Running Head: SINGLE ROOMS IN LIVING LEARNING COMMUNITIES 1

Single Rooms in Living Learning Communities: An Analysis of Connectedness

Donavon A. Barbarisi

Fort Hays State University

HESA 813
SINGLE ROOMS IN LIVING LEARNING COMMUNITIES 2

Single Rooms in Living Learning Communities: An Analysis of Connectedness

Single Rooms in Living Learning Communities as a Concept

Functional Area

Residential Life is a key functional area of student affairs as it is a primary area in which

students interact with one another outside of the classroom and through these interactions

develop. Residential Life focuses on four main values, which prepare the next generation of

“citizen-leaders”; community, accessibility, resident centered, and educational support.

Living Learning Communities (LLCs) exist as a subarea of residential life, typically

through partnerships with academic departments with the intent to create a bridge between the

in-class and out-of-class learning that students do. Additionally, it serves as an immediate

bonding opportunity as all students in the respective LLC will come to college with an inherent

friend group or community.

Rationale

The major rationale for the importance of this assessment is that traditionally, the halls

for the LLCs have been all double-bed spaces (each room has two beds that would be split with

two roommates) whereas new construction has created single rooms (smaller spaces with only a

single bed for one person) in these spaces. While students have adamantly expressed in interest

in wanting these spaces, research and assessment as to the benefits of this practice, or even

potential consequences, has been relatively sparse. To ensure LLCs (which were created for the

benefit of the student) are meeting their initial objects, continued assessment of individual

aspects of these programs is necessary.

SINGLE ROOMS IN LIVING LEARNING COMMUNITIES 3

Theoretical Basis

There are two major theoretical basis that serve to provide reason behind the assessment.

First, is Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Ecological System Model of student development. In this,

Bronfenbrenner argues the microsystem, or those direct interactions with people and things, is

the most important for development. In a university residence hall, this looks like the interactions

one has with their roommate. While a student’s microsystem could still include the floor or

community in which they live, it is not as easy for these interactions to occur, i.e. they don’t have

to interact with their floor at all. Additionally, Bronfenbrenner’s model describes an exosystem

wherein, the microsystem of someone that directly interacts with an individual shape them

incredibly. One such example of this is a roommate who is having issues with a significant other

teaches the initial student something, though it may not always be as obvious.

Another major theoretical backing for this research is Astin’s (1991) I-E-O model of

development. This represents how a student comes in with information, I for Input, experiences

things during their college career, E for Environment, and leaves having developed in some way,

O for Output. As a roommate can be a significant part of the student’s environment, not having

one can result in reduced development in those areas, and thereby a lower output.

Application of Assessment to Single Rooms in Living Learning Communities

Research Questions and Learning Objectives

The major learning objective that arises for this assessment would be to

understand the relationship between having roommates in LLCs and feeling connected within the

community. This major objective would have two smaller objectives those this research would
SINGLE ROOMS IN LIVING LEARNING COMMUNITIES 4

be focused on one. The more important objective would be to understand student perceptions of

having a roommate on being connected within the community.

Methodology

The method behind this assessment would be primarily quantitative due to having

specific focus areas and known variables to assess. Particularly, a Likert scale would be most

beneficial due to the simplicity of use and common understanding of purpose. The survey would

come out in a SurveyMonkey format, again due to ease of use and ability to disperse to

numerous participants. While this does eliminate students who do not have readily accessible

technology-based devices, it is understood that through the resources provided by the university,

access is available.

Looking at potential participants of this survey, it is important to recognize students that

both have roommates and do not have roommates to get a baseline from the control group, those

with roommates. Surveys should not allow for the identification of participants from data, so care

must be taken to not delving too deep into personally identifiable information. Of course looking

at our college campus, this survey would specifically be relevant to students who live in a Living

Learning Community, as this is a particular interest group. Due to this condition, the same would

be stratified based on this condition, and then a group large enough to minimize error would be

necessary.

Obtaining Results

When it comes to obtaining results, SurveyMonkey had the benefit of ease of access.

SurveyMonkey would also collect the data in a method that converts easily into data analysis

software. With this, after students filling out the survey the data could be run through SPSS.
SINGLE ROOMS IN LIVING LEARNING COMMUNITIES 5

From here it would be possible to obtain more specific data regarding each question, as well as

the ability to run regression analysis on the various variables. Following all of this, it would be

important to dispose of this data as is required by your IRB.

Assessment Instrument

(See Attachment)

Anticipated Findings of Assessment

Expectations of Findings for Program

Based on the learning objectives, the first expectation for a finding of this study would be

related to whether students perceiving having a roommate or not as being related to the

connection they have with the community. Based on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) research the

expectation would be that students in a Living Learning Community without roommates would

not feel as connected due to that less accessible exosystem as well as a potential missing aspect

of the microsystem.

In regard to this assessment, another major result I would expect to discover would be

that students with roommate’s overall rate a higher satisfaction with their community. This

expectation again stems from the previous expectation in that they would have increased

connection to the community. This expectation is not solid; however, as students may be highly

satisfied with the community engagement but have a severe of satisfaction with their roommate.

What this would teach about the Department of Residential Life, it would teach whether

the student-centered focus is more about wants or needs. Often, schools have gotten caught up so

much in recruitment of students that they become more focused on decisions that increase
SINGLE ROOMS IN LIVING LEARNING COMMUNITIES 6

numbers as opposed to decisions which result in better development and connectedness.

Additionally, it could reveal an element of lack of forethought. With this study, it could become

apparent that while the intent was not to hamper the student’s development, a side effect of an ill

planned decision could be to the students’ detriment.

