differences between LLP and traditional residence hall
students. Sense of belonging, both for the campus as a whole and for the individual residential
environments, was rated higher for LLP students. In a related scale, students in LLPs also expressed
higher levels of civic engagement with their campus. And, in keeping with previous studies, LLP students
reported lower levels of binge drinking than did their traditional residence hall peers.
Taken together, these findings suggest that LLPs are influencing social outcomes but not academic
outcomes. One demographic caveat: while 63% of our LLP sample were first-year students, only 47.4%
of our traditional residence hall sample were first-years. It may be that first-year students are paying
more attention to their social transition to college than to their academic transition/success. It may even
be that they spend more time on the social components of the first-year compared to the academic
components, suggesting that there is “more” to influence. Either way, this set of findings can help living
learning administrators and faculty prioritize either academic or social programs and systems.
Best practices for academic outcomes might be culled from Theme LLPs. Students in that kind of
program reported statistically significantly higher self-efficacy in the major, confidence in academic
progress, and mastery of liberal arts than did students in major-based LLPs. These students were also
reporting higher levels of critical thinking disposition. Only in career self-efficacy did major-based LLP
students report higher levels than their theme-based LLP peers; this outcome makes intuitive sense,
given that many major-based LLPs have clear and direct career trajectories (e.g. Engineering, Business).
Theme LLP students also reported higher levels of campus civic engagement, a social outcome, than
did their major-based LLP counterparts. These outcomes reveal differences between major-based
and theme-based LLPs especially on the lower end of the response spectrum. Only 4% of theme LLP
students reported the lowest levels of critical thinking; only 8% reported the lowest levels of academic
progress; and only 6% reported the lowest levels of civic engagement. In contrast, major-based LLP
students were in the lowest levels at rates of 12%, 17%, and 14% respectively. Overall, this suggests
that theme-based LLPs are doing a particularly good job of ensuring that students don’t “fall through the
cracks.”
31
32
Residential colleges/honors colleges did not influence outcomes that are significantly different from
the theme LLPs or the academic LLPs. The sole exception is confidence in academic progress, in
which students in these colleges, like theme LLP students, reported higher levels than major-based LLP
students. (One might infer that this result reveals more about what work major-based LLPs have to do
than it does about successes that residential colleges are already having.) At many institutions, students
can be in an honors or residential college for their entire college careers, one of the most distinctive
feature of these kinds of living learning program. However, the demographics of SILLP’s particular
sample reveal few third, fourth, or fifth year students in these programs; indeed, the percentage of
theme LLP students in their 3rd year was almost double that of residential college students. In this way,
it may be that many of the SILLP respondents in residential or honors colleges had not yet experienced
the aspects of these programs that would lead to different outcomes than the shorter-duration
programs of a living learning program organized around a theme or major.
Limitations
There are two limitations to add to this discussion. First, SILLP’s demographic tables reveal a gender
breakdown which may have influenced results: 69.3% of the LLP students and 68.4% of the traditional
residence hall students were female. While it is beyond the scope of this study to make inferences
based on this demographic characteristic, there are many studies which have found gendered
differences in outcomes like academic confidence, persistence in STEM majors, etc. Second, while a
broad variety of institutions participated in the pilot – 7 institutions, public and private, urban and rural,
from New York to New Mexico – all these institutions opted in to the study. It may be that such schools
are more invested in their LLP programs than the average institution; or it may be that schools that have
recently made significant changes to their residential systems are more drawn to assessment. SILLP
can’t be sure what influence these institutional and demographic characteristics had on the results
discussed above.
Appendix A:
Reading the Tables
34
Reading the Tables
In Appendix B you will find two types of tables: student characteristics and factor scales. Please
contact us if you would like results for a specific question. The following figures provide assistance
in reading the tables.
The student characteristics table provides the number and percentage of students who responded
to questions about their background. Knowing these “inputs” and to what degree the respondent
group reflects the represented population will help you discern the ways in which it is appropriate
to generalize information to the larger population.
Means and standard deviations are reported for each of the factor scales listed in the introduction
(see SILLP Measures) in the factors table. T-tests were performed to identify statistically significant
mean differences between LLPs and TRHs, as well as by LLP type. We indicate significant
differences in the fourth and last columns of the table. If there is a significant difference between
LLPs and TRHs at the p < 0.05 level on any of the factors, we denote this with cross (†) in the
significance column. Significant differences by LLP type are indicated with the letters a, b, and c
based on the groups being compared. R/HCs versus Theme LLPs is indicated with an “a”, R/HCs
versus Academic LLPs with a “b”, and Theme LLPs versus Academic LLPs with a “c”. Additionally, we
provide the number and percentage of “high,” “medium,” and “low” scorers on each of the factors to
highlight differences within and between institutions.
Institutional Group 2
Responses
Comparison Sample
Responses
Institutional
Variable
Being
Measured
Study
of Integrated Living-Learning Programs
32 The
Responses
Pilot Report
ofGroup
Findings
Institutional
3
Responses
Appendix C
A
Responses
35
Demographic Information
Gender
Male
Female
Institution Group-11
BGSU
Comparison
Institutions
National
Institution
- All
BGSU - All
