Reflective Engagement Model

-->

For a while now a growing number of folks have held that traditional RA programming was missing the boat in terms of facilitating actual learning. Even the best of programs often more about providing information and exposure than processing, developing meaning, and integrating new knowledge with their established knowledge, etc.

A few years ago the Res Life staff at U. Delaware began an ambitious program where they mandated residents attend both 1 on 1 interviews with resident assistants and large scale programs that were directly rooted in value-laden learning outcomes, related to privilege, oppression, critical thinking, advocacy and more. Professional staff developed highly sophisticated Learning outcomes, learning goals and pedagogical strategies for each hall and developed delivery materials, all approved by faculty, which the RA staff were required to both implement exactly as structured and score their residents according to a specific rubric evaluating residents’ developmental level.

They ran into difficulty, mainly because they adopted a highly prescriptive, highly academic, and value-based expectation upon students in a social setting where it was not expected or accepted. They broke the rules. Residence halls exist within a social framework that permits such things in classrooms, but not in residential areas.

While their approach may have been too prescriptive on a number of levels, they did make sound arguments around 5 fallacies of traditional RA programming:

· Fallacy #1: Programming is educational. We use educational very loosely and can rarely answer clearly about the specific knowledge, skills, understandings, etc. that we want students to learn from any given program.

· Fallacy #2: Residential education is best designed by Resident Assistants. Based on Astin, but misinterpreted…peers have greatest influence, but doesn’t mean they are always the most qualified to exert that influence. Hence why we spend such great effort and value on role modeling.

· Fallacy #3: Programming should be based on the students’ interests. Do students know what they do not know? If yes, would you allow students to choose what courses need to be taught for their degree?

· Fallacy #4: Programming is the most effective means of delivering education in the residence halls. When you assess programming based on content learned and not attendance statistics, fallacy #4 is apparent; when you consider all the factors inherent in learning like motivation, attention, prior knowledge, dual-coding, seductive details, social context, emotion, metacognition, memory processes, etc. it is obvious that typical RA programming remarkably ineffective and ill designed.)

· Fallacy #5: High program frequency and high program attendance equals success. (small percentage, same over again)

This leaves us with the question, how can we better facilitate learning with each resident?

There are many theories involved in learning, but the most central of all is how students construct knowledge, or what meaning they construct as they integrate their knowledge, experiences, values, beliefs, etc. This involves questioning, reflection, perspective taking and acting, and is a significant factor in identity development (something rarely addressed in our Identity Development models). What we need a cutting edge, learning centered approach that engages every resident at multiple points in their residential experience in activities that facilitate their ability to develop and integrate meaningful concepts regarding the multiple relationships, roles, and responsibilities in their life.

The goal of the Reflective Engagement Model of programming is to do just this by re-applying the value of Astin’s finding that peers exert the greatest influence on peers but within a context that is both more congruent with how learning occurs (i.e. Schema theory, Zone of Proximal Development, etc.) and with what is socially acceptable (i.e. living and learning vs. teaching and lecture) in the residence halls. It is also based on the perception that students today are arguably more expecting of and responsive to individualized attention.

The Reflective Engagement Model is tailored to specific department and institutional learning outcomes. In this case it is designed in terms of the UNLV Housing and Residential Life mission of developing self-directed individuals and learning outcomes of the UNLV Co-curricular Agenda and the General Education Outcomes of UNLV.

The following learning outcomes are designed facilitate the achievement of the “self-directed individual”, which is the developmental essence of the UNLV Housing and Residential Life mission statement. These outcomes are grounded in the theory and models surrounding schema, zone of proximal development, self-authorship (as well as others) and adapted from the Co-curricular Agenda and UNLV’s Student Expectations (general education outcomes).

· Problem Solving - Every student will identify, reflect on and analyze a problem/source of conflict from different perspectives, question their role in it, develop possible solutions and take action to resolve it.

· Self Reflection and Cognitive Integration - Every student will reflect on and integrate their experiences, values, beliefs, strengths, weaknesses, and their personal perspectives and style, and articulate themselves in terms of a unique, evolving and self directed cultural being.

· Goal Setting - Every student will identify and commit to personal goals in the areas of (a) academics, emphasizing academic skills and career exploration and development, (b) Community Involvement and Leadership, (c) Personal Wellness, and (d) Time Management

· Interpersonal Relationships - Every student will reflect on their successful and unsuccessful personal relationships with Friends Faculty and Staff, and Parents and Family, and identify aspects that make those relationships meaningful, including what they learn from and appreciate in others and what they themselves bring to their relationships.

· Multicultural Perspective Taking - Every resident will explore different perspectives on local, national, and global issues and reflect on their interrelatedness and explore issues of leadership, civic engagement, as well as environmental and social justice ethics, etc. related to them.

They are worded in terms of behaviors because it is easier to measure and we presently have no mechanisms to measure individual resident’s actual learning. But these behaviors could be triangulated with other assessments to give a very useful picture. It can even be used to implement an early warning/intervention system.

Based on these outcomes, instead of current programming requirements, RA’s conduct reflective interviews, designed and scripted by professional staff to address specific learning outcomes, with each of their residents once per month. These interviews are designed lead students to (a) reflect on concrete experiences and current student knowledge, (b) engage students in higher cognitive analysis of the experience, (c) integrate those experiences with their sense of self, (d) connect with departmental and campus resources and personnel, (e) set goals for future experiences, and (f) establish stronger more intimate relationships with student staff and other residents. These interviews are structured around a timeline that corresponds with typical student experiences throughout the year, such as academic and personal goal setting at the beginning of the semester, and problem solving during their second month, etc.

· Aug-Sept. - Self appraisal and goal setting

· Oct. - Problem solving – approach and step by step model

· Nov. - Meaningful relationships

· Dec. - Goal review and evaluation

· Jan-Feb – Self appraisal and Goal setting

· March - Current issue – multicultural perspectives

· April-May – Goal review and evaluation (a bit more in depth – end of year)

So far we have seen exceptional results, including:

· Greatly enhanced relationships with RA’s and residents – supported by EBIs, Floor Surveys, retention, etc.

· Greatly enhanced value for RA’s due to deeper intimacy and connection with residents (and in my perspective, a noticable increase in developmental growth of RA’s compared to traditional model)

· Increased student involvement – not in the sense of leadership positions per se. but involvement in more interactions with others

· Decreased behavioral issues

· Rising GPA, rate of increase seems to be outpacing rise in Overall housing and other theme floors.

· No meaningful decrease in perception of the number of programs and activities available to them

It surprises me, though, how steadfastly staff and faculty within our field cling to the traditional models of RA programming despite the current research on learning and cognition and even the research on residential programming that shows it is ineffective. Despite proclamations otherwise, too many professionals and faculty in student affairs are not experts in student learning, and until we are, we will never be able to fully realize our potential and our responsibility to truly facilitate student learning.