A Model for Engaging Students, Faculty, and Communities in Social Action through a Community-Based Curriculum and Admissions Process—A Case Study of the Honors Living-Learning Community at Rutgers University—Newark
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article describes the structure and content of an impressive living-learning community at Rutgers University - Newark. The authors share three frameworks from the literature that guide the program: High Impact Practices, asset-based community development, and non-cognitive skills development. Reviewing secondary documents from the Rutgers website, syllabi for the core courses, and other program materials, the authors find evidence of each of these frameworks and argue for the potential of HLLC to yield positive outcomes for the diverse students who participate. The paper has excellent potential and scholarly value, as we need more case studies of effective community engagement programs, particularly from institutions like Rutgers University - Newark that serve diverse students from marginalized communities.
I have two major recommendations for the authors to consider, and then a few minor changes to recommend.
First, the authors should clarify the research question and methods of analysis, and provide more details on the sources of data in the study. The current methods section does not explain how the data was selected or how the documents were analyzed. The lack of a research question makes it difficult for readers to evaluate the findings and discussion.
Second, I would encourage the authors to explore additional primary evidence they can use to strengthen the data and analysis. Most of the data was drawn from secondary sources, such as the program website and curricula. Student reflections were used, but not systematically. Do the authors have access to student evaluation data (e.g., end-of-year surveys from cohorts), or student-level data that could be compared to the general RU-N population (e.g., admission data, GPA, graduation rates)? Utilizing this kind of primary evidence would allow the authors to make much stronger claims about the strengths and weaknesses of the program, especially if their goal is to lift up this model for other institutions. For example, the HIP literature has shown the impact of these practices on student retention and achievement - do these same patterns hold true in the HLLC? How do they compare and what does that reveal about this program? Also, the authors argue that the HLLC admission practices yield a more diverse cohort of students whose skills and potential would not be visible to more traditional metrics of admissions (e.g., SAT scores) - this is an empirical question we can answer by comparing incoming HLLC students with the overall student population, along with other important metrics like GPA, retention, and graduation, and even careers.
Clarifying the research question and methods may also reveal additional literature that seems relevant to this study, but that is not yet reflected here. For example, what else do we know about living-learning communities, or about cohort programs, or about retention among student populations similar to those who participate in the HLLC that would help us better evaluate the effectiveness of this model?
If standard qualitative methods or a systematic dataset were not employed in this study, I would encourage the authors to present this as a different type of article - a case study, a promising practice - rather than a research study.
A few additional minor points:
- I would encourage the authors to situate themselves in this study. What, if any, relationship do they have to the HLLC. If none, what drew them to study this particular program.
- Reviewing the title, I didn't see a clear shift from CBR to PAR (or even a distinction between these), which the title seems to suggest. If that's an important part of this story, I'd encourage the authors to draw this out more explicitly.
- Depending on how you approach the major revisions above, the three frameworks (HIP, ABCD, non-cognitives skills) could be repurposed as the literature review that connects these concepts to the bodies of literature that connect them to the study site. For example, many of the HIP are utilized in HLLC and each of them has its own scholarly literature. Expanding on, for example, what we know about effective living-learning communities would strengthen the argument.
Clearly, the HLLC is a powerful model of learning and engagement for its students, and the field needs more examples like this that can serve as models for effective community engagement, especially at institutions like RU-N that recruit strongly from the surrounding communities and see themselves as "anchor institutions." I hope the suggestions above will help you make this important contribution even stronger.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a clear and compelling profile of a unique educational initiative that redefines honors and supports diverse cohorts of students in asset-based community engagement aligned with their academic pursuits and the institution's local commitments. The article provides a detailed overview of the curriculum and shares excerpts of student reflections that suggest the initiative's success in meeting its intended outcomes, as well as discussion of how the model relates to three themes in relevant literature.
The authors end the discussion section by noting the value of analyzing primary data regarding the program's operations and results, and I agree that more data (qualitative and/or quantitative) would make a more a more significant contribution to scholarship. Depending on the information the authors have access to regarding students who submitted reflections accessed through a confidential database, they may be able to improve the section on student perceptions. Were there any demographic patterns in responses (e.g., differences between students from the local area -- the community insiders in Kretzman and McKnight's framework -- and others)? To what extent/in what ways did students' describe dynamics or changes not in line with the program's philosophy?
