DOCUMENT RESUMEEMI 077399HE 004 205AUTHORPemberton CarolTITLEAn Evalu - PDF document

1 DOCUMENT RESUMEEMI 077-399HE 004 205AUTH
DOCUMENT RESUMEEMI 077-399HE 004 205AUTHORPemberton, CarolTITLEAn Evaluation of a Living-Learning Residence HallProgram.INSTITUTIONDelaware Univ., Newark. Div. of Academic Planning andEvaluation.PUB DATE6. Mar 69NOTE,19p.EMIRS PRICEMF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORSAcademic Achievement; *College Freshmen; CollegeHousing; *Dormitories; Experimental Progrthns; *HigherEducation; *Student Adjustment; *Student AttitudesABSTRACTIn the preSent study, -differences between a group of69, ArtS-and- Sciences freshmen whO,partidipated- in_a 1-yearliVinglearning residence -hail program, and-76_student$ in a matchedcontrol gtoup weie,evalnated..The-LL students, When.,coMpared with-thecontrol gronp,-Wete-bettsatiSfied,With:the faOUltyu thoUght thecampus: atmosphere WaSAtore'SchOlarlyi And cut classless :freqUently,althOugh theit-attitUde-toward-StUdyihg-SeeMed mare- relaxed. IhadditiOnuthell-_Students appeared -to be -dOeioi0A14- bultdkal and:political interests-_ ore rapidly-than-thecontrol. the transition-Ii'EtAihigh School and college- -was made easier ftir students in theprogram -by the suppOrtive atmosphere-and- few -of them doMpl,Ariedaboutaliention or leis& of identity. For the studentt_whompleted theacademic -year, the avetage diffe

2 rence-between predictedand achieVedgrade
rence-between predictedand achieVedgrades -was the same for both groups. AMOng the students,dropped -foraOadeMid reasons,- liter-achievement was greiAer thanthe control-gr=oup. AAuthor/liS) f\buJOPemberton1.An Evaluation of a Living-Learning Residence Hall PrOgramDifferences between WI Arts and Sciencefreshmen who participatedin a one-year living-learning prograM, and 76 students ina matchedcontrol group were studied.The LL students compared with the control,were better satisfied with the faculty, thought the campus atmospherewas morescholarly -and-cut class lest frequently.Their attitude to-wards- -studying, hOuever, seemedmore relaxed.LL ttudents appeared tobe developing cultural and political interestsmore rapidly than thecontrol.The transition between high school- and allegewas madeeasier for students in the program by the supportive atmosphereandfew of them complained about alienationor loss of identity.For thestudents who completed the academicyear the average difference be-tween predicted and achieved grades was the same for bothgroups.Among the students dropped_for academicreasons, ufider-achievementwas greater for the control.U S. DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTEOFEDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMEN

3 THAS BEEN REPRODUCCD EXACTLYAS RECEIVED
THAS BEEN REPRODUCCD EXACTLYAS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATIONORIGINA TING IT POINTSOF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOTNECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIALNATIONAL INSTITUTEOFEDUCATION POSITIONOR POLICYFILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY Pembertoa2.An.Evaluation of a Living-Learning Residence Hall ProgramCarol PembertonImpact StudyUniversity of DelawareA relatively -new phenomenon at-Many large universities is -theliving-learning residence hall.Such a unit usually consists of livingquarters for men, living quarters for women, acentral_areascontainingdining and-recreational facilities for both sexes, classrooms, facultyand administrative offices-, and possibly- science laboratOtieS, an audi,-toriuM_and a library (Centre-, 1967).Obviously -_such an arrangement isconvenient fot students, particularly on a large campus, -where trans-portation from. one classroOm building to another becoMes more of aproblem, as. distances between them intrease.The. administrators ofsuch ptograms hope that, beSides providing_convenience,-thelearning experience will.enhance the cultural and intellectual life ofthe participants.Furthermore, they hope that the personal and cohesiveatmosphere provided may aid in combating the alienation so often felt