Institution Group
2
BGSU
- 2a
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
63
24.23
357
32.16
48
29.09
6
13.64
9
17.65
37
84.09
40
78.43
194
74.62
742
66.85
117
70.91
Transgender
1
0.38
3
0.27
0
0.00
Other
2
0.77
0
0.00
Sexual Orientation
Comparison Sample
8
0.72
Responses
N
0
0.00
1
Institutional
Group
2
1Responses
2.27
1
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
71
6.40
6
3.64
4
9.09
5
88.08
for each229option
959
86.40
155
93.94
36
81.82
38
74.51
4.23
39
3.51
4
2.42
3
6.82
4
7.84
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
15
Institutional
Variable
Being
Measured
Gay or
Lesbian
5
1.92
Study
of Integrated Living-Learning
32 The
Responses
Number ofPrograms
respondents
Other
Demographic
Information11
Race
N
American Indian or Alaska Native
7
3.69
0
0.00
1
2.27
Responses
Percentage
of respondents
41
for each option
Comparison
Percentage
of respondents
2.69
20
1.80
3
1.15who
Institution Group-11
BGSU
Institution
- All
Institutions
BGSU - All
National
reported
the
most16desirable
Black or African
American
23
8.85
97
8.74
6.15
Question
Asked
on Survey
Programs
Gender 48 The Study of Integrated Living-Learning
N
%
N
% eachNitem %
outcome
for
Hispanic or Latina/o
Male
8
63
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
1
Transgender
1
White
234
SILLP Questions
2
3
Sexual
Orientation
N
experience, please select all that apply:
Worldview
N
Other
Other
4
1.54
199
17.93
2
0.77
1
7
0.63
0
0.00
0
33
2.97
2
0.77
%% %
M
0
0.00
N N % % M%
N
66.85
117
70.91
6
3
37
N
0
13.64
0.38
1
0.00
1
84.09
9
40
1.15
0.00
%
17.65
0.38
78.43
0.38
Institution -0
Institution - 1
Institution
3
0.27Comparison
0
0.00
0.00
1.96
90.00 Institution
753 - All
67.84 Institutions
147
56.54BGSU
401 115.38
472 2a18.08
Group
3 2b
BGSU-All
National
- Group
BGSUGroup
- Group
BGSUGroup
- Group
0.77
8
0.72
0
0.00
1
2.27
1
1.96
Bisexual
Atheism
0.38
742
29.09
0.77
%
1.54
48
2
N
0.38
32.16
2.31
Institution 0.00
Group- 2b
3
BGSU
0
8.65
74.62
6
Institution 4
1.54
Group
2
BGSU
- 2a
96
357
%
9.80
7.84
Responses
4
3.08
24.23
4
All Items Responses
194
Asian
Female
1.96
1.96
5.77
Bisexual
Response
Options
Heterosexual
Institution Group- 2b
3
BGSU
1.15
% M
%
N
NN
% % %M
N
NN
1
15plan13.08
5.77
6.40
3.64
Faculty who live in your residence hall
34
22571 20.27
21 6 12.73
6 4 13.649.09
academic programs
0.19
50 19.23 0.38 427 38.47 0.18
29 17.58 0.23
1.92
3.69
0.00
1825
70.00
64541 58.11
116 0 70.30
30 1 68.182.27
Number
of respondents
Percentage
of respondents
who live in
your residence
hall teach
Response
OptionsFaculty
Heterosexual
88.08
959
86.40
155 0.00
93.94
81.82
Hinduism
0
0.00 0.07 20
1.80
0
04 36
0.00
class(es)
17 6.54
0.25 273
24.59
0.02 option
2.42
0.14
for each229
option
for each
Other
11
4.23
39
3.51
4
2.42
3
6.82
Islam
0
0.00
12
1.08
0
0.00
0
0.00
Faculty who live in your residence hall plan
Gay
or Lesbian
Christianity
social programs
100
671
56
Race
N
N 38.46
%
%
N 0.000.39%
Judaism
0
0.00%0.38 26
2.34 0.60
0 N60.45
0.000.34
0 33.94
Faculty who don't live in your residence hall
Percentage
of respondents
Other Indian or Alaska Native
447
16.92
18020 16.22
28 3 16.97
American
2.69
1.80
1.15who8 4 18.181.54
plan academic programs for your residence
0.38
N% % M % N
%
513.73 9.80
7
10 22.73 0.22
11 21.57
470.59 7.84
36
N
N
38 0.0074.51
0 13.64
6
0.14
4 0.00 7.84
0
7 13.73
17
0.53 % 27 52.94
N 0.00
0 38.64
8
015.69 0.00
reported
the
most
desirable
hallon Survey
56
0.17
1881616.94
0.10
16 9.70
0.45
0.39
Black or African
American
23
8.850.22
97 21.548.74
6.15
1.54 20 45.45
3
1.15
Question
Number
of 4respondents
who
The Study
of
Integrated Living-Learning
Response
Options
48 Asked
Mean (M) Programs
of item.
outcome for each item
Faculty who don't live in your residence
hall 3.08
96
8.65
This is8 the
average
value
teach class(es) in the building
0.27
69 26.54 0.18
Asian
4
1.54
199
17.93
among
respondents
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
1 hall 0.380.23
plan
social
programs for your residence
617 23.460.63
0.18
All Items Responses
White
Other
Worldview
20 39.22
6
2.31
2 most
0.77desirable
0
0.00
reported
the
197 17.75 0.09
15 9.09 0.55
24 54.55 0.59
30 58.82
outcome1 for each
2
0.77
0.38 item1
0.38
198 017.84 0.00
0.11
Comparison
0
18 10.91
Institution -
0.00
0.50
1
22 50.00
Institution -
0.38 21 41.18
0.41
Institution -
234
753 - All
67.84 Institutions
147
56.54BGSU
401 115.38
472 2a18.08
ThereQuestions
are no faculty associated with
your 90.00 Institution
Group
3 2b
SILLP
BGSU-All
National
- Group
BGSUGroup
- Group
BGSUGroup
- Group
residence hall
0.40 105 40.38 0.24 269 24.23 0.53
87 52.73 0.20
9 20.45 0.18
9 17.65
3
1.15
33
2.97
2
0.77
0
0.00
1 signifi
0.38cant differences
Statistically
Based on your
current
resident
hall
experience,
please
select
all that
apply:
N
experience, please select all that apply:
% MM
N
N
N
%
%%
M
M
N
NN
%
%% M
N
% %between
M
N the
% means
M
N
of
M
N N %
M
N N%
M% N
%
%
your
institution
and
the comparison
Faculty who live in your residence hall
plan13.08
20.27
21
12.73
6
13.64
7
13.73
Not including student staff (e.g. Mean
RA),34 (M)
of 0.19
item.22550 19.23
institutions
are
denoted
academic programs
0.38 427 38.47 0.18
29 17.58
0.23
10 22.73
0.22
11 with
21.57 a †.
professional staff who live in your residence
Christianity
70.00
645
58.11
116
70.30
30
68.18
36
70.59
This is182
the average
value
Name
of factor
Signifi11
cance
SILLP
defined as
hall plan
academic
programs
0.19
49 18.85 0.26 288 25.95 0.17
28 16.97 0.25
25.00 in
0.20
10is
19.61
Faculty
who
live in your
residence hall teach
among
Hinduism
0 respondents
0.00
1.80
0 24.59
0.000.02 (SD)
04 2.42
0.000.14
p 0.00
< 0.14
.05
Standand
deviation
0.07 20
17 6.54
0.25 273
60 13.64
7 13.73
Study
of Integrated
Programs
34 Theclass(es)
Not including
student staffLiving-Learning
(e.g. RA),
Islam
0 plan 0.00
12
1.08 among
0 respondents
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
professional
staff
in your residence
Faculty
who live
in who
yourlive
residence
hall
Atheism
Factor
Tables
hall teach class(es)
in the building
0.07
19 7.31
0.08
86 7.75
0.04
7 4.24
0.11
5 11.36
0.14
7 13.73
social programs
100 38.46
56
17
0.53
27 52.94
Judaism
0
0.00 0.38 26
2.34 0.60 671
0 60.45
0.000.34
0 33.94
0.000.39
0 38.640.00
Factor value
Not including
student
(e.g.residence
RA),
Faculty
who don't
live staff
in your
hall
BGSU
- -18.18
BGSU - 8BGSU - Institution
Comparison
Institution
Institution
44
16.92
180
16.22
28
16.97
8
15.69
range. Other
professional
who livefor
in your
your residence
residence
plan
academicstaff
programs
Group 11
Group 33
Institution
- All Institutions
Group 22
SILLP
Factors
BGSU - All
National
Sig.
Group
Group
Group
Sig.
