Lisa Bortman, Dean of First Year Programs and Advising Charles - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Incorporating Advisement, First Year Seminar and Freshman Writing into the Student Living Learning Community

Lisa Bortman, Dean of First Year Programs and Advising Charles Eastman, Director of the Writing Program

Whittier College Whittier, California

This assessment model was a joint effort between the Dean of First Year Programs and the Writing Department

The model was a comprehensive assessment that examined the first year programs: academics, advising residential life

Benefits

• Examine the student experience in its entirety
• Combined efforts
• Input and Analysis from more than one

perspective

Two Year Study

• 2006-2007
• 2007-2008

We combined our assessment effort with the Assessment Committee’s examination of our Liberal Education Program—the “4 C’s.”

Whittier College: Study Site

 Whittier College is a four-year, independent, residential, liberal arts college  Interdisciplinary programs, and diverse student population  59 % of the faculty are men and 41 percent are women  20 % belong to minority and international ethnic groups  The student-faculty ratio is 13 to 1.  As of fall 2006, Whittier College enrolls 1,427 students from 16 states  55% are women and 45% are men. 41% percent are American minorities, and 5% are international students  More than 27 % of Whittier’s student body is Hispanic—one of the highest percentages among the 73 independent colleges in California.

Whittier College: Integrated First Year Experience

• Associate Dean of First Year Programs
• Director of Writing Programs
• Faculty Based Advising ----- First Year Advisors -- Mentors
• Clustered Freshman Writing Course

Freshman Writing, 3 credit course Housed in Interdisciplinary Studies Linked with another First year Course Class size – 16 or less All classes have a peer mentor 27 sections offered fall 2007 Freshman Writing Seminar (non-writing faculty)

• Living Learning Communities
• Peer Mentors
• Poet to Poet Seminar

Assessment Model: Research Based

 The assessment culture at Whittier emphasizes a research model:  Step One: pose a research question  Step Two: Develop a method  Step Three: Decide on analysis  Step Three: Reflect on Results  Step Four: Discuss and report to a wider audience  Step Five: Recommend and adopt change

Our Question Are students academically engaged and socially integrated having gone through the first year programs at Whittier College?

Theory: Good educational practice leads to Academic Engagement and Involvement. Indicators of engagement and involvement are  Engaged in Academics  Development of Faculty/Advisor- Student relationships  Student to Student relationships

Academic Engagement

Programs

• First Year Writing

Program

• Clustered First Year

Courses

• Living Learning

Communities

• Peer Mentor

Program

Theoretical Framework

• Academic Performance
• Faculty Student

Relationships

• Student to Student

Relationships

Academic Involvement

Alexander Astin 1984

Academic Involvement

• “Refers to the quantity and quality of the physical and

psychological energy that students invest in college experience”

• Greater involvement leads to greater learning and personal

development

• Examples: enrollment in classes, studying, attendance

Academic Engagement

George Kuh 1998

 Academic Engagement is: The extent to which students take part in educationally productive activities that are linked to desired outcomes of college.  Kuh (2003) states “ students who are involved in educationally productive activities in college are developing habits of the mind and heart that enlarge their capacity for continuous learning and personal development” (p.8).

Writing Across the Curriculum

• The freshman writing seminars at Whittier

College are organized on the “Writing Across the Curriculum” model.

• “Writing Across the Curriculum” (or “WAC”) is

difficult to define succinctly.

W.A.C.: UNDERLYING IDEALS

• C. W. Griffin, surveying 194 programs in "Programs

for Writing Across the Curriculum: A Report" (1985), identified three recurrent ideals which form a core WAC ethos: 1) Writing must be practiced and reinforced throughout the curriculum in order to maintain skills learned at the beginning of one’s education; 2) To write is to learn; and 3) Since written discourse is central to higher education, the quality of student writing is a university-wide responsibility. (398-403)

W.A.C. and ENGAGEMENT

• As Karen Spear describes it in “Controversy and

Consensus in Freshman Writing: An Overview of the Field” (1997), the increasing acceptance of WAC has been accompanied by a shift in focus within composition programs from the production of documents to the use of process and interaction to deepen and extend learning, the building of communities of faculty and students across disciplines, and the development of better critical thinking and engagement (322-3; 332-4).

