Learning Resources

Abstract: Panelists Gary David, Bentley University, and Linda Jerrett, Boston University, shared what their campuses are currently doing to not only accommodate students and faculty, but plan for the fall and the future of education technology. They described their approaches to decision making during this time when information is limited and the variables are unknown. This session was moderated by Parke Rhoads, a principal with Vantage Technology Consulting Group, who is an expert in strategic campus technology and is currently working with many higher education institutions during this ‘new normal’.

Abstract: An institution's success is intrinsically linked to that of its students. High-quality living/learning spaces play a critical role in supporting student achievement, building campus community, and bolstering recruitment and retention. Master plans are more than a campus-wide tool, and with thoughtful planning and execution, institutions can craft a vision tailored to student needs related to housing, dining, and the co-curricular student experience. Using concrete examples, this session will illustrate how student experience-driven planning and creative implementation strategies can bolster student success while using institutional resources more effectively.

Abstract: Within the last several years, higher education institutions have embraced the language of an “anchor mission” to define their place-based commitments. This case analysis details the role of data in promoting systematic local change in six institutions participating in the Anchor Dashboard Learning Cohort. These institutions committed to measuring community impact through the Anchor Dashboard, a tool to understand and enhance local commitments along several social and economic dimensions. This article details the promises and pitfalls of developing an institution-wide, place-based mission led from different institutional levels—from the president’s office to faculty-led centers—using this data tool.

Abstract: This article describes a method for attributing research expenditures directly to assigned space that avoids the difficulties with traditional approaches that have arisen from the growth of interdisciplinary research activities where the attribution of research to the faculty member or unit is not strongly correlated with the location where the research is performed. The emergence and growth of new transdisciplinary research activities that not only connect research from traditional disciplines but also form the unifying theme around which a whole new area may form depends in part on reducing traditional barriers to space allocation and encouraging the creative efforts of everyone contributing to meet research space needs. Projects may be distributed across several rooms, some of which are shared with other projects. We seek to attribute credit for such efforts using approximations from existing data to avoid exacerbating an already onerous data collection challenge. The pilot version and a second iteration of the project have been completed with worthwhile results. A new analysis is currently underway with further improved data collection, an enhanced database, and a more systematic process.

Abstract: The authors explore institutional effectiveness and offer suggestions for developing meaningful institutional effectiveness plans for institutions of higher education. Their discussion is based on their review of institutional effectiveness plans from nearly 30 institutions of higher education as well as SACS publications. The article includes an exploration of the topic of institutional effectiveness, suggestions for developing meaningful institutional effectiveness plans, and potential problems that were identified through the experiences of other institutions. An extensive list of suggested readings, which includes many online references, follows the article.

Abstract: Colleges and universities are faced with increasing demands for accountability and performance data with respect to faculty activity and productivity from diverse audiences and constituencies, ranging from academic planners and legislators to parents and taxpayers. This article argues that different audiences have different information needs and that a one-size-fits-all approach to describing faculty activity and productivity is both inappropriate and potentially harmful. Concrete strategies are proposed for providing appropriate information to these disparate groups.

Abstract: In this article, we discuss a method for developing and writing scenarios for a college or university. We begin by reviewing the general literature on scenarios; we then detail a scenario development project at Arizona State University. This project, conducted in 1988–89, was Arizona State University's first institution-wide, futures-based planning and scenario development effort. The focus of the project for Arizona State University was planning and programming for affirmative action. An outside consultant facilitated the group-process portion of the project and instructed university staff in scenario development. Staff in the university's Office of Institutional Analysis then developed and wrote a set of three scenarios to guide the university's affirmative action programming and planning during the decade of the nineties.

Abstract: Escalation of university-community tension across the nation has generated widespread investigation and speculation by planners into the possible causes. Much of the speculation centered on "campus form" as a significant variable. Did the physical size and shape of the campus and its buildings influence tensions or the lack thereof? Was physical dispersal of the campus preferable to the fortress-like enclave of the traditional urban campus? In search of answers, Educational Facilities Laboratories commissioned a team of researchers at the University of Cincinnati--Robert Carroll, a sociologist, and planning professors Hayden B. May and Samuel V. Noe, Jr.--to undertake a study of the phenomenon. Their conclusions are available in a report available from Professor Noe, Department of Community Planning, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, and are summarized by the editor in the following article.