4 bystudents in this day of mass educatio
bystudents in this day of mass education.A small living-learning program, using two claSsrooms, a seminarroom and four offices in the basement of one of the dormitory complexesat the University of Delaware was operated on a trial basis during the1967=1968 academic year.The success of this program was evaluatedmainly by comparing subjective data concerning the students' perceptionsof their environment, with data supplied by a control group also livingin Apiversity residence halls, but attending all classes on campus. Pemberton3.SampleInvitations were sent to 140 entering freshffien who had been ad-mitted to the College of Arts and Science by the beginning of Jane,1967.These students all planned to live in residence.They wereselected by taking every third name from an alphabetical list.Sep-arate lists for men and women were used, so that the sex proportionwould be the save as.for the Arts and Science class as a whole.Acceptances were'received-from92 of these studentS, who constituted_the member§ of the living4earning program.Theliving- learning partidipantS yere*Matdhed as= closely as_possible in terms of-their-Verbal and-Math_CEEB scores:- and:high schoolrank in class with 92 Arts and Science freahmen,Who were accepted

5 bythe University prior to June 1967 and
bythe University prior to June 1967 and%were.a166 planning to live oncampus.An additional 34 pelt:ohs, representing as wide a range ofability as possible, were included in the-control -group to compensatefor anticipated' attrition.-Of the 126 people invited, 109 preientedthembelves for the first testing session.ProcedureThe living-learning students all had single rooms in the Same res-idence hall complex, and they took from one to four of their freshmancourses In classrooms located in-the basement of this'building.Twosemesters each were offered in freshman English, German and History,and one semester each of introductory Sociology and PSychology.Therewere two English instructors, and one each for the other subjects.Eachinstructor was provided with a small office adjacent to the classroomswhile teaching in the ptogram, but also maintained the use of his Pemberton4.regular office on campus.All students in the pkogram were enrolledin English, about 757 in' History, 3070 in (Sociologyor Psychology and -25% in German, so that on the average they took slightlyover halftheir credit hours in the living-learning program.The Allport-VernonrLindzey 'Study of Values (AVL) and the CollegeStudent Questionnaires (CSQ) - -Part 1 were

6 administereeto thelearning (LL) student
administereeto thelearning (LL) students and the control group durihg orientation weekin September, 1967.During April, 1968 the AVL was readministered,together with CSQ-2, the Colleka and-University Envikonment Scales(CUES) and a questionnaire devised for this study, referredto as theImpact Study QueStionnaire (ISQ).Both sets of quesiionnaires werecompleted by .69 (75%) of the LL students, and by 76 of_the controlwhich is 70% of the 109 persons tested during orientation week.Allquestionnaire data are based on the replies of these 145 studentS.,During the middle of April six hour-long discussion sessions wereheld with the living-learning freshmen.Not more than fourteen peoplecame to any one session, and about 60 students participated.ResultsGradesOf the LL group 93% completed' two semesters at the University andachieved a mean grade point average (GPA) of 2.44, which was +.03higher than that predicted.The average number of quality pointsearned was 80.For the control 92% completed two semesters, earnedan average of 81 quality points, and a mean GPA of 2.49.Their-GPA wasalso +.03 higher than predicted. Pemberton&.Thn performanc(% of those students who were dropped for academicreasons or withdrew failing during the year,

7 shows that the discrepan,:ybetween predi
shows that the discrepan,:ybetween predicted and actual gradet,vas -.85 for the LL students, and-1.22 for the control students.Therefore, although the discrepancybetween predicted and actual grades for those compl_tinga full academicyear was identical for the two groups, the grades for those who dropped)out of school for academic-reasons, would indicate that the living=1earning.ekperience may ha;;e been instrumental impreVentingextremeoases.af under-achlevetent.College:Student-NeStionnairesCSQ-1 is designed for administratitoentering freshmen prior tothe beginning-of the academic year.It contains sections dealing with(I)educatiOnal and vocational plans and expectations, (II)activities,achieveMents and perceptions during secondary school, (III)family back-ground, and (IV)personal attitudes.Five scales attempting to measure`Family Independence, Peer Independence, Liberalism, SocialConscience,and Cultural Sophistication are derived from .Section IV.There are three sections in CSQ-2, I and III duplicating I and IVof CSQ-1.Section II contains questions which deal with-college activ-ities, and yieldssix scale scores, named:SatisfactiOn with Faculty,Satisfaction with Administration, Satisfaction with Major, Satisfactionwith S