Methodology: Qualitative Component

• Phenomenological
• A gathering and analysis of student

perspectives

Two Strands of

Academic Engagement and Involvement Pedagogical Practices

Relationship between student-focused classroom practices and engagement and involvement

Relational Dimensions

Academic interactions and relationships, between…. Students and their faculty/advisor Students and their peer mentors and classmates

Measurements Data were derived through multiple means Overlapped questions and asked multiple times in each tool 2006-2007

• 2 questionnaires (fall)
• 1 questionnaire (spring)
• 2 surveys/writing evaluation (fall)
• classroom observations (fall)
• focus groups (fall)
• review of course materials
• NSSE
• WABASH

2007-2008

• 1 questionnaire (fall)
• 2 questionnaires (spring)
• 2 surveys/writing evaluation (fall)
• classroom observations
• focus groups (fall and spring)
• review of course materials
• Questionnaire of Faculty
• pinions/perspective
• NSSE

Qualitative Analysis Constant Comparative Analysis

• Axial Coding: initial categories were developed from a Pilot Study
• Open Coding: during the analysis new categories were identified
• Researcher and two Research Assistants coded the

questionnaires

Analysis: Pattern Matching

Involved the predication that pedagogical practices as well as the interactions occurring with faculty and among students affect academic involvement and engagement in First Year Programs

Writing Program Assessments

 Portfolio-based assessment of student skill growth

 Quantitative survey (end of semester— also serves as course evaluation)  Student evaluations of peer mentors  Student focus groups  Class observations

FRESHMAN WRITING PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FALL 2007

• A sample of 39 freshman writing students, representing a little
• ver 10% of the incoming freshman class, was selected randomly

for this assessment by the writing director. One paper from each student was included in the portfolio. The evaluations were conducted by a team of six faculty.

• The following areas were assessed:
• This paper is grammatically and mechanically sound at the

sentence level. (GM)

• This paper has a coherent, developable thesis. (TH)
• The thesis for this paper is adequately supported and developed.

(SD)

• This author employs a style comprehensible to all members of the

Whittier College community. (CS)

• The author incorporates, cites, and documents material from

external sources appropriately in this paper. (DS)

• The author is aware of multiple perspectives on his/her topic.

(MP)

• The author is able to define relationships between elements of a
• problem. (ANL)
• The author is able to synthesize ideas and information from

multiple sources. (SYN)

• The scale for evaluation was as follows:
• 6=Very Well Demonstrated
• 5=Well Demonstrated
• 4=Mostly Demonstrated
• 3=Occasionally Demonstrated
• 2=Minimally Demonstrated
• 1=Inadequately Demonstrated

Biographical Information

Demographics Fall 2006 12 weeks Male 115 Female 165 Instate 173 Out-of-State 100 Resident 224 Commuter 47 Demographics Fall 2007 # Female 121 Male 100 In State 124 Out State 70 N/A 27 N 221 Demographics Fall 2006 4-5 weeks Male 110 Female 146 Instate 152 Out-of-State 85 Resident 207 Commuter 46 Demographics Spring 2008 Female 84 50.0% Male 84 50.0% In-State 54.8% 54.8% Out-of- State 37.5% 37.5% No Respons e 7.7% 7.7% African- American 7 4.2% Asian 11 6.5% Caucasia n 97 57.7% Hispanic 28 16.7% Other 25 14.9%

Pedagogical Practices

Results

Pedagogy: Discussions Fall 2006, Week 4-5

Qualitative Question 3: Do you participate in classroom discussions?

