Measuring Outcomes of Living-Learning Programs: Examining College Environments and Student Learning and Development
Rent from DeepDyveThe National Study of Living-Learning Programs (NSLLP) survey instrument was designed to assess college environments and student learning and development outcomes associated with participation in living-learning programs. Data from the NSLLP show that students in living-learning programs demonstrate higher self-reported engagement and outcomes than students in traditional residence hall environments.
The push to create a more seamless educational experience for undergraduate students, to bridge students' academic experiences with other aspects of their lives, and to integrate their learning across the curriculum has led to the implementation of living-learning programs at postsecondary institutions across the United States. Living-learning programs can be described as communities in which students not only pursue a curricular or cocurricular theme together but also live together in a reserved portion of a residence hall. Because of the unique nature of this kind of learning community, studying the impact of living-learning (L/L) programs is a very different enterprise from studying broader types of learning communities, such as cluster courses or team-taught classes. There are few studies of L/L programs, and the research that has been conducted has not been a coordinated effort. Single-institution studies with idiosyncratic research interests have generated some results, which have produced a patchwork of information on the effects of L/L programs on student outcomes (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003). To date, there have been no multi-institutional or national studies of L/L programs.
A new initiative, the National Study of Living-Learning Programs (NSLLP), pulls together the assorted interests of the L/L research in a cohesive multi-institutional study. The NSLLP further identifies and collects data that will fill currently existing gaps in the patchwork. The NSLLP utilizes a standard method of inquiry for different L/L programs at several different institutions and investigates a broad range of college environments and outcomes related to student learning and development. This article presents the score reliability and validity evidence of the NSLLP construct scales and [End Page 40] identifies differences in college environments and student outcomes among L/L and non-L/L students as well as students of different gender, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. The NSLLP is sponsored by a grant from the Association of College and University Housing Officers–International.
Review of Literature
The conceptual framework for the NSLLP is based on Astin's (1993) inputs–environments–outcomes (I-E-O) college impact model. In Astin's model, "outcomes," or student characteristics after exposure to college, are thought to be influenced by both "inputs," or student characteristics before and at the time of entry to college, and "environments," or various programs, policies, faculty, peers, and educational experiences that students interact with while in college.
Prior research on L/L programs indicates the positive effects of these programs on numerous student outcomes. In a review of single-institution studies published prior to the early 1990s, Pascarella, Terenzini, and Blimling (1994) conclude that students in L/L programs are more likely to persist, exhibit stronger academic achievement, interact with faculty, and engage in a more intellectual residence hall atmosphere than students in traditional residence halls. They also find that student residence in an L/L program has "positive and significant effects on students' gains in autonomy and personal independence, intellectual dispositions and orientations, and generalized personal development, as well as declines in authoritarianism and dogmatism" (1994, p. 26). More current research from single-institution studies reports that students in L/L programs are significantly more likely than students in traditional residence halls to (a) be more involved with campus activities and interact with instructors and peers (Inkelas, 1999; Pike, 1999); (b) show greater gains in or higher...