The smaller
hall plan social programs
0.27
41.26
0.360.4516 36.36
0.29 0.39
15 29.41
hall
0.22 695626.54
21.54 0.41
0.17 458
188
16.940.230.10 38 23.03
16 9.70
20 45.45
20 39.22
M
SD
M
SD
M ofSD
M
SD who
M
SD
Number
respondents
Response Options
Mean (M) of item.
number is the
reported15the
most desirable
Residential Environment's Influence
Major
This ison
the
average
value
minimum value
teach class(es) in the building
0.27
69 26.54 0.18 197 17.75 0.09
9.09 0.55
24 54.55 0.59
30 58.82
(3-15)
4.4
5.8
5.4
5.9
† outcome
0.5
2.5for11.0
each2.2
item11.3 2.6 a, b
and the larger
among respondents
Faculty who
don't live in your
residence
hall
Residential
Environment's
Influence
on
Major:
number is
0.23
61 23.46
0.50
22 50.00
21 41.18
%plan
L, M,social
H programs for your residence hall
N
% 0.18
N 198%17.84 0.11 N 18 10.91
%
N
%
N 0.41
%
the maximum
There
are no faculty
associated
with your
Low
Residential
Environment's
Influence
on Major
6
5.9
25
4.7
0
0.0
2
7.4
4
5.9
value. A 3-15
residence hall
0.40 105 40.38 0.24 269 24.23 0.53
87 52.73 0.20
9 20.45 0.18
9 17.65
range also
Statistically
Medium Residential Environment's Influence on Major
74
73.3
401
75.1
3
50.0
21
77.8
50signifi
73.5cant differences
Based on your current resident hall
indicates that
between
the20.6
means
of
your
High
Residential
Environment's
on Major
108
20.2
14
experience,
please
select allInfluence
that apply:
M 21N 20.8
%
M
N
%
M 3 N 50.0% 4 M 14.8
N
%
M
N
%
the factor has 3
institution
andSDthe comparison
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
Not including student staff (e.g. Mean
RA),
items and used
(M) of item.
institutions are denoted with a †.
professional
staff- Race
who live
in your residence
signifi22.2
cant 4.9
diff
erences
between
the
Campus
Climate
(9-45)
24.5
4.2
23.7
4.3 Statistically
24.2
4.2
27.1
2.7
c
a 5-point
scale.of factor
Name
This is the average
value
Signifi
cance
in
SILLP
defi
ned as
hall plan academic programs
0.19
49 18.85 0.26 288 25.95means
0.17 of
28your
16.97 subgroups
0.25
11
25.00
0.20
10is
19.61
are
denoted
based
Campus Climate - Race: % L, M,among
H
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
respondents
p
<
.05
Standand
deviation
(SD)
The Study
of
Integrated
Living-Learning
Programs
34
on the following:
Not
including student staff (e.g. Percentage
RA),
NumberLow
ofCampus
respondents
of respondents
Climate
- Race
5
13.2
70
16.4 respondents
4
15.4
1
20.0
0
0.0
among
professional
staff who
live in your residence
at each
scale
level
at each 0.07
scale level
a:
Group
180.0
vs.
Group
2
Factor
Tables
hall
teach
class(es)
in
the
building
19
7.31
0.08
86
7.75
0.04
7
4.24
0.11
5 11.36
7 13.73
Medium Campus Climate - Race
23
60.5
286
67.0
15
57.7
4
4 0.14
57.1
b: Group 1 vs. Group 3
Factor value
NotCampus
including
student
staff (e.g. RA),
High
Climate
- Race
10
26.3
71Comparison
16.6
7 Institution
26.9
0
0.0
3
42.9
BGSU
- BGSU
BGSU
Institution
Institution
c: Group
2 vs. -Group
3 - range.
professional
Group 11
Group 33
Institution
- All Institutions
Group 22
SILLP
Factors staff who live in your residence
BGSUSD
- All
Sig. M Group
Group
Sig.
M
M National
SD
SD
M Group
M
SD
The smaller
hall plan social programs
0.27
69 26.54 0.41 458 41.26 Signifi
0.23
38 23.03in 0.36
16
0.29as p15<29.41
cance
SILLPSD
is 36.36
defi
ned
.05.
number is the
minimum value
and the larger
number is
the maximum
value. A 3-15
range also
indicates that
the factor has 3
items and used
a 5-point scale.
Campus Climate - LGBTQ (9-45)
Residential
Environment's
on Major
Campus Climate
- LGBTQ: %Influence
L, M, H
(3-15)
Low Campus Climate - LGBTQ
M
24.4
4.7SD 24.5M
4.4SD
N
%
N
%
15.3
4.4
5.8
5.4
5.9
22.2 M 6.4 SD24.8 M 2.3 SD25.5 M3.8
† N
0.5
2.5
11.0
2.2
11.3
2.6
22N
73.3
%
96 N 64.0%
8 N 88.9 % 5
N100.0 % 9
N56.3
56
16.7
5.9
3125 20.74.7
0
2 0.0 7.4 5
431.3 5.9
SD
73.3
M401 SD75.1
4.1
20.8 23.7
108 4.120.2
Campus Climate - Religious and Spiritual: % L, M, H
N
%
N
Low Campus Climate - Religious and Spiritual
12
15.6
76
Medium Campus Climate - Religious and Spiritual
54
70.1
293
Campus Climate - Race (9-45)
Campus Climate - Race: % L, M, H
NumberLow
ofCampus
respondents
Climate - Race
at each scale level
M
24.5
N
SD
4.2
%
Percentage of respondents
5
13.2
at each scale level
23
60.5
M
23.7
N
%
SD
16.5
4.3
63.6
%
70
16.4
286
67.0
M 3 SD 50.0 M 21 SD 77.8M
12.5
SD
High
Campus Climate
- LGBTQ Influence on Major
Low
Residential
Environment's
M74
2
%
23
0 0.0 0.0 0
0.0
N
10.0
23.1
21
0
%
3
Campus
Climate
- Religious and
Spiritual
(9-45)
High
Residential
Environment's
Influence
on Major
11.1
N
Residential Environment's Influence on Major:
%Medium
L, M, H Campus Climate - LGBTQ
Medium Residential Environment's Influence on Major
1
%
a, b
%
50SD 73.5
23.4 3 4.6 50.023.0 4 3.9 14.8
22.5 142.8 20.6
N
%
N
%
N
%
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
7
14.6
1
12.5
19.0
Statistically
signifi
cant
diff4erences
between
the
24.2
4.2
22.2
4.9
27.1
2.7
c
32
66.7
6 subgroups
75.0
16 are
76.2denoted based
means
of
your
N
%
N
%
N
%
on the following:
