The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 42, No. 2 - 34

William R. Frazier * Myron A. Eighmy

anchored in the literature as characteristics
of residential learning communities and information gleaned from previous interviews.
The survey assessed the satisfaction of residence life students and provided valid and reliable data (Cronbach's alpha = .94) to support
assessment and improvement (Frazier, 2009).
The instrument was reviewed by faculty and
staff to validate survey items. The instrument
was pilot tested with a group of residence life
advisory board students, who were the hall
government representatives from each of the
residence halls. The survey used a Likert-style
satisfaction scale of 1 = dissatisﬁed, 2 = somewhat
dissatisﬁed, 3 = somewhat satisﬁed, 4 = satisﬁed,
and 5 = not applicable (treated as null data). Independent samples t-tests were used to determine
if signiﬁcant differences existed in the satisfaction ratings between the learning community
group and the control group and between the
current wellness learning community and the
2008 wellness learning community.
The survey was made available online for
students to complete over a two-week period
in both the initial and the current study. Students received two email reminders. A total of
152 students responded within the two-week
timeframe. The response rate was 57.5%. Of
the 152 respondents, 57 (37.5%) resided in the
learning community. The response rate for
the learning community was 57/61 = 93.4%.
The remaining respondents (n = 95) composed the control group.

FINDINGS
When comparing results from the initial study
to those of the current study for the construct
residence hall learning experience, there was
a signiﬁcant difference on 5 of the 8 factors.

Having staff that knew what was expected of
them, giving them the tools to be more effective
in their interactions with students, and having
more input from both academic and student
affairs staff helped train staff to become more
effective in their roles. For the construct residence hall student staff as a resource, there was
a signiﬁcant difference on 5 of the 6 factors.
A key element in helping staff become more
effective in their jobs was the time spent training them on their responsibilities as well as
providing them hands-on training prior to the
academic year.
When comparing the satisfaction levels of
participants in the wellness learning community to those of the control group, the construct
satisfaction with the overall university experience
showed signiﬁcantly higher means difference
on 6 of the 9 items (Table 1). The t-test results
for the comparison of participants in the 2008
learning community and those in the present
study showed high levels of satisfaction in
both groups. Two items showed signiﬁcant increases (Table 2): satisfaction with classroom
facilities and with interactions with the residence life ofﬁce. The student staff that worked
with the other residents of the hall (control
group) had received the same basic training as
the staff in the wellness learning community,
but the additional time expected and required
of the wellness learning community staff appeared to make a signiﬁcant difference in the
overall experience for the students living in
this community.
When asked about their satisfaction with
the residence hall living experience, wellness
learning community students reported signiﬁcantly higher mean satisfaction scores than
the control group on 4 of the 6 items (Table

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 42, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 42, No. 2