Running Head: FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Final Project Report:

Academic Advising and Course Integration in Learning Communities
Rachel Betron, Kirk Heynen, Justin Stoeckle, Irene Ziemba
SDAD 5400: Student Development Theory, Research, and Practice
Dr. Erica Yamamura
Seattle University
March 17, 2015

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

2
Introduction

Our goal was to provide a succinct and informative workshop on holistic academic
advising, course integration, and faculty-student interaction in learning communities. We worked
to integrate the Seattle University context, as well as Kolbs experiential learning theory (Evans,
Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010), multicultural competence (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller,
2004) and a variety of research on the academic and student development components of
learning communities. In our process we developed a lesson plan by agreeing upon three major
learning outcomes and three activities that would encompass at least one learning style from
Kolbs theory such as active experimentation or reflective observation (Evans et al., 2010). As
we researched our broad topic areas, we determined that we would need to focus primarily on
linked course models, benefits of academic advising and faculty involvement in learning
communities, and multicultural competence for academic advising.
As a group, we formed a definition for multicultural competence that would guide our
best practices and embrace the experiences and cultural wealth that each student brings to their
learning community (Yosso, 2005). Authors Pope, Reynolds and Mueller (2004) would
characterize a multiculturally-competent student affairs professional as one possessing three
significant traits: awareness, knowledge, and skills. In our depiction of these traits, we stated that
multicultural competence involves: learning from oneself and others identities; critically
examining existing and potential programs and how they oppress or empower various student
populations (Pope, et al, 2004); and lastly, challenging oneself constantly to intentionally serve
the needs of diverse populations. Through our research we examined the effectiveness of linked
course and academic advising models and selected data that would support the student groups at

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Seattle University. Overall, our activities were intentional in asking stakeholders to be reflective
and critical in their assessment of these practices.
Lesson Plan
Our lesson plan incorporated a variety of presentations on research s as well as three
activities developed to actively engage participants in the workshop. We first presented research
on course integration in learning communities and had a group discussion what model might
work best at Seattle University. We then presented research on the role of academic advisors and
faculty members in learning communities, and asked participants a personal reflection question
around a time an advisor or faculty member had impacted their ability to make a decision or feel
a sense on community within higher education. Finally, we presented research on best practices
for multicultural competence within academic advising practices, and used sample student
profiles to challenge participants to develop a program or structure to incorporate academic
advising into learn
A detailed breakdown of the presentation follows in a table, and is supplemented by a
variety of resources in the appendices. Appendix A provides a link to our prezi presentation,
used to guide our workshop activities. Appendix B outlines all the research presented within the
workshop. Appendix C shows a visual representation of the course integration models presented
in the workshop. Finally, Appendix D provides a sample of the student profile handout utilized
in activity three.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Presenter
Activity

Participant
Activity

Learning
Outcome

Reflective
question on
significant

Presentation Large group

of research
brainstorm
on best
on most
practices for effective
linked course model for
content.
course
integration
at Seattle
University.

Presentation
of research
on faculty

1
Participants
will learn
best practices
for linked
course
content in
learning
communities

2
Participants
will

Connection to
Connection to
Learning Theory
Multicultural
Competence
Reflective
Yosso (2005)- Linked
Observation taking course syllabi should
in information.
encompass the cultural
wealth of various
Abstract
communities and allow
Conceptualization students to partake in
critically examining sharing those
different course
experiences/values with
integration models
each other.
and identifying the
best fit model for
Pope, Reynolds and
Seattle University.
Mueller (2004)- Linked
courses should be
structured in a way that
is inclusive of different
viewpoints or identities
to establish community
among students of
diverse populations.
Content of courses
should provide
opportunities for
students to increase their
own multicultural
awareness and skill base
to apply in future
coursework.
Reflective
Identify how
Observation taking relationships with
in information about faculty and academic

Literature Review

Lichtenstein (2005)examples of various

linked course models
(clustered topic
courses, skill-tocontent courses, first
year interest groups,
and cohort models).

Powell, Johnson,
James & Dunlap
(2011)- unified core
structure in learning
communities; calls for
the use of experiential
learning guided by the
principles of social
justice.

Fraizer & Eighmy

(2012) more faculty
and staff interactions

Equipment
and
Materials
Powerpoint.

Powerpoint.