8 tudents, Study Habits, and Extracurricul
tudents, Study Habits, and Extracurricular Involvement.The only scale on which there wasa significant difference betweenthe LL students and the control was Satisfaction with Faculty.Theaverage score-for LL students was 25.46, for the control 24.36, a dif-ference significant at the .07 level.For the scales that were common .iemberwuO.to both CSQ-1 and CSQ-2, there is some indication that LL Studentsweremaking more rapid gains in Cultural Sophistication thanthe control,and smaller gains in Peer Independence.An analysis of the responses to each individual itemon CSQ-2 wascarried out.Four-fold tables were prepared, usually by combiningre-sponse alternatives 1 and 2, and alternatives 3 and 4.From these chisquares were calculated to test the significance of the difference inresponse betweenhe LL students and the control.All items for Whichthe"chi square was significant at the .10 levelor better are listedin Table 1, and the wording of the item indicates how theresponsealternatives Were combined.If the item also appeared on CSQ-1 itwastreated in the same way, tabulating theresponses for only those studentswho had taken both forms of thetest.This indicates whether a differ-ence between the two groups was present initially, or

9 whether it couldbe attributed to differe
whether it couldbe attributed to differences in the college environment.Insert Table ITable I shows that more living-learning students feltthat theirteachers were successful in challenging themto their capacity; knewthem by name; were genuinely interested in studentproblems; and ac-cepted and welcomed student dissent.The University, they felt, wasinterested in them as individuals.During orientation week the students plannedto see their parentsless frequently than they actually did, and therewas no significantdifference between the two groups.In April, LL students reported thatthey had seen their parents less frequently than thecontrol.In spite Pemberton7.of this, more of them felt theywere grotying closer to their families.Perhaps their closer relationship with teachers andpeers generalizedto their feelings about parents and siblings.At the end of the year,more LL students than control students stated that they normallycon-sulted with close friends while in the process of making someimportantdecision.On the first administration of CSQ three-fourths of bothgroupsanticipated participating in student government organizations.On thesecond adMinistration only 8% of the control group-and 22% of theexperimental group reported

10 having done so.Although these percentag
having done so.Although these percentageiwere low for both groups, significantly more living-lc-rning studentstook part in such organizations, even though they lived further fromthe center of campus.On CSQ-1 one-fifth of each group thought.that their biggestproblemduring the coining year would be:"trying to 'find' myself in thesenseof personal meaning and identity, where Iam headed, what I am seekingin life, etc.."On CS('-2 only 1770 of the LL students stated that thishad been their greatest worry, compared with 34% of the control.On both forms of CSQ the student is asked to rank fourstatementsaccording to the accuracy with which each portrays hisreason for beingin college.The four orientations are described in short paragraphsonthe questionnaires, but not named.They are referred to in the manna;:.as the VocationaT, the Academic, the Collegiate, and the Nonconformistphilosophies (Peterson, 1965). PembertonO.The percentages of LL and control students who'endorsed eachphilosophy as entering freshmen, and towards the end of their firstacademic year are shown in Table 2.These results are for those in-dividuals who took both forms of the questionnaire.Insdrt gable 2Using CSQ-1 figures as expected frequencies, chi square sh