Another opportunity to enhance the analysis within secondary methods could be to develop the discussion of honors. Adding references about traditional definitions of academic honors and intellectual merit, and perhaps even a brief description of typical honors programs, could help the authors define the distinctive elements of this model. Another approach would be to discuss this model in contrast with other engaged scholarship minors/certificates/fellowship programs that also strive to recruit diverse cohorts, use an asset-based approach, and develop non-cognitive skills. What is gained by defining a program as honors? Or perhaps incorporating the residential piece (living-learning honors structure)?
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2
General Comment 1: This is a clear and compelling profile of a unique educational initiative that redefines honors and supports diverse cohorts of students in asset-based community engagement aligned with their academic pursuits and the institution's local commitments. The article provides a detailed overview of the curriculum and shares excerpts of student reflections that suggest the initiative's success in meeting its intended outcomes, as well as discussion of how the model relates to three themes in relevant literature.
Response: Thank you for your kind response.
Major Comment 1: Another opportunity to enhance the analysis within secondary methods could be to develop the discussion of honors. Adding references about traditional definitions of academic honors and intellectual merit, and perhaps even a brief description of typical honors programs, could help the authors define the distinctive elements of this model. Another approach would be to discuss this model in contrast with other engaged scholarship minors/certificates/fellowship programs that also strive to recruit diverse cohorts, use an asset-based approach, and develop non-cognitive skills. What is gained by defining a program as honors? Or perhaps incorporating the residential piece (living-learning honors structure)?
Response: Thank you for your response. As recommend, we added the following sentences to address the comments regarding honors:
“According to Austin (1986) honors programs are hosted at a variety of different sorts of postsecondary institutions. In general, honors education refers to "all of the ways in which a college or institution strives to accommodate the educational demands of its most gifted and motivated students" (Austin, p.5, 1986). The goals of honors programs are typically to identify and select highly capable students; to challenge those students academically and to allow them to exercise their potential. The institutional goals for establishing honors programs often include recruiting and maintaining students and staff by demonstrating a "commitment to excellent education," garnering funding, and "improving the institution's public image as a center of great study" (Austin, p. 7, 1986). Not surprisingly, there are several sorts of honors programs, many of which are adapted to the institutions at which they are offered." [Pg2, Ln 61-71]
Additionally, we addressed the living-learning component via the following sentences, " Research suggests that Learning Communities are a HIP that can adds significant value to the undergraduate expereince. . The American Association of Colleges and Universities (High-Impact Practices, n.d.) states that the primary aims of learning communities are to promote cross-course integration and to engage students in "big topics" that extend beyond the classroom. These one-of-a-kind communities are inspired by the work of John Dewey (1938) and Alexander Meiklejohn (1938). Learning communities have flourished on college campuses around the nation since their start as an interdisciplinary collaborative experience. To add more value to learning communities, over the last 25 years higher education institutions has dramatically expanded learning communities into living-learning communities (LLC) (Arensdorf & Naylor-Tincknell, 2016).
According to The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, 2007), LLCs are one of ten "high impact best practices" that result in a variety of good student development outcomes and are extensively adopted throughout the country's campuses (Taylor, Moore, MacGregor, & Lindblad, 2003). LLCs are made up of students who share a residence hall floor and have a common interest or major. Learning communities are intentionally structured around academic and co-curricular components to aid students in establishing a sense of community early in their college experiences and fostering meaningful connections with teachers and other students (Gabelnick, MacGregor, Matthews, & Smith, 1990). Additionally, there are numerous types of learning communities at institutions of higher education; however, each learning community shares certain characteristics, such as shared learning in small groups, specific learning objectives, meaningful connections between teachers and students, and integrated learning (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Shapiro & Levine, 1999). Additionally, by offering a more holistic experience for students, LLCs have been shown to increase not just retention and degree completion, but also student learning, faculty engagement, and student participation both inside and outside the classroom (Astin, 1993; Tinto, 1987; Tinto, Goodsell, & Russo, 1994)." [Pgs3-4, Ln 142-182]
Minor Comment 1: The authors end the discussion section by noting the value of analyzing primary data regarding the program's operations and results, and I agree that more data (qualitative and/or quantitative) would make a more a more significant contribution to scholarship. Depending on the information the authors have access to regarding students who submitted reflections accessed through a confidential database, they may be able to improve the section on student perceptions. Were there any demographic patterns in responses (e.g., differences between students from the local area -- the community insiders in Kretzman and McKnight's framework -- and others)? To what extent/in what ways did students' describe dynamics or changes not in line with the program's philosophy?