Question 3: Do you participate in classroom discussions? N 254 Y 211 79 % N 43 16 % Voice Opinion 79 30% Ask Questions 32 12 % Answer Questions 50 19 % Feedback/Reflections/Roundtable discussions 106 40 %

• 3b. Reason for Participation

(267 comments) CODE D

50 100 150 200 250

211 43 79 32 50 106

Pedagogy: Discussions Fall 2007, week 12

Qualitative

• 2. When classroom discussions occur do you participate? Explain

When classroom discussion occur do you participate? Positive Comments 11 4.98% Frequently 12 5.43% Often 28 12.67% Infrequently 27 12.22% When I Have an answer 28 12.67% When interested 50 22.62% Positive remark about the teacher 6 2.71% Positive remark about the class 15 6.79% Positive remark about classmate 0.00% Positive remark about self 44 19.91% 221 100.00%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Classroom discussions

Pedagogy: Discussions

Spring 2008, 12 weeks

Qualitative

Do you actively participate in your classes?

Active Participation in Classes Y 153 92.7% N 12 7.3%

50 100 150 200 Y N 153 12

Number of Responses

Q16 Count Percentages 15 6.4% 1 26 11.0% 2 81 34.3% 3 114 48.3% Total 236 100.0%

20 40 60 80 100 120 1 2 3 15 26 81 114 Count Percentages

Pedagogy: Discussions Fall 2006 Evaluative Survey

Question 16: In this Course class discussions are

• =completely unhelpful 1=not very helpful 2=somewhat helpful 3= extremely helpful

Average 3.191 Percentage

4 90 41% 3 89 40.6% 2 32 14.6% 1 8 3.8% Total 219 100%

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 90 89 32 8

Pedagogy: Discussions Fall 2007 Evaluative Survey

Question 16: In this Course class discussions are

1=completely unhelpful 2=not very helpful 3=somewhat helpful 4= extremely helpful

Pedagogy: Discussions Spring 2008 Evaluative Survey

I participate in…

Participate in: Classroom Discussion 147 87.5% Out of class, course related 124 73.8% Group work 152 90.5% Ask questions in Class 141 83.9%

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 147 124 152 141 Number of Responces Percentage

Academic Challenge Fall 2006

How challenged are you academically in ALL of your classes and course work? Very Challenged 4 3 2 1 Not Challenged

Question 5. How challenged are you academically in your classes and course work? N 276 Four-Excellent 77 27.90% Three 146 52.90% Two 48 17.39% One-Poor 5 1.81% 276

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Four-Excellent Three Two One-Poor

Fall 2006 Q5

Academic Challenge Fall 2007

How challenged are you academically in ALL of your classes and course work?

Very Challenged 4 3 2 1 Not Challenged Academically Challenged in ALL classes # % Very challenged 4 69 31.08% 3 116 52.25% 2 32 14.41% Not Challenged 1 5 2.26% 222 100.00 %

20 40 60 80 100 120 69 116 32 5

Academic Challenge

Academic Challenge

Academic Challenge Spring 2008 How Challenged Are You Academically?

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1 (Not Challenged) 2 3 4 (Very Challenged)

5 29 75 53

How Challenged Are You Academically 1 (Not Challenged) 5 3.1% 2 29 17.9% 3 75 46.3% 4 (Very Challenged) 53 32.7%

Fall 2006 Evaluative Survey

Question 8: In this course I was able to…Ask questions whenever I wanted to:

0= strong disagreement 1=mild disagreement 2=mild agreement 3=strong agreement

Q8 Count Percentages 6 2.5% 1 7 3.0% 2 42 17.8% 3 181 76.7% Total 236 100.0%

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 1 2 3

6 7 42 181

Fall 2007 Evaluative Survey

Question 8

In this course I was able to…Ask questions whenever I wanted to:

1= strong disagreement 2=mild disagreement 3=mild agreement 4=strong agreement Average 3.5409 Percentage 4 150 68% 3 44 20% 2 21 10% 1 5 2% Total 220 100%

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 150 44 21 5 68% 20% 10% 2%

Q10 Count Percentages 10 4.2% 1 25 10.5% 2 63 26.6% 3 139 58.6% Total 237 100.0%

50 100 150 200 250 1 2 3 Total 10 25 63 139 237 4.20% 10.50% 26.60% 58.60% 100.00%

