Implemented 2013

1. Residential Life
Engagement Model

2. Purpose of former
Programming Model
1. To get students out of their rooms/living
arrangements and into the community
2. To get students connected to the institution
3. To standardize the work of student employees
4. To ensure that students had equitable access to
programs
5. FUN!
2

3. and then…
3

4. Tipping Points
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Residential Life Committee Recommendations
Quality vs. Quantity
EBI Results
Programming Attendance (EBI/#’s)
Money + Resources
Content Experts vs. Student/Professional Staff
Consistency between Campuses – no “university”
programming model
8. Overall Student Satisfaction/Outcomes
4

5. Connect
Explore
Evolve
5

6. Residential Life
Engagement Model
a three-pronged approach
Connect Explore Evolve
Describes a basic level of
Adds an educational
intrapersonal
component to programs
engagement and
and activities through
community building through development of new skills
social activities and events.
or information
6
To help students critically think
about themselves, others and the
world. Real, positive transformation
is occurring and is evidenced
through reflection as well as
changes in behavior, beliefs and or
attitudes.

7. Qualities of
Engagement Model
1. The relationship comes first.
2. Our interactions are more personable.
3. We still have a foundation of programming, but we are
more intentional on when, in addition to the “who”.
4. We are mindful of our resources, and mindful not to overlap
or “program against” other areas.
5. Greater collaboration with outside departments/divisions.
6. Celebrate the moments and memories rather than try to fit
a requirement.
7

8. Potential Benefits
1.Environment/Activities crafted for
Communities vs. Cookie Cutter
Model
2.Higher Student Satisfaction
3.Greater Affinity for JWU
4.Less Conduct/Issues in Halls
8

9. Foreseen
Challenges
1.Consistency between
Areas/Campuses
2.Accountability for Student Staff
3.Transition to New Strategy for
Student Staff
4.It’s new!
9

10. Questions?
10