Presentation
of research
on
multicultural
competence
in academic
advising and
need for
proactive
and holistic
advising
practices and
models.

and
personal
academic
experience
advisor
with
relationships. academic
advisors
and/or
faculty
members.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

understand
why and how
faculty and
academic
advisors
relationships
are important
in learning
communities.

3
Participants
will
understand
the
importance
of proactive
and holistic
academic
advising
systems in
learning
communities

Develop
program or
structure for
integrating
academic
advising
into learning
communities
based on the
needs of a
particular
student
outlined in a
student
profile.

Abstract
Conceptualization
coming up with
theoretical models
for how academic
advising can be
integrated into a
learning community.

Pope, Reynolds, and

Mueller (2004)
Participants will work
on increasing
multicultural awareness,

Yosso (2005)
Identifying how advisors
can build best practices
off of the cultural wealth
of different
communities.

best practices, and

advisors in learning
reflecting on
communities will
personal experiences enhance the experiences
with faculty and
of students with a
academic advisors.
variety of identities and
experiences.
Concrete Experience
Connecting
Each faculty or staff
research to personal member requires the
experiences with
awareness, knowledge,
faculty and
and skills to work with
academic advisors.
the diverse population in
learning communities
(Pope, Reynolds, &
Mueller, 2004).
Reflective
Identify how aspects of
Observation taking different student
in information.
identities can affect how
they interact with
academic advisors.

Active
Experimentation
allowing
participants to come
up with ideas for

increased student
experiences in living
learning communities.
Pasque & Murphy
(2005) academic
advisors have a key
role in the intellectual
engagement of
students in learning
communities and
understanding
students identities is
crucial to building
those connections.

Mueseus & Ravello

(2010)- students in
racial and ethnic
minority groups work
better with academic
advisors who
humanize the process
and utilize
developmental
advising techniques.

Torres, Reiser,
LePeau, Davis, &
Ruder (2006) first
generation latino/a
students may not trust
or approach academic
advisors, thus

Student
profiles,
powerpoint.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

how to put best
practices in concrete
practice.

knowledge, and skills as

they apply to building
inclusive academic
advising structures in
learning communities.

proactive approaches
are needed to connect
with and support them.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

7
Theory to Practice

Learning Styles
Throughout our workshop, we were very intentional about making sure that we addressed
the various ways that our participants learn. Due to the fact that we had so much content and
research to present, a large part of our presentation was lecture. However, we created a few
interactive activities to connect with participants different learning styles throughout the
workshop. Our first activity was applying what we presented about best practices around linked
course models to the context of Seattle University. This activity catered to individuals who are
abstract conceptualizers. Abstract conceptualizers are very logical thinkers and they learn best
when they are able to think about a situation before they act (Evans, et al, 2010). Participants
were challenged to think critically about the different linked course models and identify what
would fit best in the current structure of Seattle University.
For our second activity, we posed a reflection question to our participants. We asked
them to reflect and think about a time when a faculty or staff member helped them make an
important decision in their college career. This question was asked in light of our group sharing
what we found in our research, which indicated that a student has a better chance of succeeding
in college with higher interactions with faculty and staff members. This activity was for those
participants who learn best when reflecting and applying a theory to a real life situation.
Individuals who learn by reflecting often observe things before making any judgments and they
view situations from different perspectives (Evans, et al, 2010). Participants were asked to reflect
on the research and apply it to their own college experience, with the expectation that this
process would help them understand the important role advisors and faculty members play in
learning communities not just from a theoretical perspective, but also from a personal one.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Our third activity challenged our participants to think creatively about best practices in
light of the research we presented on holistic and inclusive academic advising. We provided our
participants with some specific examples of possible Seattle University students, along with a
few background details outlining their potential needs and challenges. The goal was for our
participants to come up with a program or event that caters to their particular student in light the
research that we presented. This activity was also helpful for those who are more abstract
thinkers because they had to come up with a theoretical and logical model for that particular
student. Some people learn best by active experimentation, or learning by doing, (Evans, et al,
2010) and that is what this activity was meant to do.
Multicultural Competence
We developed our definition of multicultural competence utilizing the work of Pope,
Reynolds, & Mueller (2004), and Yosso (2005). This established how we would address
multicultural competence throughout our presentation, and grounded our workshop and its
implications on a foundational expectation that professionals who work in learning communities,
advising, and course integration must strive for multicultural competence in order to best serve
students. Additionally, we engaged our participants through the lens of Yossos theory of
cultural wealth (2005). By approaching differences among student populations as a potential
strength rather than a deficit, we sought to emphasize the community cultural wealth that
students might contribute to a learning community. When we scripted our reflection activity, we
recognized the power of each persons social capital (Yosso, 2005) and asked our participants to
reflect on an experience they had with a faculty member or advisor. Each person then shared
their personal story so we could draw some conclusions about the commonalities and differences
of what effective mentorship looked like for different people. Encouraging the participants to