Fall 2006 Evaluative Survey

Question 10: In this Course I Understand how the assignments related to each

• ther

0= strong disagreement 1=mild disagreement 2=mild agreement 3=strong

N237

Fall 2007 Evaluative Survey

In this Course I Understand how the assignments related to each other

1= strong disagreement 2=mild disagreement 3=mild agreement 4=strong agreement

Average 3.371 Percentage

4 117 53% 3 73 33% 2 27 12% 1 4 2% Total 221 100%

20 40 60 80 100 120 1 2 3 4 117 73 27 4 53% 33% 12% 2%

Q13 Count Percentages

10 4.2% 1 24 10.1% 2 61 25.7% 3 142 59.9% Total 237 100.0%

50 100 150 200 250 1 2 3 Total 10 24 61 142 237 4.20% 10.10% 25.70% 59.90% 100.00%

Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey

Question 13: : In this Course I get responses to my writing assignments in a reasonable length of time

0= strong disagreement 1=mild disagreement 2=mild agreement 3=strong agreement N 237

Fall 2007, Evaluative Survey

In this Course I Get responses to my writing assignments in a reasonable length of time

1= strong disagreement 2=mild disagreement 3=mild agreement 4=strong agreement

Average

3.542 Percentage 4 147 67% 3 51 23% 2 19 8% 1 4 2% Total 221 100%

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 147 51 19 4 Number of Responces Percentage

Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey

Question 22: My professor’s comments on my papers

0=completely unhelpful 1=not very helpful 2=somewhat helpful 3= extremely helpful

Q22 Count Percentages 5 2.10% 1 21 8.90% 2 68 28.70% 3 143 60.30% Total 237 100.00%

50 100 150 200 250 1 2 3 Total

5 21 68 143 237 2.10% 8.90% 28.70% 60.30% 100.00%

Fall 2007, Evaluative Survey My professor’s comments on my papers

1=completely unhelpful 2=not very helpful 3=somewhat helpful 4= extremely helpful Average 3.418182 Percentage 4 125 57% 3 67 30% 2 23 10% 1 5 3% Total 220 100%

50 100 150 200 250

4 3 2 1 Total 125 67 23 5 220 57% 30% 10% 3% 100%

Q14 Count Percentages 10 4.3% 1 20 8.5% 2 46 19.6% 3 159 67.7% Total 235 100.0%

50 100 150 200 250 1 2 3 Total 10 20 46 159 235 4.30% 8.50% 19.60% 67.70% 100.00%

Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey

In this Course I confer with my teacher outside of class

0= strong disagreement 1=mild disagreement 2=mild agreement 3=strong agreement

N 235

Fall 2007, Evaluative Survey

In this Course I confer with my teacher outside of class

1= strong disagreement 2=mild disagreement 3=mild agreement 4=strong agreement

Average 3.502 Percentage 4 143 65% 3 50 23% 2 19 9% 1 7 3% Total 219 100%

50 100 150 200 250 4 3 2 1 Total 143 50 19 7 219 65% 23% 9% 3% 100%

Results

Pedagogical Practices

This study found that students are more likely to become actively engaged and involved in academics when they

• Participated in classroom discussions
• Found the discussions to be meaningful
• Collaborated productively

Results Pedagogical Practices

STUDENTS  Had intellectual exchanges with their faculty member and peers  Receive feedback from their faculty member  Felt supported intellectually by their classroom environment

RELATIONAL DIMENSION

Relational Dimension: Faculty

• Astin (1993) states, “Student-faculty interaction also has positive

correlations with every self-reported area of intellectual and personal growth, as well as with a variety of personality and attitudinal outcomes” (p. 383)

• Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) state that the type of interaction
• matters. They speculate that for interactions to have a positive

effect they must be more than superficial; they must be meaningful for students.

Relational Dimension: Faculty what does the research tell us?