Summary of Single Rooms in Living Learning Communities

Effect of Process on Assessment Understanding

Overall, this project is a simple assessment to see first if the new housing operations are

meeting the needs of the students in terms of community, but also to make decisions moving

forward. A simple Likert scale survey would be the most efficient means of communication with

the students, and allows ease of access. The hope is that the assessment will not reveal a major

disparity between community connections of students with roommates versus students without,

though based on theory this is likely not the case.

Regarding student affairs, this assessment showed more about how relevant assessment is

to every small piece of the work done on college campuses. Every decision that is made which

affects students is an assessment opportunity, and every program or change is worth looking at.

In terms of assessment, there is so much work that goes into it, and it is important to see it as a

process as opposed to simply a goal to be reached.

Another major thing this makes apparent in Student Affairs, is how many more options

are available for assessment initiatives. While in Residential Life, the EBI survey is evident,

smaller assessment initiatives are few and far between, if they occur at all. Looking at this, as a

culture universities (FHSU) in particular should make stronger more evident efforts to be
SINGLE ROOMS IN LIVING LEARNING COMMUNITIES 7

assessing often. This shows that the university is student-centered, but also “forward thinking

and world ready”.

Suggestions for Future Research

The major thing that stands out in terms of conducting future research is the affect of

these living arrangements on academic performance. While community is a major side of the

development in a residence hall, how the students academic endeavors are affected is also

important. With this, it would be mindful that living learning communities have already

demonstrated higher average GPAs, so seeing how this small dynamic change in living

arrangements affects students would be important.

Additionally, another future area of research would be to see the same affect of living

arrangements, but in the overall communities. This would be important due to recognizing how

changes affect the larger student population (not just living learning communities) and to be able

to follow the guidance from this into the development of future buildings.
SINGLE ROOMS IN LIVING LEARNING COMMUNITIES 8

References
Astin, A.W. (1991). Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education/Oryx

Press Series on Higher Education.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and

Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

SINGLE ROOMS IN LIVING LEARNING COMMUNITIES 9

Survey Instrument

Community in LLCs Consent Form

Identification of Researchers: This research is being conducted by Donavon Barbarisi, a
graduate student in the Higher Education Student Affairs program at Fort Hays State University.
Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to determine if Living Learning Community
residents experience different perceptions of community based on living arrangement.

Request for Participation: We are inviting you to participate in a study on Living Learning
Community experiences. It is up to you whether you would like to participate. If you decide not
to participate, you will not be penalized in any way. You can also decide to stop at any time
without penalty. If you do not wish to answer any of the questions, you may simply skip them.
Once you submit an anonymous survey, we will not know which survey or test is yours.

Exclusions: You must be at least 18 years of age to participate in this study. You must live in a
Living Learning Community at Fort Hays State University.

Description of Research Method: This study involves completing a survey about perceptions of
living arrangement on community development. The survey will ask you about your experience
with the community of the Living Learning Community and minor non-identifiable demographic
information. This study will take about 10-15 minutes to finish.
Privacy: All of the information we collect will be anonymous. We will not record your name,
student number, or any information that could be used to identify you. Your confidentiality will
be maintained to the degree permitted by the technology used. Specifically, no guarantees can be
made regarding the interception of data sent via the Internet by any third parties.
Explanation of Risks: The risks associated with participating in this study are similar to the
risks of everyday life.

Explanation of Benefits: You will benefit from participating in this study by getting firsthand
experience in assessment.

Questions: If you have any questions about this study, please contact Donavon Barbarisi at
(785)628-4899. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please
contact the Human Subjects Protection Program at (NUMBER AFTER IRB).

(This was a template given to me by a prior Research instructor)

SINGLE ROOMS IN LIVING LEARNING COMMUNITIES 10

1. Are you currently living on a floor which has a Living Learning Community?

a. Yes NO (Survey ends)

2. Are you a member of the Living Learning Community on your floor?

a. Yes No

3. To Which Gender Identity do you most identify?

a. Female Male Transgender Male Transgender Female Non-Binary

Prefer not to answer

4. What is the arrangement of your room?

a. Single Room Double Room Double Room, Single

Occupant

5. What is your current class standing?

a. Freshman (0-29) Sophomore (30-59) Junior (60-89) Senior (90+)

6. What age range do you fall into?

a. 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-30 31-35 36-40

41-45 46-50 51+

7. Which of these most describes you as a student?

a. Traditional Transfer Post-Traditional

Rest of the Questions would be a 5-point scale. (survey would be 5 questions per page with 4

pages)

1- Strongly Disagree 2- Slightly Disgree 3- Neutral 4- Slightly Agree 5-

Strongly Agree
SINGLE ROOMS IN LIVING LEARNING COMMUNITIES 11

1- I can talk to anyone on my floor.

2- I feel a part of my campus community.

3- I have built a strong connection with someone on my floor.

4- The people on my floor are my friends.

5- I have only connected with a few people on my floor.

6- My floor cares about me as a person.

7- I have chosen the correct rooming style for myself.

8- My floor has a strong feeling of togetherness.

9- The residents on my floor prefer to spend time alone.

10- My favorite thing to do during down time is spend time with people on my floor.

11- My floor is not a welcome space.

12- The people on my floor have made my housing experience worse.

13- The people on my floor have been a huge part of my housing experience.

14- The people on my floor prompt me to go to different events.

15- My floor tends to be negative and unsupportive.

16- The people on my floor are very open.

17- The people on my floor make me feel unwelcome.

18- The people on my floor would not support me in a crisis.

19- The people on my floor fill me with purpose.

20- The people on my floor do not communicate with me.