The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2 - 70

Frank Shushok, Jr. • Rishi Sriram

was viewed as a critical component for success (Scott & Shushok, 2007). Results from the National Survey of Student Engagement (2004) showed that the institution’s first-year students scored only in the 40th percentile on “FacultyStudent Interaction” and “Active and Collaborative Learning” when compared to other universities in the same classification. For an institution that articulated a deep value for a student-centered and active learning environment, these results were unsatisfactory and revealed a gap between the institution’s espoused and enacted mission (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005). To address this gap, the institution sought to create an intentional intersection between student intellectual life and residential living by piloting a living-learning program. Since living-learning communities can take a variety of forms from campus to campus, this institution outlined several assumptions used to guide program development. In order to be considered a living-learning community, the program must be guided by significant leadership from the academic school or college, which includes (a) the funding and supervision of a full-time program director, (b) making admission decisions about which students can participate in the program, (c) teaching discipline-specific courses on site, and (d) assigning faculty to offices in the residential community. The program director, hired and supervised by the School of Engineering and Computer Science, coordinated the admissions process with faculty, planned events for the faculty and participating students, collaborated with student life personnel, and chaired a faculty, staff, and student advisory board for the community. While some faculty lived on site or maintained an office in the residential facility, other faculty

simply participated in programmatic events. Faculty also served as advocates of the program to internal and external constituents. At the time that the institution was in the process of planning a new residential facility, the dean for the School of Engineering and Computer Science shared nationwide concern for the recruitment, retention, and success of engineering and computer science students (B.S. Kelley, personal communication, September 2002). The most frequent student complaints presented to the dean reflected concerns about the learning environment in the residence halls, the lack of community among engineering and computer science students, and the need for additional facultystudent interaction outside of the classroom. Therefore, a partnership with the School of Engineering and Computer Science was initiated, representing the institution’s first effort at living-learning communities. Included in the facility design were three faculty offices, a faculty member-in-residence apartment, a classroom, a community center, multiple study centers, and three seminar rooms. Programmatic efforts included cohort courses with other members of the living-learning community, social activities, and common meals. Since this was the institution’s first attempt to implement a living-learning approach, special efforts were made to determine whether desired outcomes were achieved during the first year of operation, the 20042005 academic year. Specifically, the research questions guiding this study were as follows: (a) Do engineering and computer science students in this living-learning community experience increased student-faculty interac-

70

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITy STUDENT HOUSING
The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2