Response: Thank you for your comments. The data set utilized was derived from a graduate survey that does not link any demographic information. Subsequently, no demographic patterns can be offered. Additionally, as nascent program established in 2016, the HLLC is now in the process of establishing its programmatic benchmarks as it relates to student success, retention, and graduation. Follow-up papers and research projects are in development.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper examines the application of several high impact educational practices in the context of an American urban university, focusing on community-engaged and interdisciplinary learning and undergraduate research linked to social justice in the university's local community. Of particular interest is the program's anti-racist rethinking of its admissions process and the conceptualization of an "honors" program that make possible the inclusion of underrepresented students.
The authors ground their discussion of this honors program curriculum in the literature on high impact practices, asset-based approaches to community engagement and community development, and socio-emotional skill development essential to student success beyond the university.
The article applies these conceptual frameworks to the development of an alternative admissions process to make university education and this honors program specifically accessible to underrepresented local students. The article then describes a curriculum in which these students engaged in problem-solving research in their own and other local communities, building out one of the core programmatic themes of "local citizenship in a global world." Evidence of impact is provided in a section of the paper on student perceptions of the educational experience, drawing upon the students' written critical reflections prior to graduation.
While the paper is compelling in its description of the program design, I would encourage the authors to prepare a follow-up paper on the broader impacts of this impactful integration of admissions and curricular design within a community-engagement framework. Specifically, I would be interested to see the authors further analyze student impact (more systematic content analysis of a broader sampling of critical reflection writing along with retention and graduate rates, and post-graduate tracking into graduate schools and jobs), as well as impact on participating faculty, implications for institutional transformation, and the value accruing to the specific community partners and the local community generally.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 3
General Comment 1: This paper examines the application of several high impact educational practices in the context of an American urban university, focusing on community-engaged and interdisciplinary learning and undergraduate research linked to social justice in the university's local community. Of particular interest is the program's anti-racist rethinking of its admissions process and the conceptualization of an "honors" program that make possible the inclusion of underrepresented students.
The authors ground their discussion of this honors program curriculum in the literature on high impact practices, asset-based approaches to community engagement and community development, and socio-emotional skill development essential to student success beyond the university.
The article applies these conceptual frameworks to the development of an alternative admissions process to make university education and this honors program specifically accessible to underrepresented local students. The article then describes a curriculum in which these students engaged in problem-solving research in their own and other local communities, building out one of the core programmatic themes of "local citizenship in a global world." Evidence of impact is provided in a section of the paper on student perceptions of the educational experience, drawing upon the students' written critical reflections prior to graduation.
Response: Thank you for your kind remarks.
Minor Comment 1: While the paper is compelling in its description of the program design, I would encourage the authors to prepare a follow-up paper on the broader impacts of this impactful integration of admissions and curricular design within a community-engagement framework. Specifically, I would be interested to see the authors further analyze student impact (more systematic content analysis of a broader sampling of critical reflection writing along with retention and graduate rates, and post-graduate tracking into graduate schools and jobs), as well as impact on participating faculty, implications for institutional transformation, and the value accruing to the specific community partners and the local community generally.
Response: Thank you for your comments. The HLLC Leadership is actively engaged with its currently Fulbright Visiting Scholar to ensure continuous research on variables that can promote the success of the HLLC and its impact within a community-engagement framework. Additionally, as nascent program established in 2016, the HLLC is now in the process of establishing its programmatic benchmarks as it relates to student success, retention, and graduation. Follow-up papers and research projects are in development.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read the revised draft and for clarifying the points raised in the review. This is an important case study and I look forward to reading future studies that show the impact of this model on student outcomes!
