Learning Resources

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: There are literally thousands of studies on retention efforts; however, the role of the built environment at the campus level is largely ignored. Using data from 103 universities in the United States with high research activities, we found strong positive associations between three campus qualities—(1) greenness, (2) urbanism, and (3) on-campus living—and student retention and graduation rates after controlling for student selectivity, class size, total undergraduate enrollment, and university type. Overall, this research provides new insight for university administrators, campus planners, and higher education researchers about the significance of the campus built environment in retention efforts.

Abstract: The forms and layouts of classrooms reflect the societies and economies that students will face when they graduate. As happened in the previous two industrial revolutions, classrooms today need to respond to an emerging “third industrial revolution,” with its demand for innovation and creativity and its provision of information on demand. Active learning classrooms represent a transition to a future in which most learning will no longer happen in what we call a “classroom” today. Instead, students and teachers will be able to move to a variety of spaces, on demand, in order to accommodate different kinds of intelligences and pedagogies.

Abstract: Globalization and improved access to information has opened up opportunities for more personal mobility and worldwide interconnectedness. Annually, millions of students (both domestic and foreign) leave their homes in pursuit of a higher education, and among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries, student mobility has grown to over 50 percent in the last decade.
A greater influx of students into tertiary institutions suggests a need to provide housing for them, especially for those students coming from outside the region where the university is located, for example, from interstate or overseas. However, amid fluctuating economic conditions and budgetary constraints, universities direct their expenditures toward their core competence of teaching and research leaving the private sector, in the main, to cater to student housing needs. While current economic realities make it logical for universities to move away from providing students with accommodation, studies over the years show the benefits of university provided housing (UPH) both for students and the institution.
Against the backdrop of an increasing student population in Australia and reduced access to public funds by universities, this study assesses the current number of bed spaces provided in 30 Australian universities. Findings from the study show a low number of UPH bed spaces; the authors proffer solutions for universities to circumvent their economic realities while providing students with a suitable place to live.

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: Higher education institutions are under pressure to make transformative changes aimed at improving key areas of performance: access, affordability, price, and productivity to name a few. Institutions have responded with budget cuts and efficiency gains with incremental success. Yet paradoxically the very success they have achieved has also impeded the transformative change their stakeholders seek.

Many theories exist to support adaptive change in higher education. A single foundational theory of organizational change in industrial enterprises explains the paradox and illustrates how incremental success slows transformative change. Structural contingency theory, introduced by Alfred Chandler in 1962, encapsulates a number of higher education change theories, further grounding practitioners as they assist institutions in adapting to changing conditions and informing their planning efforts.

To achieve transformative change requires a model of integrated planning to synthesize unit improvements into institutional change greater than the sum of its parts. This article presents structural contingency theory to explicate the change process and introduces institutional portfolio management as an operational model of integrated planning. It speaks to an audience of practitioners seeking pragmatic solutions to very real and present problems.

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.