Skip to main content
Log in

Differences in Student Outcomes by Types of Living–Learning Programs: The Development of an Empirical Typology

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study involved the development of the first empirical typology of living–learning programs and its use in the assessment of students’ learning outcomes. Using two-step cluster analysis with data from nearly 300 livinglearning programs at 34 U.S. postsecondary institutions, the authors identified three structural types of programs: (a) small, limited resourced, primarily residential life programs; (b) medium, moderately resourced, student affairs/academic affairs combination programs; and (c) large, comprehensively resourced, student affairs/academic affairs collaboration programs. Multiple regression analyses revealed that students in the large academic affairs/student affairs collaborations and small residential life-based living–learning program types exhibited stronger self-reported learning outcomes than those in the medium combination programs. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Bonisteel, S. (2006, August 22). From treehouses to RV parks, students embrace dorm alternatives. Fox News.com. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208180,00.html. Retrieved January 9, 2007.

  • Chiu, T., Fang, D. P., Chen, J., Wang, Y., & Jeris, C. (2001). A robust and scalable clustering algorithm for mixed type attributes in a large database environment. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 263–268.

  • Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P., & Lamia, M. J. (2001). Web surveys: Perceptions of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 146–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foderaro, L.W. (2005, April 24). Under one roof: Learning communities. The New York Times, Education Life Supplement, p. 26. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=826235761&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=41143&RQT=309&VName=PQD. Retrieved January 9, 2007.

  • Gabelnick F., MacGregor J., Matthews R. S., Smith B. L. (Eds.) (1990). Learning communities: Creating connections among students, faculty, and disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 41. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarasci, R. (2001). Recentering learning: An interdisciplinary approach to academic and student affairs. In A. Kezar, D. J. Hirsch, & C. Burack (Eds.), Understanding the role of academic and student affairs collaboration in creating a successful learning environment (pp. 101–109). New Directions for Higher Education, No. 116. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Hirsch, D. J., & Burack, C. (2001). Findings points of contact for collaborative work. In A. Kezar, D. J. Hirsch, & C. Burack (Eds.), Understanding the role of academic and student affairs collaboration in creating a successful learning environment (pp. 53–62). New Directions for Higher Education, No. 116. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Inkelas, K. K., & Associates. (2004). National study of living–learning programs: 2004 report of findings. College Park, MD: Author.

  • Inkelas, K. K., & Weisman, J. (2003). Different by design: An examination of student outcomes among participants in three types of living–learning programs. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 335–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkelas, K. K., Vogt, K. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Owen, J., & Johnson, D. (2006). Measuring outcomes of living-learning programs: Examining college environments and student learning and development. Journal of General Education, 55(1), 40–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, T. (2000). From classroom to learning community: One professor’s reflections. About Campus, 5(3), 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenning, O. T., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). The powerful potential of learning communities: Improving education for the future. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 26, no. 6. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

  • Levine Laufgraben, J., & Shapiro, N. S. (2004). Sustaining & improving learning communities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, A. G., & Tokuno, K. A. (1999). Learning community models. In: J. H. Levine (Eds.), Learning communities: New structures, new partnerships for learning (pp. 9–18). Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, F. B., & Smith, J. H. (1996). Principles and strategies for enhancing student learning. In: S. C. Ender, F. B. Newton, & R. B. Caple (Eds.), Contributing to learning: The role of student affairs (pp. 19–32). New directions for student services, No. 75. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Pascarella, E.T., (2001). Using student self-reported gains to estimate college impact: A cautionary tale. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 488–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R. (1999). The effects of residential learning communities and traditional residential living arrangements on educational gains during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 269–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Residential Learning Communities International Clearinghouse (2005). http://pcc.bgsu.edu/index.php. Retrieved January 9, 2007.

  • Schein, H. K. (2005). The zen of unit one: residential learning communities can foster liberal learning at large universities. In: Laff, N. S. (Eds.), Identity, learning, and the liberal arts (pp. 73–88). New directions in teaching and learning, No. 103. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Schoem, D. (2004). Sustaining living–learning programs. In: J. Levine Laufgraben, &N. S. Shapiro (Eds.), Sustaining & improving learning communities (pp. 130–156). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, C. C. (1999). Forging educational partnerships that advance student learning. In G. S. Blimling, E. J. Whitt (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning (pp. 133–156). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, C. C., Minor, F. D., & Tarkow, T. A. (1999). Learning communities: Partnerships between academic and student affairs. In: J.H. Levine (Eds.), Learning communities: New structures, new partnerships for learning (Monograph No. 26) (pp. 59–69). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students In Transition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical guide to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stassen, M. L. A. (2003). Student outcomes: The impact of varying living–learning community models. Research in Higher Education, 44, 581–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (2000). What have we learned about the impact of learning communities on students? Assessment Update, 12(2), 1–2, 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeller, W. J., James, P., & Klippenstein, S. (2002). The residential nexus: A focus on student learning. http://www.acuho.ohio-state.edu/pdf/ResidentialNexus02.pdf. Retrieved January 9, 2007.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas.

Additional information

This research was supported by a commissioned grant from the Association of College & University Housing Officers International Research Foundation

A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA

 

 

Appendix A Final living–learning characteristics by cluster (n = 209)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Inkelas, K.K., Soldner, M., Longerbeam, S.D. et al. Differences in Student Outcomes by Types of Living–Learning Programs: The Development of an Empirical Typology. Res High Educ 49, 495–512 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9087-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9087-6

Keywords