4
15.4
1
20.0
0
0.0
a:
Group
180.0
vs. Group
2
15
57.7
4
4
57.1
b: Group 1 vs. Group 3
Appendix B:
All Data Tables
38
42.0
96.0
Asian
10.0
112.0
Other
4.0
Islam
Judaism
9.0
368.0
Christianity
Hinduism
111.0
Atheism
N
21.0
Other
Worldview
445.0
White
1.0
53.0
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
13.0
American Indian or Alaska Native
N
Race
533.0
Heterosexual
26.0
22.0
Gay or Lesbian
Other
35.0
Bisexual
N
6.0
Other
Sexual Orientation
3.0
427.0
Female
Transgender
180.0
N
All LLPs
Male
Gender
Student Characteristics
18.2
1.6
0.6
1.5
59.7
18.0
%
3.4
72.2
0.2
15.6
6.8
8.6
2.1
%
4.2
86.5
3.6
5.7
%
1.0
0.5
69.3
29.2
%
111.0
16.0
8.0
9.0
443.0
141.0
N
14.0
528.0
7.0
103.0
57.0
64.0
12.0
N
22.0
636.0
22.0
48.0
N
3.0
1.0
498.0
226.0
N
TRHs
15.2
2.2
1.1
1.2
60.9
19.4
%
1.9
72.5
1.0
14.1
7.8
8.8
1.6
%
3.0
87.4
3.0
6.6
%
0.4
0.1
68.4
31.0
%
24.0
3.0
0.0
2.0
84.0
26.0
N
5.0
107.0
0.0
20.0
8.0
11.0
2.0
N
5.0
120.0
6.0
9.0
N
0.0
0.0
87.0
53.0
N
R/HCs
17.3
2.2
0.0
1.4
60.4
18.7
%
0.8
17.4
0.0
3.2
1.3
1.8
0.3
%
3.6
85.7
4.3
6.4
%
0.0
0.0
62.1
37.9
%
56.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
128.0
54.0
N
11.0
147.0
0.0
57.0
26.0
24.0
4.0
N
10.0
212.0
8.0
20.0
N
4.0
0.0
181.0
65.0
N
%
22.5
1.2
1.2
2.0
51.4
21.7
%
1.8
23.9
0.0
9.3
4.2
3.9
0.6
%
4.0
84.8
3.2
8.0
%
1.6
0.0
72.4
26.0
Theme LLPs
32.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
156.0
31.0
N
5.0
191.0
1.0
19.0
8.0
18.0
7.0
N
11.0
201.0
8.0
6.0
N
2.0
3.0
159.0
62.0
N
14.2
1.8
0.4
0.9
69.0
13.7
%
0.8
31.0
0.2
3.1
1.3
2.9
1.1
%
4.9
88.9
3.5
2.7
%
0.9
1.3
70.4
27.4
%
Academic LLPs
66.0
No
16.0
134.0
Masters degree
Not applicable
188.0
Bachelors degree
62.0
33.0
Associates degree
Doctorate or professional degree (JD, MD, PhD)
79.0
104.0
N
Some college, but no degree
High school or less
What is the highest level of education
completed by your father or first
guardian?
8.0
145.0
No
Prefer not to answer
463.0
N
Yes
Father
4.0
135.0
No
477.0
N
Yes
Mother
2.0
548.0
Yes
N
You
Born in the United States?
All LLPs
2.6
10.1
21.8
30.5
5.4
12.8
16.9
%
1.3
23.5
75.2
%
0.6
21.9
77.4
%
0.3
10.7
89.0
%
13.0
69.0
128.0
252.0
44.0
91.0
131.0
N
5.0
172.0
551.0
N
3.0
180.0
545.0
N
2.0
90.0
636.0
N
TRHs
1.8
9.5
17.6
34.6
6.0
12.5
18.0
%
0.7
23.6
75.7
%
0.4
24.7
74.9
%
0.3
12.4
87.4
%
4.0
15.0
23.0
50.0
11.0
21.0
16.0
N
1.0
30.0
109.0
N
0.0
29.0
111.0
N
0.0
14.0
126.0
N
R/HCs
2.9
10.7
16.4
35.7
7.9
15.0
11.4
%
0.7
21.4
77.9
%
0.0
20.7
79.3
%
0.0
10.0
90.0
%
10.0
27.0
65.0
68.0
10.0
25.0
45.0
N
6.0
85.0
159.0
N
3.0
84.0
163.0
N
1.0
38.0
211.0
N
%
4.0
10.8
26.0
27.2
4.0
10.0
18.0
%
2.4
34.0
63.6
%
1.2
33.6
65.2
%
0.4
15.2
84.4
Theme LLPs
2.0
20.0
46.0
70.0
12.0
33.0
43.0
N
1.0
30.0
195.0
N
1.0
22.0
203.0
N
1.0
14.0
211.0
N
0.9
8.8
20.4
31.0
5.3
14.6
19.0
%
0.4
13.3
86.3
%
0.4
9.7
89.8
%
0.4
6.2
93.4
%
Academic LLPs
Appendix B
39
40
63.0
249.0
131.0
Associates degree
Bachelors degree
Masters degree
12.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
B- or C+
C or C-
D+ or lower
No high school GPA
412.0
204.0
Yes
No
198.0
No
N
418.0
Yes
ACT
N
SAT
Did you take the SAT and/or ACT?
49.0
244.0
A- or B+
B
306.0
N
9.0
A+ or A
What were your average grades in high
school?
Not applicable
27.0
70.0
Some college, but no degree
Doctorate or professional degree (JD, MD, PhD)
66.0
N
High school or less
What is the highest level of education
completed by your mother or second
guardian?
All LLPs
33.1
66.9
%
32.1
67.9
%
0.2
0.3
0.3
1.9
8.0
39.6
49.7
%
1.5
4.4
21.3
40.4
10.2
11.4
10.7
%
265.0
463.0
N
219.0
509.0
N
2.0
1.0
3.0
19.0
81.0
299.0
323.0
N
5.0
39.0
149.0
258.0
66.0
110.0
101.0
N
TRHs
36.4
63.6
%
30.1
69.9
%
0.3
0.1
0.4
2.6
11.1
41.1
44.4
%
0.7
5.4
20.5
35.4
9.1
15.1
13.9
%
45.0
95.0
N
44.0
96.0
N
0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
7.0
43.0
85.0
N
2.0
7.0
32.0
57.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
N
R/HCs
32.1
67.9
%
31.4
68.6
%
0.0
0.0
1.4
2.1
5.0
30.7
60.7
%
1.4
5.0
22.9
40.7
11.4
10.0
8.6
%
107.0
143.0
N
59.0
191.0
N
1.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
20.0
100.0
124.0
N
4.0
10.0
47.0
106.0
26.0
24.0
33.0
N
%
42.8
57.2
%
23.6
76.4
%
0.4
0.4
0.0
1.6
8.0
40.0
49.6
%
1.6
4.0
18.8
42.4
10.4
9.6
13.2
Theme LLPs
52.0
174.0
N
95.0
131.0
N
0.0
1.0
0.0
5.0
22.0
101.0
97.0
N
3.0
10.0
52.0
86.0
21.0
32.0
21.0
N
23.0
77.0
%
42.0
58.0
%
0.0
0.4
0.0
2.2
9.7
44.7
42.9
%
1.3
4.4
23.1
38.2
9.3
14.2
9.3
%
Academic LLPs
Mean
Self-reported ACT Score:
101.0
330.0
Federal loans (e.g., Stafford or Perkins loans)
Work study
49.0
245.0
Outside scholarships (e.g., local civic groups,
private philanthropies)
Private loans
184.0
Institutional athletic scholarships
4.0
180.0
Federal grants (e.g., Pell, TEACH, SMART, ACG
grants)
Institutional merit scholarships or grants
117.0
N
47.0
Did not receive financial aid
Financial Aid Received:
Yes
N
2.0
Graduate student
Transfer Student Status:
3.0
36.0
Fourth year
Fifth year plus (undergraduate)
72.0
115.0
Second year
Third year
388.0
N
First year
What is your current academic class year?