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

share their own experience applied the theories we presented more personally, as each participant
was challenged to consider how their perspective may reflect the needs of diverse populations in
learning communities.
The most crucial research we examined in developing potential best practices was the
research that named marginalized student populations in the sample. For example, one group of
authors specifically targeted academic advising practices for first generation Latino/a students,
concluding that such students are initially less likely to see value or place trust in academic
advisors than their white peers. This challenges the assumption that advisors are equally
accessible for all students (Torres et al., 2006). Additional research called for academic advisors
to seek ways to humanize themselves and relate to the students personally as a key component of
their advising process (Mueseus & Ravello, 2010). Finally, we selected a variety of linked
course models based on research indicating they were best-designed to improve retention and
academic performance across all student populations (Baxter, 2008; Friedman & Alexander,
2007; Lichtenstein, 2005; Inkelas & Weisman, 2003).
Literature Review
The research we presented around course integration and linked course content in
learning communities focused on learning outcomes for linked courses, and the variety of linked
course models that exist. We drew on the research of Lichtenstein (2005) and Gabelnick,
MacGregor, Matthews, and Smith (1990) to establish that participation in linked courses improve
students academic performance, likeliness to study together and interact with faculty members,
and ability to integrate knowledge. We also drew heavily on three studies to establish possible
models for Seattle Universitys linked course structure. Baxters (2008) research provided the
foundation for the skill-to-application or content course model, as the student sample participated

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

10

in a writing and science course instructed collaboratively faculty and other higher education
professionals. Inkelas and Weisman (2003) provided the framework for the cluster course model
by highlighting the sense of community built amont students who worked as a cohort in their
classes together. Finally, the work of Friedman and Alexander (2007) established our knowledge
of the first year seminar model, a course that emphasizes navigation and community building
amongst different populations of students as they enter their first term of classes.
Our research on the relationship of academic advising to learning communities focused
largely on the impact that academic advising can have on student development and academic
success, emphasizing the critical presence of academic advising in learning communities in order
to encourage student success. The work of Himes (2014), Smith & Allen (2014), and Pizzolato
(2008) framed our understanding of the potential impacts of successful academic advising on
both academic success and student development. The research of Shulenberg and Lindhorst
(2010) helped to articulate the common purposes of academic advising as it might function in a
learning community.
We also conducted research around faculty integration into learning communities, in
order to explore how faculty involvement in learning communities through course integration
may affect both faculty and students. The research of Fraizer and Eighmy (2012) and
Wawryznski, Jessup-Anger, Stolz, Helman, and Beaulieu (2009) provided insight into the
benefits for students of increased faculty-student interaction: positive impact of students
perceived satisfaction with all aspects of their living and learning experience, and increased
connections with faculty and staff that allowed students to feel more valued. Haynes and Janosik
(2012) and Ellett and Schmidts research outlined the benefits for faculty members participating
in living learning communities, and emphasized the need for seamless collaboration between

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

11

faculty members and student affairs staff in learning communities. Finally, Browne, Headworth,
and Saums (2009) research provided context on the obstacles that faculty face in being involved
with learning communities.
Our final area of research was around best practices for multicultural competence in
academic advising practices. The research of Museus and Ravello (2010) and Shultz, Colton, and
Colton (2001) outlined some best practices and programs in place to encourage the success of
students in racial and ethnic minority groups on primarily white campuses, including holistic and
developmental advising practices.. The research of Torres, Reiser, LePeau, Davis, and Ruder
(2006) on first-generation Latino/a students habits of seeking academic information was integral
in helping us to understand the need for proactive academic advising systems with students who
may not initially trust or seek out academic advisors. Smith and Allens (2006) study of what
students want from academic advisors helped us to understand the importance that diverse
populations place on different facets of academic advising, while Charles and Stewart (1991)
provided context for the unique challenges that international students may face.
Our research on course integration, academic advising, faculty integration, and
multicultural competence best practices helped ground our presentation in research and best
practice, and provided a foundation for us to make recommendations around how academic
advising and courses should be integrated into learning communities. By basing our presentation
on a strong foundation of research, we were able to intentionally challenge our participants to
consider best practices and outcomes for integrating courses and academic advising into the
learning community model at Seattle University.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

