Talking Stick - March/April 2016 - 52

Measuring Up
These charts highlight findings for academic
experiences, campus climate, and social
experiences across living-learning programs.
Low

Medium

High

Discussed Learning Experience with Peers
All LLPs
15%
66%
Traditional Residence Halls
17%
68%

18%
15%

Co-Curricular Programming Engagement
All LLPs
22%
60%
Traditional Residence Halls
15%
63%

18%
23%

Extracurricular Engagement
All LLPs
7%
82%
Traditional Residence Halls
11%
80%

11%
9%

Socially Suppportive Residence Hall
Environment
All LLPs
8%
75%
Traditional Residence Halls
16%
71%

17%
13%

Campus Climate - Race
Residental/Honors Colleges
20%
64%
Theme LLPs
10%
72%
Academic LLPs
14%
74%

16%
19%
12%

Campus Climate - Spiritual/Religious/
Worldview
Residental/Honors Colleges
13%
69%
Theme LLPs
14%
61%
Academic LLPs
19%
71%

18%
24%
10%

Co-Curricular Programming Engagement
Residental/Honors Colleges
22%
64%
Theme LLPs
21%
57%
Academic LLPs
23%
61%

14%
22%
16%

Extracurricular Engagement
Residental/Honors Colleges
5%
88%
Theme LLPs
5%
80%
Academic LLPs
9%
82%

7%
15%
9%

SILLP, Living Learning Programs: Findings
from the Pilot Fall 2015.

52

TALKING STICK

The results of Inkelas' and
Brower's work manifested in 2004
with the release of the initial National
Study of Living-Learning Programs
(NSLLP) report: the first empirical
evidence from multiple institutions
that showed the overall benefits of
living-learning programs. It even
established the de facto definition of
living-learning programs as those
"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."
After the release of the 2004 report,
Inkelas' work continued, supported
by funding grants from ACUHO-I,
the National Science Foundation,
Student Affairs Administrators in
Higher Education (NASPA), and College
Student Educators International
(ACPA). In 2007, a second report
was published. This report was a
longitudinal follow-up with first-year
students who responded in 2004 as
well as a means to establish baseline
data for a new student cohort. In all,
51 campuses across the United States
were surveyed, with responses from
more than 23,500 students and more
than 600 living-learning programs.
Once again it was shown that students
in a living-learning program have
a smoother academic transition
to college and a smoother social
transition, apply critical thinking skills
more frequently, are more committed
to civic engagement, and binge drink
less frequently, among a variety of
positive outcomes.
Living-learning champions were
quick to point to statistically significant
results that demonstrated, for example,
that living-learning students were more
confident that they would succeed in
college or that they were less likely
than their traditional residence hall
counterparts to consume alcohol as a
reward for their hard work, for special
occasions, if they were having a bad
day, or just simply to get intoxicated.

The widely reported survey results
added fuel to the living-learning fire
on campuses around the world, and
the number of programs continued
to proliferate. In addition, the new
programs, as well as those already
established, began to morph and
evolve. Yes, the NSLLP survey had
provided a definition of a livinglearning program, but it was broad
enough that campuses looking to ride
the wave could bend and shape their
efforts in ways that allowed them to
fall under that category while also
accommodating their campus's unique
arrangement of academic affairs,
student affairs, and residence life
offices. "The growth of living-learning
programs has moved all campus
housing in the direction of livinglearning programs," says Matthew
Mayhew, an associate professor
of higher education at New York
University. "These programs initially
were relatively rare and were seen as
the crown jewels of many departments.
As more and more research established
just how influential they are, campus
housing began to adopt aspects of
living-learning programs even without
fully creating a living-learning program.
At New York University, for instance,
every residence hall has a live-in
faculty member even though most
of those buildings are not, in and of
themselves, living-learning programs."
He continues, "The experiences
and outcomes that living-learning
programs were designed to create
and foster have, in other words,
become increasingly common even
in residential set-ups which aren't
explicitly living-learning programs."
Mayhew has dug deep into this
topic as the principal investigator of
the Study of Integrated Living Learning
Programs (SILLP) from the New York
University Center for Research on
Higher Education Outcomes. Mayhew,
along with the research team of Laura
Stiltz Dahl, Ethan Youngerman, Chris
Stipeck, and Marc Lo, is carrying on
the spirit of the NSLLP project. The
SILLP pilot study results were released
Talking Stick - March/April 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Talking Stick - March/April 2016