• Students who have frequent interactions with

faculty members both in and out of class

• are more satisfied with their education,
• are less likely to leave college, and
• perceive themselves to have learned more

than students who did not have this experience.

• Contact between students and faculty, through

discussion and the sharing of ideas, results in enhanced intellectual commitment.

(Chickering & Gamson,1987; Cross,1998; Light, 2000)

Fall 2006, Questionnaire, Week 4-5 Relationship with Mentor-Advisor Qualitative

Description of the type of relationship N 275 Caring/Dependable/Approachable/Easy to talk to/Friendly/ Supportive/Trustworthy Helpful/Knowledgeable/Available

230 84 %

Not Helpful/Not Available Not Caring/Not Approachable/Not Comfortable

45 16 %

N 247 Great 62 25 % Good 95 38 % Okay 29 12 % Neutral 25 10 % Not Good 24 10 % No Response 12 5 %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Great Good Okay Neutral Not Good No Response 62 95 29 25 24 12 25% 38% 12% 10% 10% 5%

Fall 2006, Questionnaire, Week 4-5 Relationship with Mentor- Advisor

N 280 Four-Excellent 110 39 % Three 117 42 % Two 37 13 % One-Poor 16 6 %

20 40 60 80 100 120 110 117 37 16 39% 42% 13% 6%

Fall 2006, Questionnaire, Week 12-13 How do you view your relationship with your mentor?

Fall 2007 Relationship with Mentor

Relationship with Faculty Mentor Great 17 8.59% Good 29 14.65% Dependable 3 1.52% Caring/Supportive 5 2.52% Helpful/Knowledgeable 39 19.70% Approachable/Easy to talk to 48 24.23% Not Helpful/Available 4 2.02% Not Caring 2 1.00% Not Approachable 11 5.56% Have not met 1 0.51% Teacher student relationship 15 7.58% No Difference 24 12.12% Total 198 100.00%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Relationship w/ Mentor

Spring 2008, Questionnaire - Overall Relationship with Mentor

10 20 30 40 50 60 1 (Poor) 2 3 4 (Good) 20 32 56 48

Overall Relationship with Mentor 1 (Poor) 20 12.8% 2 32 20.5% 3 56 35.9% 4 (Good) 48 30.8%

Fall 2006 Questionnaire, Week 4-5, High Expectations

Question 5 : Has the faculty instructors given you any indication of what his or her expectations are regarding your academic success in college? If so what is it and how do you know this? High/Positive 130 94 % Low 9 6 %

50 100 150

Fall 2006, Questionnaire, Week 4-5 High Expectations -- If so, how do you know this?

N 318 One-on-one Meetings 61 19 % Emails 16 5 % During Class 105 33 % Syllabi 32 10 % Not Communicated 93 29 % No Response 11 3 %

20 40 60 80 100 120 Question 5 : If so, how do you know this? One-on-one Meetings Emails During Class Syllabi Not Communicated No Response

High expectations 2007

Fall 2007 Talk About Success 70 42.68% Don't Know/ No 33 20.12% Talk about Academic Expectations 29 17.68% Expectation for class 26 15.85% Talk About Goals 5 3.07% Discuss fears & transition issues 1 0.60% Group 0.00% Discuss Responsibility 0.00% 164 100.00%

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Fall 2007 Q3

Fall 2007 Q3

Spring 2008, Questionnaire Faculty Indications of Academic Success

100 51 20 40 60 80 100 120 Y N Series1 Faculty Indications of Academic Success Y 100 66.2% N 51 33.8%

Results: Faculty-Student Major Findings

• They viewed faculty as caring, concerned, available

and accessible

• They believed faculty were interested in their

learning and had high expectations for their success in college

Relational Dimension: Faculty Results

Students reported to have Rich Academic Relationships

• Caring, Supportive, Helpful
• Dependable, Accessible, Available
• Interested in their education
• Held high expectations
• “Felt Closer” “Easy to talk to” “I can ask her anything”

Relational Dimension: High Expectations Results High Expectations In 2006, 77% of the students that responded reported faculty had high expectations for them and that faculty were interested in their learning.