12
Group Reflection

Key Strengths
One of the things we are most proud of about our workshop is its scholarship. We dug
deep into research in multiple areas and we worked hard to bring that research to bear in our
discussion of learning communities. Because our research areas were very distinct, we learned a
great deal from each other during our long hours together trying to figure out where to focus and
how to fit it all together. Each group member was working on research that they cared about,
and the more we shared with each other about our individual work, the more we, as a group,
came to view these components of learning communitiesand learning communities
themselvesas critically important to students academic success and personal development.
We also found differing conclusions in different research, so part of the process for our group
was talking about our own bodies of knowledge and experience, examining and critiquing the
research in light of that, and shaping our workshops direction from the synthesis of those
external and internal sources. As graduate students, we knew we were not experts, but we also
knew we had gathered some valuable and compelling knowledge to share. Thus, our
presentation was heavy on content, but free of condescension. We felt that, for an audience of
professionals well aware of the basic issues involved in learning communities, a focus on indepth research and the practical applications of it was most relevant and worthwhile.
To that point, another asset of our workshop was its applicability to work thats being
done currently at Seattle University. In particular, our research review about course integration
and the discussion of different linked course models brought theory and research home to apply
it directly to questions that the Learning Communities Task Force is working on. Again, given
that our primary participants were Seattle University professionals working directly with

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

13

academic advising and learning communities, it was exciting and energizing to recognize that
our work on this project was not just about completing an assignment, but was contributing to
innovative professional work that is critically important on our campus right now. Indeed, our
partners in the Seattle University Learning Community Task Force, the day after our workshop,
were talking about how they might be able to apply aspects of the course integration models we
introduced in their work at Seattle University. That conversation began, by design, in our
workshop, and then continued for several more minutes after the structured time of the workshop
had ended, but it is especially exciting to know that it continued beyond that setting and
expanded to different people who did not attend the workshop but who are involved in the task
of restructuring Seattle University's learning communities. Perhaps the content we presented
will actually in some way determine what changes are made here, and students will be served
better because of it. That is a highlight that cannot be said about most class projects we have
worked on, and one that stands out especially brightly from this one.
A third strength, at least in terms of what we learned from this project, is the practical
importance of multicultural competence. As a theory applied only to ourselves, it can seem to be
primarily about knowing how not to say and do things that will offend people, but applied to the
context of learning communities and course integration, it takes on more structural and
programmatic implications. Does one size fit all in the way we design a learning community?
Will all students be served equitably by faculty and academic advisors? What structural factors
might influence that variable for different student populations? Can we create linked courses
that offer equitable access to learning for all students? These questions do not have easy
answers, but by adding that lens of multicultural competence to our research and presentation, it

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

14

challenged both our group and our participants to think beyond just what has previously worked
for some students, and envision learning communities that will work for all students.
Key Challenges
Fittingly, one of the strengths to emerge in this project was also one of our biggest
challenges. Our subject felt like kind of a wild card a lot of the time, because it is not something
that has been researched or written about very much by other scholars. By attempting to
integrate research about both academic advisor/faculty roles as well as course integration in
learning communities, plus a healthy dose of multi-cultural competence, we were looking for a
very specific mix of variables that proved impossible to find in existing research. We found no
shortage of literature about those separate subjects, but the task of bringing those findings
together into meaningful implications and applications was certainly a challenge.
The way we structured our workshop was largely based around practical prioritiesone
section for each group member to work on independently, then put it all togetherbut if we did
it differently we would probably choose to focus more time and attention on some content and
less on others. In our desire to be both comprehensive in content and equitable to all group
members, we tried to include everything that we had researched, perhaps at the expense of
drawing adequate attention to the most relevant and compelling parts of it. The linked-course
models for learning communities, for example, could have been explored in greater depth. This
section generated the most conversation and questions from our participants, and it also had the
potential to offer the most concrete takeaways in terms of ideas that could be put into practice at
Seattle University. We could have oriented our research more toward this specific focus, and
while still incorporating theory and research related to faculty roles, academic advising, and
multicultural competence, done so in support of applications to course integration in learning

