Living/Learning Annotated Bibliography
Found in Scholarship and Professional Development > Annotated Bibliographies
Brown, S. S. (1988). Approaches to collaboration between academic and student affairs: An overview. NASPA Journal, (26)1, 2-7.
Describes how, historically, academic and student affairs divisions have been at odds due to philosophic differences about the postsecondary educational experience and the holistic development of students. Today, however, collaboration between them is increasing. Brown reviews the literature on collaboration from the perspective of national student affairs leaders. This joining of forces can have many advantages for students; for example, student affairs associates at Saint Louis University have evaluated data on student learning styles and classroom progress, and reported these results to faculty members in the hope that they would restructure their learning environments to accommodate a greater variety of learning styles. Values education, diversity issues, sex roles, social issues, and gender and race relations are all themes addressed by student affairs administrators that are being discussed both inside and outside the classroom via interdisciplinary studies, living/learning centers, service learning programs, etc. This kind of cross-fertilization would benefit both administrators and instructors seeking support of innovative practices.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Washington, DC: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Heads a series of recent reports on undergraduate education that introduce critical arguments, elicit national debate on the quality of undergraduate student learning, and recommend ways of improving the learning environment on college campuses. The Boyer Commission report calls for a radical restructuring of undergraduate education and a recommitment to creating a powerful learning environment through ten recommendations: making research-based learning the standard; constructing an inquiry-based freshmen year by providing new stimulation for intellectual growth and a firm foundation in the communication of information and ideas; building on the first-year foundation; removing barriers to interdisciplinary education; linking communication skills and course work; using information technology creatively; culmination with a capstone experience; treating graduate teaching assistants as apprentice teachers; changing faculty reward systems; and cultivating a sense of community, by making the large university smaller, nurturing community spirit within the residence halls, and promoting collaborative study groups and project teams for the benefit of every student.
Chickering, A., & Kytle, J. (1999). The collegiate ideal in the twenty-first century. In J.D. Toma and A.J. Kezar (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the collegiate ideal (pp. 109-120). New Directions for Post-secondary education, 27(1).
On the basis previous research findings and calls for national reform, provides reasons for viewing undergraduate education critically. Chickering and Kytle cite changing student demographics, more complex societal needs, reduced public and federal support, pressures for accountability, a lag in adopting new communication and information technologies, and unclear purposes. They suggest basing reform on the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education, discussed in Chickering and Gamson’s Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (1991), conceptualizing the ideal college of the future as one that establishes a clear purpose, maximizes human interactions, establishes new pedagogies for active learning, recognizes individual differences, integrates academic studies and experiential learning, and sets high expectations. Several of these, such as maximizing human interactions, recognizing individual differences, etc., can be realized in the context of residential colleges and living/learning communities.
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (1997). Returning to our roots: The student experience. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
Discussion of trends in concerns and criticisms of today’s post-secondary education: rapidly growing enrollments, new competitors, a decrease in public funding and public trust, and increased accountability. The Commission calls for university administrators to re-examine goals and plans for the future, placing students’ complete learning experience first on a list of priorities. The crux of their argument is the creation of a healthy total learning environment, which promotes academic and personal enrichment both in and out of the classroom. Student-centered communities are supportive of all student learners and provide accessible resources for meeting student needs; this environment is also conducive to producing students with strong values and ethics. Learning communities must also support faculty and staff, as their collaborative efforts are critical to success. The commitment to address total student learning is just one component of a new set of principles to guide academic reform in post-secondary education. This report will aid individual faculty and administrators seeking to leverage national calls for reform to institute innovative practices in their own institutions.
Focus on Student Learning in the Residential Setting
Included in this section is work that addresses how reform can be accomplished through learning communities, living/learning centers, residential colleges, etc. These entries are both more specialized and supportive of arguments in favor of cross-institutional collaboration.
Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R., & Smith, B. L. (1990). Learning communities: Creating connections among disciplines, students and faculty. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, No. 41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Unique, comprehensive review of learning communities through chapters ranging from the genesis of learning communities on campus to the future of learning communities, together with a list of helpful resources. The first few chapters analyze the fundamental philosophy and five basic models of learning communities, stressing that cooperation of all student affairs personnel is needed to develop and maintain successful learning communities. The importance of developing effective faculty teams and implementing through an interdisciplinary approach is discussed at some length. Participating faculty members provide positive perspectives and underscore the value of learning communities. An in-depth discussion of the roles students play in the learning community is offered; various assessment measures evidence student enthusiasm for learning communities and the relationships they build within them. A glimpse into the future of learning communities both inside and outside the world of post-secondary education, and a review of resources on learning communities useful to professionals considering implementing them, conclude the book.
Lenning, O. T., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). The powerful potential of learning communities: Improving education for the future. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
Comprehensive perspective on learning communities; defines what learning communities are and why institutions need to consider implementing them. The basis for this is students’ need for a sense of community within the academic setting. The authors introduce and define different types of learning communities: curricular learning communities, classroom learning communities, residential learning communities, and student-category learning communities. Together with the benefits for both students and faculty, they describe results of previous studies of collaborative and cooperative learning. Lenning and Ebbers also lay out diverse strategies for creating and implementing the most efficient and successful college student learning communities, placing significant emphasis placed on the concepts underlying active learning. A case study involving learning communities at Iowa State University references specific problems and solutions. The authors conclude by offering the reader a glimpse of future student and other types of learning communities, including faculty and virtual learning communities.
Topical Research
Program Assessment
Included in this section are scholarly assessments of living/learning communities, addressing benefits and potential pitfalls.
Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating learning environments for undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 135-148.
Six principles to guide post-secondary institutions in their efforts to enhance student learning and personal development by intentionally integrating curricular goals and outcomes with students’ outside-the-classroom experiences. The author reviews ten previously described conditions that foster the goals of student learning and personal development, and produce seamless learning environments that begin the integration of in-class and out-of-class experiences and learning. In these seamless learning environments, students are asked to incorporate their life experiences to develop meaning in in-class activities and then apply that meaning to their lives outside of the classroom. Kuh’s six guiding principles are: generating enthusiasm for institutional renewal; creating a common vision of learning; developing a common language; fostering collaboration and cross- functional dialogue; examining the influences of student cultures on student learning; and focusing on systemic change. These guidelines are meant to reflect the range of activities that must be addressed in order to develop an ethos of learning, a characteristic of seamless learning environments.
Schroeder, C. C. (1999). Forging educational partnerships that advance student learning. In G. S. Blimling, E. J. Whitt, E.J. (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs: Principles that foster student learning (pp. 133-156). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argument for educational partnerships and their importance in creating seamless learning environments and promoting the integration of in-class and out-of-class activities. Citing the challenges of forming educational partnerships, the author provides specific examples of institutional efforts to promote student learning by developing educational partnerships across the university. At the heart of these collaborations are promoting freshmen success; transforming student government into a learning organization; fostering civic engagement through service learning; strengthening community to enhance student learning; establishing and articulating institutional expectations; and reinvigorating undergraduate education through values exploration. The author concludes with 10 recommendations for building educational partnerships to benefit both the students and the institution, including: using assessment techniques to identify themes and problems that warrant institutional collaboration; building partnerships around the shared visions of several departments; and recognizing and honoring faculty and academic administrators who participate in collaborative partnerships.
Large-scale Studies
Included in this section are large-scale research studies in support of living/learning centers.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Widely considered the premier study of the impact of college characteristics on student learning and outcomes in post-secondary education; synthesis of over 2,600 studies examining how a multitude of different characteristics of college life affects students. This longitudinal study examined the net effects of how college students change in the context of learning and cognition, attitudes and values, psychosocial changes, and moral development, together with the long-term effects of college on socioeconomic status, quality of life, and intergenerational effects in families. It included multivariate analysis of the impact of dependent variables (college classification, control, size, selectivity, racial and gender composition, and cultural environment) and independent variables (location of residence, major field of study, interpersonal involvement, and extracurricular involvement). Of all the latter, living on campus was the most consistent within-college determinant. (The above variables are a representative list of those included in the study.)