Peer Mentor

Q8 COUNT % 4 2% 1 8 4% 2 6 11% 3 59 26% 4 130 57% TOTAL 227

100 200 1 2 3 4 5 4 8 6 59 130 2% 4% 11% 26% 57%

Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey

Did you feel comfortable talking to your peer mentor about questions on class readings?

50 100 150 200 250

1 2 3 4 TOTAL 15 10 35 75 89 224

7% 3% 16% 33% 40%

Q13 COUNT % 15 7% 1 10 3% 2 35 16% 3 75 33% 4 89 40% TOTAL 224

Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey

Overall, I would rate my peer mentor's effectiveness in helping me adjust to Whittier

Q9 COUNT % 5 2 1 8 4 2 21 9 3 51 22 4 140 62 TOTAL 225

50 100 150 200 250 1 2 3 4 TOTAL 5 8 21 51 140 225 2 4 9 22 62 COUNT %

Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey

Did you feel comfortable talking to your peer mentor about writing questions?

50 100 150 200 250 1 2 3 4 TOTAL 7 6 21 59 124 217

Q10 COUNT % 7 3 1 6 3 2 21 10 3 59 27 4 124 57 TOTAL 217

Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey

Did you feel comfortable talking to your peer mentor about study skills questions?

Fall 2007

Relationship with Peer Mentor Excellent 4 93 41.89% 3 88 39.64% 2 35 15.77% Poor 1 6 2.70%

50 100 150 200 183 60 40 121 196 58 54 139

Peer Mentor/Tutor

Peer Tutor Interactions Peer Mentor Interactions

Relationship with Peer Tutor Excellent 4 24 10.86% 3 46 20.81% 2 74 33.49% Poor 1 77 34.84% Peer Mentor Interactions Poet to Poet Seminar 196 43.85% Individual conference out of c lass 58 12.85% Individual conference in class 54 12.08% Group meeting w/ classmates 139 31.09% Peer Tutor Interactions Poet to Poet Seminar 183 45.30% I individual conference out of c lass 60 14.85% Individual conference in class 40 9.90% Group meeting w/ classmates 121 29.95%

20 40 60 80 100 24 46 74 77 93 88 35 6

Peer Tutor/Mentor Relationship

Peer Tutor Relationship Relationship with Peer Mentor

Focus Groups

Valuable information about peer relationships and peer mentors

Relational Dimension: Peer Mentor Results

 The role is somewhat unique to First Year Programs  identified with students—same institution, same experience, close to the same time  Represented success, successful transition  Peer Mentors provided a rationale for students to establish a level of confidence, enough so to take the risk of becoming involved through participation in class discussion and sharing their views and expressing their

• pinions

Relational Dimension: Peer Mentor

Peer Mentors

▫ Developing new knowledge requires taking risks. Seeking help from the Peer Mentors was less threatening. ▫ When the Peer Mentor was not active –students expressed disappointment, reported they were not useful. ▫ They perceived the Peer Mentors were interested in their learning and success and had high expectations for them.

Relational Dimension: Peer Mentor When the relationship doesn’t work….

Good Intentions Gone Bad

Poet to Poet Seminar……

Living Learning Communities

Student to Student Relationships

Fall 2006, Open Ended 4 weeks

Relationship with your Living Learning Community:

Describe your overall relationship with your Living Learning Community members/classmates N 252 Good/Like them/ Friendly 180 71 % Positive to Neutral (okay) 45 18 % Not Good 16 6 % Do Not like Class 1 0 % No Response 10 3 %

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Good/Like them/ Friendly Positive to Neutral (okay) Not Good Do Not like Class No Response

Fall 2006, Open Ended 4 weeks Type of relationship with Living Learning Community

8b.Type of relationship with Living Learning Community N 152 Socialize together 85 56% Study together 44 29% Do Not Hang out together 23 15%

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Socialize together Study together Do Not Hang out together Series1

Fall 2007 What has been the most positive aspect of living together and taking classes together?