28.1
1925.2
Mean
Mean
Mean
Self-reported SAT Score:
All LLPs
8.0
39.8
29.9
0.6
53.6
16.4
29.2
19.0
%
7.6
%
0.3
0.5
5.8
11.7
18.7
63.0
%
76.0
355.0
188.0
1.0
355.0
124.0
227.0
134.0
N
91.0
N
8.0
4.0
67.0
99.0
205.0
345.0
N
29.3
Mean
1942.4
Mean
TRHs
10.4
48.8
25.8
0.1
48.8
17.0
31.2
18.4
%
12.5
%
1.1
0.5
9.2
13.6
28.2
47.4
%
8.0
47.0
46.0
1.0
86.0
21.0
30.0
27.0
N
16.0
N
0.0
1.0
12.0
13.0
26.0
88.0
N
28.2
Mean
1979.0
Mean
R/HCs
1.3
7.6
7.5
0.2
14.0
3.4
4.9
4.4
%
11.4
%
0.0
0.7
8.6
9.3
18.6
62.9
%
18.0
120.0
62.0
1.0
126.0
63.0
87.0
58.0
N
15.0
N
1.0
1.0
19.0
52.0
55.0
122.0
N
27.5
Mean
1814.9
Mean
%
2.9
19.5
10.1
0.2
20.5
10.2
14.1
9.4
%
6.0
%
0.4
0.4
7.6
20.8
22.0
48.8
Theme LLPs
23.0
78.0
76.0
2.0
118.0
17.0
63.0
32.0
N
16.0
N
1.0
1.0
5.0
7.0
34.0
178.0
N
27.2
Mean
1887.4
Mean
3.7
12.7
12.3
0.3
19.2
2.8
10.2
5.2
%
7.1
%
0.4
0.4
2.2
3.1
15.0
78.8
%
Academic LLPs
Appendix B
41
42
48.0
54.0
16.0
Social Science and Public Administration
Visual and Performing Arts
I don’t know
2.0
Philosophy, Theology, and Religion
19.0
5.0
Personal, Hospitality, and Culinary Services
Physical Sciences (Chemistry, Physics, etc.)
3.0
14.0
7.0
Natural Resources and Conservation
Mathematics and Statistics
Law, Criminal Justice, or Safety Studies
10.0
History
16.0
English Language And Literature
56.0
60.0
Engineering
Health, Pre-Health, and Wellness
62.0
Education
5.0
19.0
Computer or Information Sciences
Foreign Languages and Linguistics
41.0
Communications and Journalism
5.0
70.0
Business Administration
Family and Consumer Sciences or Human
Services
55.0
7.0
Area, Ethnic, Cultural, And Gender Studies
Biological Sciences (Biology, Botany, Zoology,
etc.)
3.0
12.0
Agriculture
Architecture and Building Trades
25.0
N
Undecided/Undeclared
Academic Major:
All LLPs
2.6
8.8
7.8
3.1
0.3
0.8
0.5
2.3
1.1
1.6
9.1
0.8
0.8
2.6
9.7
10.1
3.1
6.7
11.4
8.9
1.1
0.5
1.9
4.1
%
12.0
69.0
75.0
25.0
3.0
7.0
10.0
13.0
7.0
7.0
101.0
6.0
12.0
24.0
33.0
67.0
19.0
33.0
104.0
53.0
6.0
5.0
2.0
34.0
N
TRHs
1.6
9.5
10.3
3.4
0.4
1.0
1.4
1.8
1.0
1.0
13.9
0.8
1.6
3.3
4.5
9.2
2.6
4.5
14.3
7.3
0.8
0.7
0.3
4.7
%
4.0
11.0
16.0
5.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
3.0
18.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
14.0
8.0
1.0
8.0
16.0
16.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
N
R/HCs
2.9
7.9
11.4
3.6
1.4
0.0
0.7
3.6
0.7
2.1
12.9
0.7
0.7
2.1
10.0
5.7
0.7
5.7
11.4
11.4
0.7
0.0
1.4
2.1
%
7.0
28.0
29.0
6.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
4.0
3.0
5.0
21.0
3.0
2.0
9.0
6.0
20.0
10.0
14.0
29.0
19.0
6.0
3.0
4.0
16.0
N
%
2.8
11.2
11.6
2.4
0.0
2.0
0.0
1.6
1.2
2.0
8.4
1.2
0.8
3.6
2.4
8.0
4.0
5.6
11.6
7.6
2.4
1.2
1.6
6.4
Theme LLPs
5.0
15.0
3.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
17.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
40.0
34.0
8.0
19.0
25.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
6.0
N
2.2
6.7
1.3
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.9
2.2
1.3
0.9
7.6
0.4
0.9
1.8
17.8
15.1
3.6
8.4
11.1
8.9
0.0
0.0
2.7
2.7
%
Academic LLPs
Self-reported GPA:
Students who switched majors:
3.5
3.4
194.0
Mean
22.7
130.0
N
TRHs
Mean
%
N
All LLPs
28.5
%
3.5
Mean
32.0
N
R/HCs
24.1
%
3.3
Mean
63.0
N
%
27.9
Theme LLPs
3.4
Mean
35.0
N
16.4
%
Academic LLPs
Appendix B
43
44
High Discussed Sociocultural Issues with Peers
Medium Discussed Sociocultural Issues with Peers
Low Discussed Sociocultural Issues with Peers
Discussed Sociocultural Issues with Peers: % L, M, H
70.0
455.0
91.0
N
14.7
11.4
73.9
14.8
%
5.4
SD
M
Discussed Sociocultural Issues with Peers (5-25)
18.3
113.0
High Discussed Learning Experiences with Peers
66.2
15.4
%
408.0
95.0
N
5.2
SD
M
17.8
15.9
70.0
14.1
%
98.0
431.0
87.0
N
4.3
SD
M
13.0
15.3
70.5
14.3
94.0
434.0
88.0
%
Medium Discussed Learning Experiences with Peers
Low Discussed Learning Experiences with Peers
Discussed Learning Experiences with Peers: % L, M, H
Discussed Learning Experiences with Peers (5-25)
High Course-Related Faculty Interaction
Medium Course-Related Faculty Interaction
Low Course-Related Faculty Interaction
Course-Related Faculty Interaction: % L, M, H
Course-Related Faculty Interaction (5-25)
High Major-Related Support System
Medium Major-Related Support System
Low Major-Related Support System
N
7.2
Perception of Major-Related Support System (10-50) 39.8
Perception of Major-Related Support System: % L, M,
H
SD
All LLPs
M
SILLP Factors
Factor Analysis
79.0
