The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1 - 17

Themed Residential Learning Communities

community floors were also interviewed. The researchers explored the specific goals that residence life staff had for these communities, how they are measuring the success of the communities, and what they are doing to ensure student satisfaction.

Quantitative Methodology
Survey instrument. An online survey was the third form of data collection. Because all faculty and residence life staff involved in the learning communities participated in the interview process, only students were included in the survey process. The survey instrument was developed using constructs anchored in the characteristics of residential learning communities (Brower & Dettinger, 1998) and information gleaned from previous interviews. The survey contained 31 learning community items organized within five constructs (Appendix A). The five constructs included (a) overall satisfaction with the experience at the institution, (b) residence hall living experience, (c) residence hall learning experience, (d) residence hall staff interactions, and (e) students’ academic experience. The survey used a Likert scale of 1 = dissatisfied, 2 = somewhat dissatisfied, 3 = somewhat satisfied, 4 = satisfied, and 5 = not applicable (the latter was treated as null data). Survey procedures. The instrument was made available online for students to complete over a 2-week period. Students received a reminder through campus mail as well as two email messages. The survey was sent to 739 students, and 255 responded, yielding a 34.5% response rate. The response rates for the specific learning communities were engineering/ architecture, 39 of 64 (60.9%); pharmacy, 36 of 61 (59.0%); and wellness, 33 of 61 (54%). A control group within each building was composed of students who did not live on the learning community floors. Of the 255 respondents, 100 (39.2%) resided in the engineering/ architecture hall, 80 (31.3%) resided in the pharmacy hall, and 75 (29.4%) resided in the wellness hall. Table 1 provides the gender and
V o l u m e 3 8 , No. 2 • 2 0 1 2

The researchers explored the specific goals that residence life staff had for these communities, how they are measuring the success of the communities, and what they are doing to ensure student satisfaction .

The faculty and residence hall staff interviews were the basis for generating the interview questions used with the learning community students. The questions were developed by the researchers and reviewed by academic departments and residence life staff who had a learning community in their residence hall. A pilot of the semi-structured group interview questions was tested with a group of residence life advisory board students. Students participating in the three themed residential learning communities were invited to participate in the interviews. Nine semi-structured group interviews with the students from the learning communities were conducted over a 3-week period. Students in a specific interview session were all participants in the same learning community.

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1