11 ows thatchange significant at the .001 l
ows thatchange significant at the .001 level occurred between the two adminis-trations of the inventory.Over 40% of both groups originally endorsedthe Collegiate orientation.At the end of the year just over heaf ofthe LL students endorsed this orientation, but there was a slight dropfor the control.More members of the control than the LL group orig-inally claimed to be Academically oriented.On the secomminis-tration there was a drop of 19 in this percentage, the Vocational andNonconformist categories gaining.In the LL group the Academic per-centage remained almost unchanged, whereas the Vocational dropped by10%, and the Nonconformist increased by 5%.Study of ValuesThe Allport-Vernon-LindzeyStudy of Valuesattempts to measurethe relative prominence of six basic interests:Theoretical, Economic,Aesthetic, Social, Political, and Religious.Because of marked sexdifferences in the values of men and women, results have been treatedseparately for each sex. Pemberton3.It has been found previously (Lane & Pemberton, 1965) that betweenthe freshman and senior year at the University of Delaware thereis anincrease in the Aesthetic score and a decrease in the Religious.Itwas hypothesized that the Aesthetic score would rise and the Reli

12 giousscore decline more rapidly for the
giousscore decline more rapidly for the LL students than for the control.The most significant score change (e...01) occurred for LL woken onAesthetic values, which rose 3.1 points.The control women's Aestheticscore,increased by 2.5 points during the same period (p.10).Forthe LL men the Aesthetic score wentup 2.0 points (p = .10), whereasthe control men's score went up only 0.9 and the changewas not sig-nificant.Although the.anges were greater for the LL students, thanfor the control, t-tests failed to show that these differencesweresignificant.The Religious score dropped by 1.3 points for LLwomen and by 1.2points for LL men, compared with 0.4 points for the controlwomen, and0.7 points for the control men.Again these differences were in thepredicted direction,,but not statistically significant.College and University Environment ScalesThe College and University Environment Scales (CUES), devised byPace (1963) measure the'students' perception of thecampus environment.The questionnaire contains five scales, empirically derived by factoranalysis, entitled Practicality, Community, Awareness, Propriety, andScholarship.Because our groups were small, conventional test-scoringwas used, instead of the consensus method employed fo

13 r large samples.The scores on the Commun
r large samples.The scores on the Community and Scholarship scaleswere both higherfor the LL students than for the control (p= .06 for bOth scales). Pemberton9.The Community scale describes a friendly, cohesive, group-orientedenvironment, whichsupportive and sympathetic.The Scholarshipscale characterizes an atmosphere in which the pursuit of knowledgeand theories, scientific or philosophical, is carried on vigorously.Intellectual speculation, an interest in knowledge for its own sake,and intellectual discipline are characteristic.The score for the"Propriety scale was-exactly the same for both groups, for Practicalitythe control scored slightly higher, and for Awareness a slightly higherscore waseisde by- the IL students.Individual CUES itemz- which differentiated LL students from thecontrol appear in-Table 3.The atmosphere which prevailed im theliving-learning program can be depicted from these items.More LLstudents believed that learning whet-is in the text booze was not enoughto pass most courses; that professors-really pushed students' capac-ities to the limit; that class discus -ions were typically vigorous andintense; that professors usually did not take attendance in class; andthat a lecture by an outstanding sci

14 entist or literary critic would bewell a
entist or literary critic would bewell attended.However, fewer LL students believed that courses, exam-inations and readings were frequently revised.There seemed to be amore relaxed attitude towards studying an the LL group. More ofthem stated that there was little studying done over weekends, andmore of them were likely to regard students who worked hard for gradesas odd.Insert Table 3Among the LL students 'a higherproportion shared their problemswith each other, and ran.errandsor did personal serviceeor thefaculty.More of them believed that the school helpedeveryone get 1*Pemberton10.acquainted, fewer thought that the important people at the Universityexpected others to show proper respect for them.A larger proportivaof them believed that students adapted themselves to others, ratherthan expecting others to adapt to them.Similarly,*more LL studentsreject the idea that knowing the right people on the faculty or ad-ministration get one a better break at this University. 'However,fewer LL students felt that channels for expressing student complaintswere readily accessible.Greater -political involvement-seemed to be characteristico: theLL students.Compared with the control, more of them stated thatstudent elections gener

