Institutions of higher education are replete with programs designed to position incoming undergraduate students to successfully persist toward a degree and to do and be well along the way. This longitudinal field study of incoming students’ transitional year focused on outcomes associated with two common types of program: bridge programs and living-learning programs. Bridge programs are intended to boost achievement and persistence of structurally disadvantaged (e.g., low-income) students to close the gap between them and their more advantaged peers, usually with some combination of financial and academic support. Living-learning programs are intended to generally promote achievement and persistence through the intentional formation of communities in which groups of students live together in wings of residence halls and engage in curricular and/or cocurricular activities together. Social-psychological interventions have been inspired by critiques that such programs inadequately support students who are at a structural disadvantage. Specifically, critiques have argued that financial and academic support are insufficient, that students also need psychological support. To strongly test that claim, I replicated one of these interventions within a bridge program and examined whether it affected students’ wellness and success at the end of their transitional year, over and above the bridge program itself. I also examined whether living-learning programs contributed to students’ wellness and success over and above living in conventional residence halls, and whether either of those two types of residential groups differed from students living off-campus. Results from the intervention did not fit the theoretical framework on which it was based, the same framework contextualized in the bridge program, or an alternative framework on which other similar interventions are based. Results regarding residential groups suggest that living-learning communities did not augment wellness or success, at least at the particular institution under study. Rather, living on campus generally is associated with a greater sense of social-belonging, higher life satisfaction, more extracurricular activity, and taking advantage of campus resources. Practical advice and recommendations for administrators and researchers are outlined in the Discussion.

This dissertation examines the relationship between living learning programs (LLPs) and student success at Boston University, a large, private research institution. The focus of this research was to better understand the distinctions between different types of living learning program formats (honors, academic, and special interest) and traditional housing in terms of the types of students they attract and what relationship they have with academic performance, retention, and student perception. Using the conceptual frameworks provided by Astin’s “I-E-O” model and Tinto’s longitudinal model of student departure, a mixed method design employing both quantitative (binary logistic and linear regression) and qualitative (interviews with LLP program faculty, staff, and student advisors) components was used. Results indicate that there were significant differences in student characteristics, academic performance, and perception between LLP participants and students in traditional housing. LLP participation was found to be positively related to retention, academic success and a student’s evaluation of the overall environment of the University. Academic LLP participation was linked to increased retention and first year cumulative GPA, while honors LLP participants were more inclined to rate their overall experience as excellent. These findings demonstrate that LLP format and composition are important in evaluating how these programs impact first year students. While research was limited to the students enrolled at a single institution, this study provides information about LLPs with varying level of academic integration, which can be useful to administrators looking to establish or review LLP programs on their own campus.