489.0
160.0
N
14.1
M
106.0
497.0
125.0
N
17.3
M
112.0
501.0
115.0
N
13.1
M
127.0
488.0
113.0
N
39.5
M
SD
10.9
67.2
22.0
%
5.8
SD
14.6
68.3
17.2
%
5.4
SD
15.4
68.8
15.8
%
4.5
SD
17.4
67.0
15.5
%
7.4
TRHs
†
17.0
107.0
16.0
N
15.0
M
23.0
99.0
18.0
N
17.9
M
22.0
102.0
16.0
N
13.3
M
18.0
106.0
16.0
N
39.9
M
12.1
76.4
11.4
%
5.2
SD
16.4
70.7
12.9
%
4.7
SD
15.7
72.9
11.4
%
4.5
SD
12.9
75.7
11.4
%
7.2
SD
R/HCs
29.0
181.0
40.0
N
14.7
M
49.0
156.0
45.0
N
17.5
M
45.0
167.0
38.0
N
13.2
M
32.0
180.0
38.0
N
39.4
M
11.6
72.4
16.0
%
5.5
SD
19.6
62.4
18.0
%
5.6
SD
18.0
66.8
15.2
%
4.2
SD
12.8
72.0
15.2
%
6.9
SD
Theme LLPs
24.0
167.0
35.0
N
14.4
M
41.0
153.0
32.0
N
18.2
M
31.0
162.0
33.0
N
12.6
M
44.0
148.0
34.0
N
40.1
M
10.6
73.9
15.5
%
5.4
SD
18.1
67.7
14.2
%
5.1
SD
13.7
71.7
14.6
%
4.3
SD
19.5
65.5
15.0
%
7.5
SD
Academic LLPs
56.0
17.0
High Campus Climate - LGBTQ
9.0
N
20.7
68.3
11.0
%
3.6
SD
M
25.1
16.4
70.5
13.0
%
4.0
34.0
146.0
27.0
N
Medium Campus Climate - LGBTQ
Low Campus Climate - LGBTQ
Campus Climate - LGBTQ: % L, M, H
Campus Climate - LGBTQ (9-45)
High Campus Climate - Race
Low Campus Climate - Race
Campus Climate - Race: % L, M, H
24.1
SD
M
Campus Climate - Race (9-45)
19.8
122.0
High Residential Environment’s Influence on Major
75.6
4.5
466.0
28.0
%
Medium Residential Environment’s Influence on Major
Low Residential Environment’s Influence on Major
N
2.4
Residential Environment’s Influence on Major (3-15) 11.3
Residential Environment’s Influence on Major: % L,
M, H
SD
M
71.5
13.0
%
4.3
SD
15.4
440.0
80.0
N
17.7
M
All LLPs
95.0
High Supportive Academic Environment
Medium Supportive Academic Environment
Low Supportive Academic Environment
Supportive Academic Environment: % L, M, H
Academically Supportive Residence Hall
Environment (5-25)
SILLP Factors
19.0
57.0
15.0
N
24.0
M
46.0
155.0
44.0
N
23.6
M
0.0
0.0
0.0
N
0.0
M
0.0
0.0
0.0
N
0.0
M
SD
20.9
62.6
16.5
%
5.0
SD
18.8
63.3
18.0
%
4.5
SD
0.0
0.0
0.0
%
0.0
SD
0.0
0.0
0.0
%
0.0
TRHs
4.0
13.0
3.0
N
25.2
M
7.0
28.0
9.0
N
23.5
M
24.0
110.0
6.0
N
11.3
M
27.0
99.0
14.0
N
18.4
M
20.0
65.0
15.0
%
4.0
SD
15.9
63.6
20.5
%
4.5
SD
17.1
78.6
4.3
%
2.3
SD
19.3
70.7
10.0
%
4.0
SD
R/HCs
7.0
27.0
3.0
N
25.0
M
21.0
81.0
11.0
N
24.7
M
41.0
206.0
3.0
N
11.2
M
26.0
196.0
27.0
N
17.3
M
18.9
73.0
8.1
%
3.5
SD
18.6
71.7
9.7
%
3.5
SD
16.4
82.4
1.2
%
2.1
SD
10.4
78.7
10.8
%
4.1
SD
Theme LLPs
6.0
16.0
3.0
N
25.3
M
6.0
37.0
7.0
N
23.3
M
57.0
150.0
19.0
N
11.3
M
42.0
145.0
39.0
N
17.8
M
24.0
64.0
12.0
%
3.7
SD
12.0
74.0
14.0
%
4.6
SD
25.2
66.4
8.4
%
2.7
SD
18.6
64.2
17.3
%
4.7
SD
Academic LLPs
c
a
Appendix B
45
46
66.0
411.0
Medium Residence Hall Resource Engagement
High Residence Hall Resource Engagement
139.0
N
10.7
66.7
22.6
%
1.9
SD
M
7.0
14.8
71.1
14.1
%
91.0
438.0
87.0
N
3.6
SD
M
9.1
19.2
66.3
14.5
%
33.0
114.0
25.0
N
3.7
SD
M
23.9
18.9
66.0
15.2
%
3.9
SD
46.0
161.0
37.0
N
23.6
M
All LLPs
Low Residence Hall Resource Engagement
Residence Hall Resource Engagement: % L, M, H
Residence Hall Resource Engagement (4-20)
High Non-Course-Related Faculty Interaction
Medium Non-Course-Related Faculty Interaction
Low Non-Course-Related Faculty Interaction
Non-Course-Related Faculty Interaction: % L, M, H
Non-Course-Related Faculty Interaction (4-20)
High Campus Climate - International Students
Medium Campus Climate - International Students
Low Campus Climate - International Students
Campus Climate - International Students: % L, M, H
Campus Climate - International Students (9-45)
High Campus Climate - Religious and Spiritual
Medium Campus Climate - Religious and Spiritual
Low Campus Climate - Religious and Spiritual
Campus Climate - Religious and Spiritual: % L, M, H
Campus Climate - Religious and Spiritual (9-45)
SILLP Factors
0.0
0.0
0.0
N
0.0
M
118.0
495.0
115.0
N
9.2
M
50.0
113.0
51.0
N
23.4
M
56.0
180.0
48.0
N
23.7
M
SD
0.0
0.0
0.0
%
0.0
SD
16.2
68.0
15.8
%
3.8
SD
23.4
52.8
23.8
%
4.4
SD
19.7
63.4
16.9
%
4.3
TRHs
7.0
107.0
26.0
N
6.8
M
21.0
102.0
17.0
N
9.3
M
6.0
18.0
10.0
N
22.9
M
10.0
38.0
7.0
N
23.7
M
5.0
76.4
18.6
%
1.5
SD
15.0
72.9
12.1
%
3.8
SD
17.6
52.9
29.4
%
4.4
SD
18.2
69.1
12.7
%
3.8
SD
R/HCs
37.0
142.0
71.0
N
7.0
M
37.0
178.0
35.0
N
9.2
M
22.0
67.0
11.0
N
24.3
M
29.0
73.0
17.0
N
24.2
M
14.8
56.8
28.4
%
2.2
SD
14.8
71.2
14.0
%
3.5
SD
22.0
67.0
11.0
%
3.6
SD
24.4
61.3
14.3
%
3.9
SD
Theme LLPs
22.0
162.0
42.0
N
7.0
M
33.0
158.0
35.0
N
8.9
M
5.0
29.0
4.0
N
23.6
M
7.0
50.0
13.0
N
22.7
M
9.7
71.7
18.6
%