15 atedstrong feelings; that students were
atedstrong feelings; that students were activelyconcerned about national and international affairs; and the:: studentshere learned that they were not only expected to deyelop ideals but alsoto express them in action.Impact Study QuestionnaireSignificant differences between the LL students and the controlwere found on 7 of-the10 objective questions on this inventory.LLstudents had been to see an instructor more frequently aboutnon-academic matters outside of class. They participatedto a greater ex-tent in living-unit activities, and cut class less frequently.Almostall of the LL students (8674 said they would enroll ina similar pio-gram again.Only 267. of the control said that they would enroll insuch aprogram, if given the opportunity.Contrary to expectation, fewer LL students had been invitedto afaculty member's home.Also, fewer thought the atmosphere in the dor-mitory was conducive to good study.From the discussion sessions it Pemberton11.was found that this was due to poor sound-proofing, not to the be-havior of fellow-students.The isolated locatidn of this residencecomplex accounted for the fact that more It students thought thatthey would have attended a larger number of extracurricular eventsif they had lived in a

16 different dormitory.When asked what asp
different dormitory.When asked what aspects of their freshman year they liked least,fewer LL than control students mentioned courses, the faculty, aca-demic pressures, extracurricular activities, or their fellow,students.None of them mentioned a feeling of 'loss of identity," but 570 of thecontrol group did.Discussion SessionsFrom the discussion sessions it was apparent that the majorityof students believed the living-learning program had made the trans-Iition from high school to college easier.They emphasized the factthat class discussions were more successful in the living-learningprogram than on campus, since everyone knew each other so well thatthey were not embarrassed to.express their opinions.Students felt that the actual teaching techniques used were notgreatly different from those used on campus.In spite of the greateravailability of the instructors, students expressed reticence aboutconsulting any professor unless they have a serious problem.DiscussionFrom the results it would appear that students in the living-learning program did perceive their college environment differentlyfrom a matched control group.They were better satisfied with thefaculty and regarded the atmosphere as more scholarly.One of the Pemb

17 erton12.concerns ofthoseinvolvedin plann
erton12.concerns ofthoseinvolvedin planningtheliving-learningprogram,was thatthe funhasso oftenbeen takenout oflearning"at thetypicaluniversityof today.Themo-.:e relaxedattitudetowardsstudyingandgrade-makingrevealed bytheliving-learningstudentspointsto theachievementof oneof thegoals oftheprogram.Theculturallife oftheliving-learningstudentsseems tohavebeenenhanced,as theyshowedsigns ofhavingmademore rapidgainsin culturalsophisticationand thedevelopmentofaestheticvaluesthan thecontrol group.They alsoshowedgreaterpoliticalaware-ness andinterest.Thepercentage ofstudents.adheringto thevocationalorientationtowardscollegedecreasedamong theliving-learningstudents,but in-creasedamong thecontrol.Academicallytherecordsfor thosestudentswhocompleteda fullacademicyeatwere almostidenticalfor theexperi-mental andthecontrolgroups.However,an examinationof thediscrep-ancy betweenpredictedandachievedgrades forthosestudentswhoweredroppedforacademicreasonsduring theyear, indicatesthat thecon-trolstudentswhowere droppedunder-achievedto agreaterextent thantheliving-learningacademiccasualties.Thetransitionfrom highschoolto collegewas madeeasier bytheliving-learningprogram, dueto thefriendly,cohesiveandsupportiveatmosphere.Feelingsofalienation

18 and lossofidentityappear tohave beenmini
and lossofidentityappear tohave beenminimized.MAR 61969 Pemberton13.ReferencesCentra, J. A.Student perceptions ofresidence hall environments:Living-learning vs. conventional units. 'ResearchMemorandum, RM-67-13.Princeton, N.J. : ETS, 1967..6Lne, G. G., & Pemberton, C.Changes in the values of undergraduatestudents.Unpublished report, University Impact Study,Uni4ersity of Delauare, 1965.Pace, C. R.Technical manual:College and university environmentscales.Princeton, N.J.:ETS, 1963.Peterson, R. E.Technical manual:College student questionnaires.Princeton, N,J.:ETS, 1965. Table IPemberton14 :.CSQ-2 Items which Differentiated LL Students from the Control Group1CSQ-1CSQ-2ItemLL % Cont.%.eLL % Cont.%jaDefinitely or probably expect to dograduate work7258.106549.05Expected expenditure more than $1,900for year41395437.05No participation in student governmentorganizations (anticipated partici-pation, question 36, CSQ-1)262578-92.025Greatest problem achieving sense ofidentity (anticipated problem CSQ-1)22211734.025Live alone8826..001Several or almost all instructors havebeen quite successful in challenginginformant to capacity4325.025More than half of instructors knowinformant by name6144.05Over half faculty genuinely interestedin s

