Learning Resources

Abstract: Higher education institutions, across nearly all socio-cultural cross-sections, are more diverse today than ever before. This evolution in campus demographics also coincides with the changing values, priorities, and needs of students. The bottom line for many of today’s students is clear: now more than ever, values matter when selecting a school. This article explores the programmatic and administrative responses as well as the physical planning and design opportunities associated with creating and sustaining more diverse and inclusive campus environments.

Abstract: From demographics and social change to politics and technology, many trends impact planning in higher education. SCUP’s Trends for Higher Education is designed to help you and your institution make sense of the most significant evolutionary forces.

Abstract: This report was produced by the researcher awarded the M. Perry Chapman Prize for 2016–2017.

This research evaluates the role the campus built environment plays in student retention and graduation. The relationship between objective and perceived measures of the physical campus and student academic performance was examined using the California State University (CSU) campuses as the sample. The results show that both objective and perceived measures are significantly associated with academic performance and provide higher education institutions with insight regarding the role of the physical campus in enhancing student retention and graduation rates.

Abstract: Stockton University grew its 2017 freshman class by 32 percent (375 students) by implementing a systems approach to enrollment management. We will present the strategic and collaborative methods to our success and share how Stockton’s Chief Planning Office played an important role in breaking down common silos that impeded efforts to collaborate, innovate, and succeed. We will discuss the statistical tools, operational improvements, and leadership techniques put in place to support Stockton’s growth, including new weekly reports and cross-divisional planning efforts.

Abstract: This article applies the three stages of change (mobilization, implementation, and institutionalization) to the academic curricular process change that occurred during the 2014–2015 academic year at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Reflecting on the manner in which this major initiative was conceptualized and executed has revealed an inadvertent yet seamless application of Curry’s (1992) organizational change model. Throughout each stage of this organizational change, some inherent principles were maintained while balancing the required condensed timeline for completion. These principles included consistent and transparent consultation with many branches of the university community and revision of proposed processes based on feedback from community members. The goal of the authors in sharing the change process at IUP is to provide potential insights for others on recognizing a need for organizational process revision. The authors highlight the actions taken at IUP, offer recommendations, and identify potential hazards to institutions contemplating organizational change.

Abstract: Capital projects are designed and built in a number of ways. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and each prescribes different roles for the owner, architect, and builder. The question is, which way or method best fits your institution’s criteria and project? This article presents a brief outline of the most popular methods by which projects are designed and built.