1.8
SD
14.6
69.9
15.5
%
3.5
SD
13.2
76.3
10.5
%
3.3
SD
10.0
71.4
18.6
%
4.0
SD
Academic LLPs
c
260.0
281.0
High Self-Efficacy within the Major
75.0
N
Medium Self-Efficacy within the Major
Low Self-Efficacy within the Major
Self-Efficacy within the Major: % L, M, H
22.4
45.6
42.2
12.2
%
3.8
SD
M
Self-Efficacy within the Major (5-25)
16.9
104.0
High Supportive Social Environment
74.8
8.3
%
459.0
51.0
N
5.1
SD
M
22.0
10.9
82.5
6.7
%
67.0
508.0
41.0
N
3.8
Medium Supportive Social Environment
Low Supportive Social Environment
Supportive Social Environment: % L, M, H
(6-30)
High Extracurricular Engagement
Medium Extracurricular Engagement
Low Extracurricular Engagement
Extracurricular Engagement: % L, M, H
23.3
SD
M
Extracurricular Engagement (19-57)
17.9
110.0
High Co-Curricular Programming Engagement
60.1
370.0
Medium Co-Curricular Programming Engagement
22.1
%
2.3
SD
136.0
N
8.7
M
All LLPs
Low Co-Curricular Programming Engagement
Co-Curricular Programming Engagement: % L, M, H
Co-Curricular Programming Engagement (6-18)
SILLP Factors
366.0
262.0
100.0
N
22.3
M
94.0
517.0
117.0
N
20.3
M
63.0
585.0
80.0
N
22.7
M
164.0
456.0
108.0
N
9.4
M
SD
50.3
36.0
13.7
%
4.2
SD
12.9
71.0
16.1
%
5.5
SD
8.7
80.4
11.0
%
4.3
SD
22.5
62.6
14.8
%
2.4
TRHs
†
†
†
68.0
54.0
18.0
N
22.4
M
29.0
99.0
12.0
N
22.5
M
10.0
123.0
7.0
N
23.3
M
19.0
90.0
31.0
N
8.4
M
48.6
38.6
12.9
%
4.0
SD
20.7
70.7
8.6
%
5.0
SD
7.1
87.9
5.0
%
3.5
SD
13.6
64.3
22.1
%
2.1
SD
R/HCs
121.0
110.0
19.0
N
22.9
M
34.0
202.0
12.0
N
22.0
M
37.0
200.0
13.0
N
23.9
M
55.0
143.0
52.0
N
9.0
M
48.4
44.0
7.6
%
3.1
SD
13.7
81.5
4.8
%
4.9
SD
14.8
80.0
5.2
%
4.1
SD
22.0
57.2
20.8
%
2.3
SD
Theme LLPs
92.0
96.0
38.0
N
21.8
M
41.0
158.0
27.0
N
21.8
M
20.0
185.0
21.0
N
22.7
M
36.0
137.0
53.0
N
8.7
M
40.7
42.5
16.8
%
4.3
SD
18.1
69.9
11.9
%
5.4
SD
8.8
81.9
9.3
%
3.5
SD
15.9
60.6
23.5
%
2.3
SD
Academic LLPs
c
c
a
Appendix B
47
48
321.0
206.0
High Career Self-Efficacy
89.0
N
Medium Career Self-Efficacy
Low Career Self-Efficacy
Career Self-Efficacy: % L, M, H
12.5
33.4
52.1
14.4
%
2.7
SD
M
Career Self-Efficacy (3-15)
24.5
151.0
High Perception of Liberal Arts Mastery
60.4
15.1
%
2.6
372.0
93.0
N
12.2
SD
M
Medium Perception of Liberal Arts Mastery
Low Perception of Liberal Arts Mastery
Perception of Liberal Arts Mastery: % L, M, H
Perception of Liberal Arts Mastery (3-15)
13.5
69.8
16.7
%
3.1
83.0
430.0
Medium Perception of STEM Mastery
High Perception of STEM Mastery
103.0
N
Low Perception of STEM Mastery
Perception of STEM Mastery: % L, M, H
10.1
SD
M
Perception of STEM Mastery (3-15)
65.7
405.0
High Intent to Persist in Major
23.5
10.7
%
2.3
SD
145.0
66.0
N
13.8
M
All LLPs
Medium Intent to Persist in Major
Low Intent to Persist in Major
Intent to Persist in Major: % L, M, H
Intent to Persist in Major (3-15)
SILLP Factors
268.0
350.0
110.0
N
12.6
M
181.0
431.0
116.0
N
12.3
M
104.0
496.0
128.0
N
10.0
M
459.0
177.0
92.0
N
13.7
M
SD
36.8
48.1
15.1
%
2.7
SD
24.9
59.2
15.9
%
2.7
SD
14.3
68.1
17.6
%
3.1
SD
63.0
24.3
12.6
%
2.3
TRHs
49.0
73.0
18.0
N
12.6
M
31.0
93.0
16.0
N
12.3
M
19.0
101.0
20.0
N
10.3
M
87.0
36.0
17.0
N
13.7
M
35.0
52.1
12.9
%
2.7
SD
22.1
66.4
11.4
%
2.5
SD
13.6
72.1
14.3
%
3.1
SD
62.1
25.7
12.1
%
2.4
SD
R/HCs
73.0
136.0
41.0
N
12.2
M
72.0
144.0
34.0
N
12.5
M
35.0
170.0
45.0
N
9.8
M
168.0
59.0
23.0
N
13.9
M
29.2
54.4
16.4
%
2.8
SD
28.8
57.6
13.6
%
2.4
SD
14.0
68.0
18.0
%
3.2
SD
67.2
23.6
9.2
%
1.9
SD
Theme LLPs
84.0
112.0
30.0
N
12.8
M
48.0
135.0
43.0
N
11.9
M
29.0
159.0
38.0
N
10.2
M
150.0
50.0
26.0
N
13.7
M
37.2
49.6
13.3
%
2.6
SD
21.2
59.7
19.0
%
2.7
SD
12.8
70.4
16.8
%
3.0
SD
66.4
22.1
11.5
%
2.5
SD
Academic LLPs
c
c
260.0
281.0
High Confidence in Academic Progress
75.0
N
Medium Confidence in Academic Progress
Low Confidence in Academic Progress
Academic Confidence: % L, M, H
38.1
SD
M
Academic Confidence (8-40)
30.8
190.0
High Self-Reported Academic Progress
45.6
42.2
12.2
%
6.1
49.0
302.0
Medium Self-Reported Academic Progress
20.1
%
124.0
N
2.9
SD
M
18.0
14.6
77.1
8.3
%
90.0
474.0
51.0
N
4.2
Low Self-Reported Academic Progress
Self-Reported Academic Progress: % L, M, H
Self-Reported Academic Progress (7-21)
High Critical Thinking Disposition
Medium Critical Thinking Disposition
Low Critical Thinking Disposition
Critical Thinking Disposition: % L, M, H
22.2
SD
M
Self-Reported Critical Thinking Disposition (6-30)
19.5
120.0
High Perceptions of College’s Role in Career
67.5
13.0
%
6.2