Best Practices
Guidelines for Creating Living/Learning Communities
Included in this section are articles and research studies that offer general and specific guidelines for initiating living/learning communities. These resources may benefit student affairs and other professionals seeking support from the literature on both the rationale and the means for developing living/learning communities on their campuses.
Schroeder, C. C. (1994). Developing learning communities. In C. Schroeder & P. Mable (Eds.), Realizing the educational potential of residence halls (pp. 165-189). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Book chapter with particular significance to the student affairs practitioner committed to developing inclusive living/learning communities in the residence halls of her or his institution. The author gives a working definition of learning communities, and cites as the impetus behind the movement enhancing the student academic experience by maximizing peer-group influences through learning communities. Schroeder discusses strategies for implementing effective learning communities, and describes the four essential elements of effective learning communities: involvement, investment, influence, and identity. Highlighted features of learning communities include common curricular experiences, promotion of multiculturalism and service learning, addressing the needs of students who are undecided on a particular major, and finally, the first-year experience. Concluding the article is a review of the needs for new roles given the current criticisms of post-secondary education. Three particular elements -- total quality management, establishing a sense of community, and the continued promotion of student learning -- are examined in relation to the development of campus learning communities.
Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical guide to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Comprehensive guidebook for professional educators interested in developing a learning community on college and university campuses, as well as for administrators who want to evaluate existing learning communities. This book discusses learning communities in the context of the need for university administrators to implement them. Specific examples of types and models of learning communities across the country are evaluated, including cluster courses, cohorts in large courses, team-taught programs, and residence-based programs. Shapiro and Levine advocate creating a new academic culture that supports and promotes these learning communities, and developing creative curricula to establish and maintain this culture. New faculty roles, faculty reassignment of duties, and new partnerships between student affairs divisions and academic affairs divisions are among numerous ideas that the authors suggest for the interested reader. Finally, they discuss the evaluation of existing learning communities in terms of their impact on the lives of faculty and students, and on the institution.
The Case for Faculty Engagement
Included in this section are articles and studies that identify specific guidelines for engaging faculty in the living/learning movement on campuses, and reactions to the movement within post-secondary education.
Golde, C. M., & Pribbenow, D. A. (2000). Understanding faculty involvement in residential learning communities. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 27-40.
Analysis of learning communities by faculty participants in a study involving residential learning communities at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The authors recount in detail the experiences and motivations of fifteen faculty members who maintained their involvement with two residential learning communities on the Madison campus. The authors call for a more intensive collaboration between academic affairs and student affairs, with specific attention to student learning. They also point out interesting contrasts and comparisons with respect to the faculty members’ perspectives on their place in the residential education context. Many found their experiences to be the most rewarding aspect of their day, while others, who found them to be far from educational, subsequently left the program. This article addresses the challenges of recruiting and retaining faculty members in a program such as this one in light of the expectations that academicians, student affairs professionals, and students have of each other.
Examples and Models of Living/Learning Communities
Included in this section are specific examples and models of living/learning environments on campus. Evaluation focuses on both advantages and disadvantages, with additional perspectives on intra-institutional collaboration, student needs, and different models of living/learning communities at different types of institutions.
Armstrong, M. (1999). Models for faculty-student interaction outside of the classroom: The Duke University Faculty Associates Program. College Student Affairs Journal, 19(1), 4-16.
The Faculty Associates Program at Duke University is an initiative designed to improve the quality of co-curricular student life by directly involving arts and sciences and professional school faculty members in the residential life experience of students. Faculty members are collaboratively linked with first-year and upper-division residential units to promote academic enrichment outside the classroom. It was the intent of the developers of the program that the faculty would provide bridges to many elements of the university educational experience, including academics, social issues, culture and the arts, and positive role modeling for good character and moral behavior. Goals of the program include positively impacting the campus climate through attentiveness to diversity and multiculturalism; providing opportunities for shared intellectual interests between faculty members and undergraduate students; and building quality interaction between faculty members and undergraduates. An organizational hierarchy and historical overview of the program is given, and organizational considerations, models and strategies of the program are discussed together with ways in which the program can improve and reach beyond its present goals.
Source: Adapted from C. Ryan Akers and Merrily S. Dunn, Ph.D; The University of Georgia