Learning Resources

Abstract: Traditional campuses are being challenged by the digital transformation of higher education. The unquestioned need for synchronous place and time is evaporating. Assumptions about academic calendars, faculty, and geography are now either obsolete or optional. A thicket of demographic and business issues reduces institutional options. Academic tradition limits innovation. Investments in the physical campus and those who plan them are being questioned as never before. To be justified—for campuses to matter—they must provide value that is not available by other means. Existing campuses need to be rethought and transformed as if their survival were at stake.

Abstract: The phenomenon of universities building luxury dormitories or commissioning headline-grabbing landmarks as a means of gaining an edge over other institutions has become one of the most conspicuous trends in modern campus design. However, this is no new practice. Roberts and Taylor consider how, since the Middle Ages, the physical environment of a university has been perceived as a decisive factor in attracting staff and students and acquiring the competitive advantage that leads to success.

Abstract: This is a revised version of the article originally published in Planning for Higher Education 43 (4), Summer 2015.
We are seeing an emergent campus type driven by a desire around the world for economically accessible, community-focused—and community-grown—learning and knowledge creation in a networked digital age. While questions about the future of the traditional campus have been a central focus of higher education discussions, off to the side there is a groundswell of learning activities that is all about the “there” there while also being everywhere. Grounded in physical communities, these activities strive to connect home, school, and work in a continuous lifelong learning path nourished by open digital resources. This is the Networked Community (College) for the growing legions of Citizen Learners. While seemingly peripheral to traditional higher education, this new model represents an approach that increasingly will be central to learning and knowledge creation in the 21st century not only beyond a traditional institution’s boundaries but also at its very core.

Abstract: The earliest American colleges were designed with health in mind. Today, however, the importance of the relationship between the campus environment and student health has waned in favor of individually based evaluations and behavioral interventions, an approach that fails to consider the contexts in which behaviors occur and overlooks the fundamental role of place—and those who design it—in shaping human health. In this article I argue that, in fact, the college campus matters to student health and thus must be designed and evaluated accordingly. Using an ecological model of health to explore two burgeoning student health concerns—mental health and sedentary behavior—I identify health needs not currently addressed by standard assessments of student health, define a new method for evaluating the environmental contexts in which health-related behaviors occur, and offer recommendations for planning and designing campuses as healthy places.

Abstract: Globally, changes in demographic and financial realities—and shifts in educational approach to meet these new challenges—require colleges and universities to reorient to support new educational models. In the process, institutions are recasting both what higher education is and how a physical environment can serve it. A look at the diverse approaches schools are taking to planning, design, and building around the world produces a revealing snapshot of a fast-changing future for campuses and the new experience students and young workers will come to know. Amidst all this change, the campus—in all its evolving forms—matters as much as ever.

Abstract: Integrated planning is a key concept for higher education planners. But it is difficult to define and even harder to express through individual competencies. Questions remain: what are the key constructs of integrated planning, what skill sets compose integrated planning, and how can it be measured? We suggest that integrated planning cannot be fully examined at the level of the individual planner, but rather that integrated planning is an institutional manifestation—understood only through organizational observation. This article explores this concept and makes a case for integrated planning as an organizational competency. We explain why orienting from this perspective is critical to success.

Abstract: “Integrated strategic planning” is a much more collaborative process in its development and execution than the practice of the executive team and/or a consultant simply drafting a plan with the expectation that it will be implemented by others. In this article, the author recounts her unique experience in going through the strategic planning process twice in the same stressful environment of an educational institution beset by financial, cultural, and accreditation challenges. The first plan was unsuccessful because it did little to engage institutional stakeholders as the board and administration did what they separately believed was best. It was drafted by the author in her capacity as an outside consultant and according to the instructions of the then executive team. On the second occasion, the prior president had been replaced by the author. As the new leader of the institution, the author used an integrated planning process. The result was a more meaningful plan as the stakeholders worked together and held each other accountable in its development and execution, leading to a turnaround that saved the school and surprised the community.