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

15

communities. Had we known in advance that our only participants attending the workshop
would be professionals already well-versed in theory and research related to both academic
advising and learning communities, that may have informed how we prioritized the content of
our presentation as well. Initially, as we explored a wide array of research, and worked largely
independently, it was not easy to see what the central focus of our project should be, but
knowing what we know now (and acknowledging that we learned great deal in the process), we
would sharpen the focus considerably.
Along with that, another aspect of the workshop that could accordingly be improved is
the interactive element. In our twenty-minutes, we had three separate times to reflect and share,
about three different subjects, but none for longer than three minutes. That plan may not have
achieved its intended outcome. Shifting in and out of reflection times so quickly and changing
subjects so abruptly shortchanged the learning that could have resulted from those activities. By
refining our focus to a single, central theme and reducing the amount of time devoted to the other
areas, we could have made the interactive portion about course integration and linked course
models more robust. It would have been interesting to develop some follow-up questions based
around the different linked-course models to take the conversation a few steps farther, so if
participants chose model B, for example, we could ask them to consider, with that model in
mind, some additional questions. The follow-up questions could be a good time to incorporate
consideration of faculty and academic advisor roles, and the dynamics of multi-cultural
competence into the conversation.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

16
References

Barnhisel, G., Stoddard, E., & Gorman, J. (2012). Incorporating process-based writing pedagogy into
first-year learning communities: strategies and outcomes. The Journal of General Education,
61(4), 461-487.
Baxter, M. (2008). Reconceptualizing the linked courses model. AACE Journal, 16(2), 127-135.
Browne, M. N., Headworth, S., & Saum, K. (2009). The rare, but promising, involvement of faculty in
residence hall programming. College Student Journal, 43(1), 22-30.
Charles, H., & Stewart, M. A. (1991). Academic advising of international students. Journal Of
Multicultural Counseling & Development, 19(4), 173-181.
Ellett, T., & Schmidt, A. (2011). Faculty perspectives on creating community in residence halls. Journal
Of College & University Student Housing, 38(1), 26-39.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in
college: Theory, research and practice. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.
Fraizer, W., & Eighmy, M. (2012). Themed residential learning communities: The importance of
purposeful faculty and staff involvement and student engagement. Journal Of College &
University Student Housing, 38/39(2/1), 10-31.
Friedman, D., & Alexander, J. (2007). Investigating a first-year seminar as an anchor course in learning
communities. Journal of The First-Year Experience& Students in Transition, 19(1), 63-74.
Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R. S., & Smith, R. L. (1990). Learning communities: Creating
connections among students, faculty and disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning
No. 41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

17

Haynes, C., & Janosik, S. M. (2012). Faculty and staff member benefits from involvement in livinglearning programs. Journal Of College And University Student Housing, 38(2), 32-45
Himes, H.A. (2014). Strengthening academic advising by developing a normative theory.
NACADA Journal, 34(1), 5-15.
Inkelas, K. K. & Weisman, J. L. (2003). Different by design: an examination of student outcomes
among participants in three types of living-learning programs. Journal of College Student
Development, 44(3), 335-368.
Lichtenstein, M. (2005). The importance of classroom environments in the assessment of
learning community outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 341-356.
Museus, S. D., & Ravello, J. N. (2010). Characteristics of academic advising that contribute to
racial and ethnic minority student success at predominantly white institutions. NACADA Journal,
30(1), 47-58.
Pizzolato, J. E. (2008). Advisor, teacher, partner: Using the learning partnerships model to
reshape academic advising. About Campus, 13(1), 1825.
Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2004). Multicultural competence in students affairs. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schwebel, D. C., Walburn, N. C., Klyce, K., & Jerrolds, K. L. (2012). Efficacy of advising outreach on
student retention, academic progress and achievement, and frequency of advising contacts: A
longitudinal randomized trial. NACADA Journal, 32(2), 36-43.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

18

Shultz, E. L., Colton, G. M., & Colton, C. (2001). The adventor program: Advisement and mentoring for
students of color in higher education. Journal Of Humanistic Counseling, Education &
Development,40(2), 208-218.
Smith, B. L. (1991). Taking the structure seriously: The learning community model. Liberal Education,
77(2), pp. 42-48.
Smith, C. L., & Allen, J. M. (2006). Essential functions of academic advising: What students want and
get. NACADA Journal, 26(1), 56-66.
Stebleton, M. J. (2011). Understanding immigrant college students: Applying a developmental ecology
framework to the practice of academic advising. NACADA Journal, 31(1), 42-54.
Torres, V., Reiser, A., LePeau, L., Davis, L., & Ruder, J. (2006). A model of first-generation latino/a
college students' approach to seeking academic information. NACADA

