The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1 - 36

Cliff Haynes • Steven M. Janosik

and Staff Benefits Survey (FSBS) (a 58.2% response rate). Among respondents, 128 (47.8%) identified as academic faculty and 140 (52.2%) identified as student affairs staff. The sample included participants from 42 institutions, including 28 public universities, 8 private universities, 3 public liberal arts colleges, and 3 private liberal arts colleges. Each institution had at least one contact who was identified with a specialty in living-learning programs in the ACUHO-I membership directory and provided contact information for faculty and staff involved in their LLPs.

ing Human Subjects, the sample was selected and the online data collection began. An email message was sent to ACUHO-I members identified in the directory with a specialty in livinglearning programs asking them to send contact information for faculty and staff involved with the LLPs at their schools. Participants went online to complete the survey within a 2-week period, and the researchers sent a reminder email after the first week.

Data Analysis
After participants completed the survey and data were collected, the researchers used the data provided in the demographic section of the survey to assign the participants into categories (faculty, staff). The questionnaire items yielded categorical data. The researchers calculated the frequency with which each category of participants (faculty, staff) responded to each item. To examine differences in intrinsic and extrinsic benefits gained by faculty and staff involved in LLPs, a series of chi-square analyses were conducted to test for significance.

Instrument
To collect data about benefits for faculty involved in LLPs, the researchers designed the FSBS. Items on the FSBS were based on prior research on learning community benefits for faculty and staff and on the suggestions of faculty and student affairs practitioners with knowledge of or experience with LLPs or their benefits. The instrument included three sections: intrinsic benefits, extrinsic benefits, and demographics. The first two sections consisted of 15 items each, with possible responses being yes or no. The third section explored the demographic characteristics of the participants. An expert panel reviewed the survey items to establish face validity. Reliability was established by calculating a coefficient of internal consistency on the data set collected by the researchers. For the collected data, the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.79.

RESULTS
Receiving intrinsic benefits was reported much more frequently than receiving extrinsic benefits. When responses of both groups were totaled, 12 of the 15 intrinsic benefits were received by more than 50% of the respondents. Aside from one extrinsic benefit (allotments for expenses associated with meals and other activities), none of the other 14 extrinsic benefits were received by 50% or more of both groups of respondents.

Data Collection Procedures
Upon receiving approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board for Research Involv-

36

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING
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