What has been the most positive aspect of living together and taking classes together? Fall 2007 Socialize together/ few friends 83 Study together 44 Helpful 37 No Answer 37 OK/ neutral 10 Does not live with them 5 Living situation is good 4 Good I like them 2

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Socialize together/ few friends Study together Helpful No Answer OK/ neutral Does not live with them Living situation is good Good I like them

Fall 2007 What has been the most negative aspect of living together and taking classes together?

What has been the most negative aspect of living together and taking classes together? None 88 Get tired of each other 63 No Answer 35 N/A or live in separate dorm 6 Don't study with them 4 Don't socialize with/ Don't like them 2 197

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 None Get tired of each other No Answer N/A or live in separate dorm Don't study with them Don't socialize with/ Don't like them Series1

Spring 2008 Survey Living Learning Community Relationship

124 102 113 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Take Classes Together Study Together Socialize Together Series1

Living Learning Community Relationship Take Classes Together 124 73.8% Study Together 102 60.7% Socialize Together 113 67.3%

Living Learning Communities Focus Groups 2006-2007

• Focus groups students reported

that the LLC’s provided an instant group of friends and students to study with

• Enormous stress reliever
• Helped with academics
• Supported each other
• Studied in the residence halls
• Looked out for each other

2007-2008

• Same as 2006
• They continued to be friendly

and study together

• Immensely valuable to their

transition in the first year

Conclusions on LLC

• Students reported that having that immediate peer group

was more positive than the limitation of being with the same people in 2 classes and living together

• Focus groups supported this conclusion
• The studied and socialized together
• Spring they met new students in their other classes but kept

their friendships with their LLC’s

Fall 2006 Best Experience to Date 4-5 weeks What has been your best experience to date?

Week 4-5

N 286 Social Aspect 110 38 % Clubs/Activities/Societies (K-Poets, Pres. Dinner, Convocation, homecoming) 38 13% Sports 35 12% Teachers/Classes/Academics 31 11% Residence Hall/Living Learning Community 12 4 % None Yet 23 8% Being Independent 12 4 % No Answer 25 8 %

Fall 2006 Most positive aspect 12-13 weeks

What has been the most positive aspect of your education to date? Week 12-13 N 238 Faculty/Staff/Tutors/Mentors/Advisors (available help) 67 28 % Academic (s)-Structure/Classes 96 40 % Social Aspect/Events/Living Learning Community 52 22 % Independence/Finances (scholarships/awards)/Working 18 8 % Resources 5 2 %

Fall 2006 Challenge at week 4-5

Question 15: What has been your biggest challenge to date?

Question 15: What has been your biggest challenge to date? Week 4-5 N 272 Academics 132 48 % Money/Finances/Working 6 2 % Transition/Homesick 26 9 % Time Management 53 19 % Friends/drama/conflicts 11 4 % Residence Hall/Living Learning Community 19 7 % Athletics 7 3 % Being on Campus 3 1 % No Answer 15 5 %

Fall 2007 General

What has been your best experience to date?

What has been your best experience to date? Social 84 Activities 34 Sports 33 Academics 14 Teachers (+)/ mentors 13 No answer/ Don't know 12 Whole thing 10 Good relationships/friends for life 7 Self-sufficient/ Independence 7 Work 4 NWC 4 222

What did we do with all of this data???

Reporting and Sharing Everyone loves good news….. Tie it in with retention numbers and exit interviews

Change!!!!

• Peer Mentor Program
• Writing Instructor Training
• Choice of Writing Instructors
• Whittier Seminar
• Advising

LIMITATIONS of our Findings

• Study was conducted at a single institution
• Not a Random Sample
• Self-selected faculty

CONCLUSION Assessment Joint effort – Was comprehensive – Good use of time – Better analysis – Better buy in

Our Study…

Supportive academic relationships with faculty advisors and peer mentors encourage involvement and engagement

• Use of student focused

pedagogies encourage involvement and engagement

• Peer Mentors were models for

involvement and engagement

Thank-You!