Journal, 26(2),

65-70.
Wawrzynski, M. R., Jessup-Anger, J. E., Stolz, K., Helman, C., & Beaulieu, J. (2009). Exploring
students' perceptions of academically based living-learning communities. College Student
Affairs Journal, 28(1), 138-158.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural
wealth. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 8(1), 69-91. doi:10.1080/1361332052000341006

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

19
Appendices

Appendix A: Prezi Presentation

Appendix B: Research Summaries for Presentation
Appendix C: Course Integration Models
Appendix D: Student Profiles for Activity 3

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Appendix A
Prezi Presentation
Click here for Prezi

20

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

21

Appendix B
Research Summaries for Presentation
Linked Course Content and Course Integration
There has been a variety of research around different course models and their
effectiveness for students in learning communities. The shared idea between every model is that
the same group of students would participate in all of the programs or classes together, to help
students integrate and obtain a deeper understanding of their knowledge and foster greater
faculty and peer interaction and increased opportunities for coordinated learning activities
(Gabelnick et al., 1990). We looked at three prominent models discussed in a variety of research
while considering the context of the Jesuit Catholic mission and context of the current academic
model at Seattle University. That stated, these are established models that have potential at
Seattle University as the university continues to evolve and innovate itself on a cross-divisional
scale.
The Skill-to-Application/Content Course Model (Baxter, 2008) utilizes a crossdisciplinary collaborative approach that integrates university-based resources and faculty of
different disciplines. This model often encompasses a writing, communications or other skillbased class and a major-themed course. Students in this model of course overall performed better
in writing and critical thinking (Lichtenstein, 2003; Barnhisel, Stoddard, & Gorman, 2012).
The Cluster courses model (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003) uses the traditional cohort model
in which the same group of students, typically in the same major or theme family, take a series or
cluster of courses together that are interconnected. This model establishes a sense of community
among classmates, and the joint syllabus with faculty creates coherency in the topic.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

22

First Year Seminars (Friedman, D. B., & Alexander, J. S., 2007) typically focus around
transition, and thus re able to address specific needs of traditional first years as well as nontraditional, transfer, historically underrepresented students, commuters, and part-time students.
First year seminars are a historically established practice in the Seattle area, present at both the
University of Washington and North Seattle College (Smith, 1991). In this model, first year
course may or may not be tied to additional courses.
Across the board, research supported evidence of improved student academic
performance and likeliness to engage in studying practices together (Lichtenstein, 2005; Inkelas
& Weisman, 2003; Baxter, 2008).
Impact of Academic Advising in Learning Communities
There are three common purposes of academic advising: engaging students in reflective
conversations about educational goals, teaching students about the nature of high education, and
provoking student change toward greater levels of self-awareness and responsibility (Shulenberg
& Lindhorst, 2010).
Academic advising impacts both student development and academic success. In terms of
academic success, our research review showed that academic advising has a greater impact on
student GPA, retention, and attitudes about self and school when it is proactive, when in-person
contact with students is more frequent, and when students feel they have a meaningful
relationship with a faculty or staff member. (Himes, 2014; Smith & Allen, 2014; Pizzolato,
2008).
Academic advising provides a variety of learning outcomes related to academic advising.
Effective academic advising helps students identify and commit to realistic goals, know how to

