incorporating advisement, first year seminar and freshman ... · incorporating advisement, first...

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

opinions/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 over 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

Summary Data on Fall 2007 FWS Evaluation

Raw Data

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Means

Grammar/Mechanics 2 4 14 48 38 11 117 4.3

Thesis 2 5 8 39 51 12 117 4.4

Support/Development 4 14 20 40 33 6 117 3.9

Comprehensible style 2 9 16 32 41 17 117 4.3

Documentation 10 16 22 35 24 9 116 3.6

Multiple Perspectives 5 14 26 45 21 6 117 3.7

Analysis 1 7 31 37 30 11 117 4.0

Synthesis 12 19 22 33 26 5 117 3.5

Total 38 88 159 309 264 77 935 4.0

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

0

50

100

150

200

250211

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 0.00%

Positive remark about self 44 19.91%

221 100.00%

0

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%

0

50

100

150

200

Y N

153

12

Number of Responses

Q16 Count Percentages

0 15 6.4%

1 26 11.0%

2 81 34.3%

3 114 48.3%

Total 236 100.0%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3

15 26

81

114

Count

Percentages


Fall 2006 Evaluative Survey

Question 16: In this Course class discussions are

o=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%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

90 89

32

8


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%

0

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 0

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

%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

69

116

32

5

Academic Challenge

Academic Challenge

Academic Challenge

Spring 2008

How Challenged Are You Academically?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 (Not Challenged) 2 3 4 (VeryChallenged)

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


0 6 2.5%

1 7 3.0%

2 42 17.8%

3 181 76.7%

Total 236 100.0%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 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:



4 150 68%

3 44 20%

2 21 10%

1 5 2%

Total 220 100%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160 150

44

21

5 68% 20% 10% 2%


0 10 4.2%

1 25 10.5%

2 63 26.6%

3 139 58.6%

Total 237 100.0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

01

23

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

other

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



4 117 53%

3 73 33%

2 27 12%

1 4 2%

Total 221 100%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4

117

73

27

4 53% 33% 12% 2%


0 10 4.2%

1 24 10.1%

2 61 25.7%

3 142 59.9%

Total 237 100.0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 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


N 237

Fall 2007, Evaluative Survey In this Course I Get responses to my writing assignments in a reasonable length of time



4 147 67%

3 51 23%

2 19 8%

1 4 2%

Total 221 100% 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160147

51

19

4

Number of Responces

Percentage

Fall 2006, Evaluative Survey Question 22: My professor’s comments on my papers



0 5 2.10%

1 21 8.90%

2 68 28.70%

3 143 60.30%

Total 237 100.00%

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 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



4 125 57%

3 67 30%

2 23 10%

1 5 3%

Total 220 100%

0

50

100

150

200

250

4 3 2 1 Total

125

67

23

5

220

57% 30% 10% 3% 100%


0 10 4.3%

1 20 8.5%

2 46 19.6%

3 159 67.7%

Total 235 100.0% 0

50

100

150

200

250

01

23

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


N 235

Fall 2007, Evaluative Survey In this Course I confer with my teacher outside of class



4 143 65%

3 50 23%

2 19 9%

1 7 3%

Total 219 100%

0

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.


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 %

0

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 %

0

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%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Relationship w/ Mentor

Spring 2008,

Questionnaire - Overall Relationship with Mentor

0

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 %

0

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 %

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Question 5 : If so,how do youknow this?

One-on-oneMeetings

Emails During Class Syllabi NotCommunicated

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 0.00%

Discuss Responsibility 0 0.00%

164 100.00%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fall 2007 Q3

Fall 2007 Q3

Spring 2008, Questionnaire

Faculty Indications of Academic Success

100

51

0

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


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 %

0 4 2%

1 8 4%

2 6 11%

3 59 26%

4 130 57%

TOTAL 227

0

100

200

1 2 34

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?

0

50

100

150

200

250

01

23

4TOTAL

15 10 35

75 89

224

7% 3%

16% 33%

40%

Q13 COUNT %

0 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 %

0 5 2

1 8 4

2 21 9

3 51 22

4 140 62

TOTAL 225

0

50

100

150

200

250

01

23

4TOTAL

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?

0

50

100

150

200

250

01

23

4TOTAL

7 6 21

59

124

217

Q10 COUNT %

0 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%

0

50

100

150

200183

60 40

121

196

58 54

139

Peer Mentor/Tutor

Peer TutorInteractions

Peer MentorInteractions

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%

0

20

40

60

80

100

24

46

74 77 93 88

35

6

Peer Tutor/Mentor Relationship

Peer Tutor Relationship

Relationship with PeerMentor

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

opinions


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.


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 %

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Good/Likethem/ Friendly

Positive toNeutral (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%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Socializetogether

Study together Do Not Hang outtogether

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Socializetogether/

few friends

Studytogether

Helpful No Answer OK/neutral

Does notlive with

them

Livingsituation is

good

Good I likethem

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

None Get tired ofeach other

No Answer N/A or live inseparate

dorm

Don't studywith them

Don'tsocialize with/

Don't likethem

Series1

Spring 2008 Survey

Living Learning Community Relationship

124

102

113

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Take ClassesTogether

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!

incorporating advisement, first year seminar and freshman ... · incorporating advisement, first...

Documents