SD
416.0
80.0
N
37.2
M
All LLPs
Medium Perceptions of College’s Role in Career
Low Perceptions of College’s Role in Career
Perception of College’s Role in Career: % L, M, H
Perception of College’s Role in Career (9-45)
SILLP Factors
366.0
262.0
100.0
N
37.8
M
225.0
352.0
151.0
N
18.0
M
99.0
535.0
94.0
N
21.6
M
180.0
445.0
103.0
N
37.4
M
SD
50.3
36.0
13.7
%
6.5
SD
30.9
48.4
20.7
%
3.0
SD
13.6
73.5
12.9
%
4.6
SD
24.7
61.1
14.1
%
6.6
TRHs
†
68.0
54.0
18.0
N
38.9
M
47.0
70.0
23.0
N
18.3
M
23.0
103.0
14.0
N
22.3
M
27.0
97.0
16.0
N
37.1
M
48.6
38.6
12.9
%
5.5
SD
33.6
50.0
16.4
%
2.9
SD
16.4
73.6
10.0
%
4.1
SD
19.3
69.3
11.4
%
6.1
SD
R/HCs
121.0
110.0
19.0
N
38.4
M
73.0
126.0
51.0
N
18.0
M
40.0
199.0
10.0
N
22.8
M
41.0
173.0
36.0
N
36.8
M
48.4
44.0
7.6
%
5.3
SD
29.2
50.4
20.4
%
2.7
SD
16.1
79.9
4.0
%
3.9
SD
16.4
69.2
14.4
%
6.0
SD
Theme LLPs
92.0
96.0
38.0
N
37.2
M
70.0
106.0
50.0
N
17.8
M
27.0
172.0
27.0
N
21.5
M
52.0
146.0
28.0
N
37.7
M
40.7
42.5
16.8
%
7.1
SD
31.0
46.9
22.1
%
3.1
SD
11.9
76.1
11.9
%
4.4
SD
23.0
64.6
12.4
%
6.3
SD
Academic LLPs
b, c
c
Appendix B
49
50
455.0
101.0
High Campus Civic Engagement
59.0
N
Medium Campus Civic Engagement
Low Campus Civic Engagement
Campus Engagement: % L, M, H
14.7
16.4
74.0
9.6
%
3.6
SD
M
Campus Engagement (4-20)
24.1
148.0
High Residential Sense of Belonging
64.7
11.2
%
398.0
69.0
N
4.7
Medium Residential Sense of Belonging
Low Residential Sense of Belonging
Residential Sense of Belonging: % L, M, H
19.1
SD
M
Residential Environment Sense of Belonging (5-25)
23.6
145.0
High Sense of Belonging
62.4
14.0
%
384.0
86.0
N
4.1
Medium Sense of Belonging
Low Sense of Belonging
Sense of Belonging: % L, M, H
19.7
SD
M
Campus Sense of Belonging (5-25)
23.9
147.0
High Academic Satisfaction
61.2
14.9
%
5.6
SD
377.0
92.0
N
29.0
M
All LLPs
Medium Academic Satisfaction
Low Academic Satisfaction
Academic Satisfaction: % L, M, H
Academic Satisfaction (7-35)
SILLP Factors
114.0
509.0
105.0
N
14.3
M
129.0
478.0
121.0
N
17.9
M
150.0
433.0
145.0
N
19.1
M
180.0
439.0
109.0
N
29.0
M
SD
15.7
69.9
14.4
%
3.9
SD
17.7
65.7
16.6
%
5.0
SD
20.6
59.5
19.9
%
4.3
SD
24.7
60.3
15.0
%
5.6
TRHs
†
†
†
22.0
104.0
14.0
N
14.7
M
40.0
86.0
14.0
N
19.7
M
38.0
87.0
15.0
N
20.1
M
32.0
86.0
22.0
N
29.0
M
15.7
74.3
10.0
%
3.4
SD
28.6
61.4
10.0
%
4.5
SD
27.1
62.1
10.7
%
3.9
SD
22.9
61.4
15.7
%
5.6
SD
R/HCs
44.0
191.0
14.0
N
15.2
M
50.0
178.0
21.0
N
18.9
M
59.0
160.0
30.0
N
19.9
M
58.0
163.0
29.0
N
29.4
M
17.7
76.7
5.6
%
3.5
SD
20.1
71.5
8.4
%
4.4
SD
23.7
64.3
12.0
%
3.9
SD
23.2
65.2
11.6
%
5.0
SD
Theme LLPs
35.0
160.0
31.0
N
14.3
M
58.0
134.0
34.0
N
18.9
M
48.0
137.0
41.0
N
19.3
M
57.0
128.0
41.0
N
28.6
M
15.5
70.8
13.7
%
3.8
SD
25.7
59.3
15.0
%
5.1
SD
21.2
60.6
18.1
%
4.5
SD
25.2
56.6
18.1
%
6.3
SD
Academic LLPs
c
16.0
107.0
Medium Binge Drinking
High Binge Drinking
493.0
N
2.6
17.4
80.0
%
1.1
SD
M
1.7
13.3
74.4
12.3
%
14.4
SD
82.0
458.0
Low Binge Drinking
Binge Drinking: % L, M, H
High Risk Binge Drinking (1-6)
High Bystander Intervention
Medium Bystander Intervention
76.0
N
Bystander Intervention: % L, M, H
Low Bystander Intervention
82.3
M
All LLPs
Bystander Intervention (22-110)
SILLP Factors
34.0
156.0
538.0
N
1.9
M
107.0
498.0
123.0
N
80.8
M
SD
4.7
21.4
73.9
%
1.3
SD
14.7
68.4
16.9
%
16.7
TRHs
†
2.0
24.0
114.0
N
1.7
M
19.0
106.0
15.0
N
81.9
M
1.4
17.1
81.4
%
1.1
SD
13.6
75.7
10.7
%
14.9
SD
R/HCs
9.0
45.0
196.0
N
1.7
M
35.0
183.0
32.0
N
83.3
M
3.6
18.0
78.4
%
1.2
SD
14.0
73.2
12.8
%
13.8
SD
Theme LLPs
5.0
38.0
183.0
N
1.6
M
28.0
169.0
29.0
N
81.5
M
2.2
16.8
81.0
%
1.1
SD
12.4
74.8
12.8
%
14.8
SD
Academic LLPs
Appendix B
51
Study of Integrated
Study of Integrated Living Learning Programs
A partnership of the College Impact Laboratory (CoIL)
& the Center for Research on Higher Education Outcomes (CRHEO)
239 Greene Street, Suite 212 | New York, NY 10003
212.992.9496 | [email protected] | @SILLPStudy

downloaded here - The Study of Integrated Living Learning Programs

Transcription

Similar documents

Georgian Orillia Brochure - 2015

Residence Life - D`Youville College

revised hurrican - University of Mobile

A Whole New World: Welcome to Michigan Tech

LPU Batangas vicinity map - Lyceum of the Philippines University

Campus SBB

Viewbook - Fort Hays State University

OPEN FOR SALE! - Welcome | Palm Hills Residence

this is a school worth visiting because james madison high school

File - Indus International School, Hyderabad