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

23

utilize tools and resources to assist in their academic progress and tasks, and gain greater
awareness of how academics connect with their career and life goals. Academic advising helps
students make connections between courses, providing a more integrated frame for learning.
Through academic advising students can also develop self-authored meaning-making as it
applies to decision-making, critical thinking, and taking ownership and responsibility for actions.
Finally, academic advising helps students feel connected to a faculty or staff member on campus
(Himes, 2014; Pizzolato, 2008; Smith & Allen, 2014).
Impact of Faculty Member Integration in Learning Communities
The role of faculty members in learning communities is important to their success. Our
research shows that high student-faculty interaction plays a large role in how students perceive
their academic success. When there were more faculty and residential staff interactions with
students, there was a positive impact on students' perceived satisfaction with all aspects of their
living and learning experience (Fraizer & Eighmy 2012). The goal of a learning community is to
create a seamless learning environment where there are learning opportunities both inside and
outside of the classroom. With more faculty interaction in learning communities, faculty
members were able to hold conversations with students about topics not related to class, feel like
they made a difference in students' lives, and feel like they have furthered the academic mission
of the institution (Haynes & Janosik 2012). However there are some obstacles when it comes to
faculty involvement with learning communities. Many faculty members dont want to participate
in anything that they feel might detract from their work in the classroom (Browne et. al 2009).
One way to over come that obstacle is to have increased collaboration between faculty, staff and
students. Faculty members need to be affirmed that the work that they do within a learning
community is valued and beneficial to all parties involved.

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

24

Multicultural Competence in Academic Advising

In order to effectively incorporate academic advising into a learning community
structure, one must be well versed in the best practices for multicultural competence within
academic advising practices. Our research showed that there are three best practices for
incorporating multicultural competence into academic advising structures and practices:
awareness of unique student challenges, developmental and holistic advising techniques, and
proactive advising structures.
Academic advisors must be aware of the unique challenges that the diverse array of
students they will work with may encounter to work effectively with students. Since diverse
groups of students may have distinct challenges or concerns that need to be addressed in
academic advising, advisors must actively build their knowledge of diverse populations of
students to effectively support these students (Charles & Stewart, 1991; Stableton, 2011).
Academic advisors should strive to cultivate a developmental, holistic advising technique
to connect effectively with students from diverse backgrounds. Many students from
underrepresented populations need to establish trusting personal relationships with academic
advisors in order to work effectively with them (Torres, Reiser, LePeau, Davis, & Ruder, 2006).
Students may need to know that advisors care about them as human beings and care about their
success in order to trust and confide in their advisors (Museus & Ravello, 2010).
Academic advising systems should be proactive in order to effectively reach students
from diverse populations.o

Students from underrepresented racial, ethnic, and cultural groups

on college campuses may not understand the role of an academic advisor, or may be slow to trust
someone in a position of authority (Torres, et al, 2006). Academic advising within its own office

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

25

or a learning community needs to be sensitive to this and put proactive advising structures in
place that help students get exposed to advisors, build trust with them, and clarify what advisors
can do for them (Schultz, Colton, & Colton, 2001; Schwebel, Walburn, Klyce, & Jerrolds, 2012).

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

26

Appendix C
Course Integration Models
Skill-Application Course Model

Community &
University Resources

Skill-based course
such as writing/public
speaking

Content-related
course like science,
math, or fine art

Cluster Courses

Course One
(Writing or
Introductory Level)

Major or Core
Course

Consecutive Major
or Core Course

First Year Seminars

Introductory
Themed or College
Experience Class

Major or Core
Course

Major or Core
Course

Major or Core
Course

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Appendix D
Student Profiles for Activity 3
First Generation Latino/a Student
Special Considerations and Challenges:

Lack of knowledge around how to navigate college offices and resources.

May not see advisors as authority figures, or may not immediately trust them or approach
them with issues.

May rely more on information from peers or written material, rather than approaching
academic advisors.

International Student
Special Considerations and Challenges:

May not understand the parameters of the academic advisor relationship.

Must navigate special challenges related to differences in educational systems, language

barriers, or possible academic restrictions.

Must navigate an unfamiliar social and academic culture.

Adult Learner Undergraduate (Age 25+)

Special Considerations and Challenges:

Responsibilities outside of school may limit the time the student is available outside of the
classroom.

May not see themselves represented in the way that guidance and advice are typically
presented in programs and presentations.

May be prioritizing getting through school as possible, and connecting their schooling to a
current or future career.

May not know that resources apply to them or serve them.

Commuter Student
Special Considerations and Challenges:

27

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

28

Time on campus may be limited outside of classes, and may need to schedule appointments
far in advance.

Minimal contact with faculty and staff outside of class.

May feel disconnected or not adequately supported by campus community and resources.

Transfer Student (Community College to SU)

Special Considerations and Challenges:

Must adapt to a new curriculum, and navigate how existing credits will fit into that
curriculum.

Must adapt to new academic structures, programs, and resources. May not have the
expectation that staff and faculty members will take on a significant role in supporting and
guiding them through educational decisions.
May struggle to feel connected to the campus community at large