Melissa Hecker
“Bringing Counseling to the Classroom and the Residence Hall: The University Learning Community” – James J. Dillon
Today’s undergraduate students face a host of challenges that counselors, faculty, and residence life personnel struggle to address. Research has suggested that the creation of a learning community or formation of collaborative partnerships between the staffs of different university departments can help to improve student development and academic success. In this article the author describes the Learning Community program at the State University of West Georgia (UWG) primarily focusing on the counseling-focused Learning Community.
The UWG Learning Communities were based off of the three major challenges that undergraduates students face: psychological, social, and academic. UWG created five Learning Communities, made up of 25 students each. Three are para-professional Learning Communities: pre-medical, pre-engineering, and pre-nursing. The remaining two were counseling based emphasizing on “making decisions.”
A Learning Community can be loosely defined as a community created by living and learning together. The Learning Communities at UWG are based on three assumptions. First, students succeed when insights from counseling and educational psychology are combined with the academic and residential components of the university experience - psychological. The objective of this component is to create a supportive and nurturing environment that eases the transition from high school to college. Second, how students learn is just as important as what people learn - social. Learning takes place best in an environment in which individuals are viewed by each other as individuals. The third assumption is that where students learn is as important as what they learn - academic. Professional staff members work to expand the learning environment from classroom to residence hall and then to life off campus.
UWG used a combination of qualitative and quantitative measures to determine the impact that the Learning Community program had on student development and academic success. Data was gathered over two years from the two counseling-based Learning Communities. Instruments used to evaluate the psychological component were a CSI survey, student journals, an essay style exit questionnaire, and the Learning Community survey, which was administered at the end of the academic year. These methods found that students felt that they transitioned better to college life, felt more accepted on campus, improved health and nutrition. Areas in need of improvement were decreasing alcohol consumption and improving sleep habits.
Instruments used to evaluate the social component were the exit questionnaire, the Learning Communities survey, and student journals. The surveys showed that the Learning Communities had a profound effect on students’ sensitivity to multicultural issues and social awareness. Areas in need of improvement were increasing student political participation and increasing sensitivity to the role of gender.
Instruments used to assess the academic component of the program were a statistical comparison of the grade point averages of students in the Learning Community and the same amount of students not in the Learning Community. The average GPA for students who were not members of the Learning Community was 2.14, whereas the GPA for students who were involved in the Learning Community was 2.81, a 31% difference. The persistence rate of students not in the Learning Community was 81%, compared to 93% of students who were involved in the Community.
The results found at UWG were consistent with reports from other colleges and universities that used Learning Communities. When reviewing the results of the study done at UWG one must keep in mind that earning communities are not a magic solution for student success in college. Depended on the student’s personality, learning style, and experiences one might not want to be involved in a learning community or benefit from it. Experts also point to the face that learning communities can prevent students from becoming involved in other aspects of campus, or that it prolongs a secondary school environment.
TABLE 1
Mean Responses to Learning Community Survey
Program Objective M
PsychologicalSupportive Environment / 4.83
Eased Transition / 5.00
Felt Accepted / 5.00
Alcohol Awareness / 5.00
Drank Less Alcohol / 3.75
Improved Health / 4.67
Improved Sleep / 3.25
Improved Nutrition / 5.00
Social
Role of Race / 5.00
Role of Socioeconomic Status / 4.83
Role of Gender / 4.67
Value of Serving Community / 5.00
Aware of Different Learning Styles / 5.00
Greater Sense of Right and Wrong / 5.00
Ability to Make Ethical Decisions / 5.00
Political Participation / 4.33
Academic
Higher Class Participation / 5.00
Reduced Boredom / 5.00
Increased Contact with Faculty / 5.00
Increased Ability to Solve Problems / 4.13
Increased Ability to Critique Theories / 4.04
Increased Metacognition / 4.38
Improved Study Habits / 4.04
Increased Competence in Making Personal Decisions / 5.00
Increased Competence in Helping Others Make Decisions / 4.38
Questions for Discussion:
1)How can you improve the Learning Communities program at WGU?
2)What are some limitations of Living Learning Communities?
3)How might Living Learning Communities be considered Cliques?
4)How would students’ views outside of Living Learning Communities hinder students in Living Learning Communities?
5)What other data could be collected to support the positive or negative effects of Learning Communities?