19 tudents' problems5541.10Instructors acce
tudents' problems5541.10Instructors accept or welcome studentdissent8169.10,Seldom or never aware college interestedin me as individual6284.005Studied less. than most of classmates49465439.10 Pemberton15.Table I continuedCSQ-1CSQ-2ItemLL % Cont.%pLL % Cont.%pQuite a bit or a great deal of importanceattached to getting good grades74SomeWhat-iir very dissatisfied with recentgrades (senior h.s. grades for CSQ-1)33Too many students on campus are toointellectualVery satisfied with proportions maleand female students on campusHave adequate personal philosophy orreligious faith,70Plan to see parents once a week ormore often12Growing closer to family during pastyear48Almost always or usually consult closefriends about important decisions66Have read none or only one of:JamesJoyce, Leo Toltoy, Thomas Mann66Own more than 30 books4267755936604441253051.58.05755715223739583964705684.025395528.104833.05.10.05.025.05.05.025.10.10.101If the item occurred on CSQ-1, the responses made by the same studentsin September;1967 are shown. Table 2Pemberton15.Change in Orientation towards Collegebetween Beginning and End of Acadetic YearOrientationWest %CS0-1CSO-2Control %CS -1CSVocational33231621Academic13123314Collegiate40514542Nonconformist4

20 9717Omitted1605 Pemberton17.Table 3Items
9717Omitted1605 Pemberton17.Table 3Items front CUES which differentiated LL Students from the ControlItemLLControlpPracticalityCampus buildings are clearly marked by signsand directories6176.04New fads and phrases are continuallysprihging up among the students5947.07Many courses stress the concrete and tangiblerather_than the speculative or abstract4556.09Student elections generate a lot of intensecampaigning and strong feeling3524.08Knowing right faculty or administrators getsone better break here3524.08Important people at this school expect othersto show proper respect for them7087.01CommunityThere are definite times each week when diningis made a gracious social event1020.08Students commonly share their problems9184.09Students often run errands or do otherpersonal services for the faculty2311.02The school helps everyone get-acquainted5239.06Resident students must get written permissionto be away from the campus overnight3216.011In order to avold double negatives, the wording of items keyed to beanswered "False' has been changed, so that agreement always indicates acontribution towards the score for a particular scale.. Pemberton18.Table 3 continuedItemLLControlAwarenessA lecture by an outstanding literary criticWoul

21 d be well attended7051.01Channels for ex
d be well attended7051.01Channels for expressing students' complaintsare readily accessible3248.02Students are actively concerned about nationaland international affairs7460.04ProprietyStudents here learn that they are not onlyexpected to develop ideals but also to ex-press them in action5240.07Few students drive sports cars5871.06Students/publications never lampoon dignifiedpeople or institutions2308.01Instructors clearly explain the goals andpurposes of their courses5568.06Most students use protection against theweather5268.03Most students adapt themselves to others,rather than expecting other people to adaptto them4532.06 Table 3 continuedItemScholarshipLearning what_is.in the text book is notenough to pass most coursesA lecture by an outstanding scientist wouldbe well attendedThe professors really push the students'capacities to the limit,Class discussions are typically vigorous andintenseStudents working hard for grades not re-garded as oddCourses, examinations, and readings arefrequently revisedStudents are very serious and purposefulabout their workProfessors usually do not take attendancein classThere is quite a bit of studying here overweek-endsPemberton19.LLControl3819.016553.074928.0052916.037387.026479.0242