Learning Resources

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: 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: 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: While college and university administrators tend to be conscious of the need to integrate financial and budgetary considerations into institutional plans, there are other equally important concerns to weave into planning. Real integrated plans proclaim not only what the organization will invest in and improve on but also what it will cease doing. Priority setting, done properly, includes decisions about shutting down non-priority activities, yet most institutional plans in higher education shy away from such considerations. Mindful of the hard choices that must be made in genuinely integrated plans, college and university leaders must be careful to compose planning teams with diverse sets of participants whose ownership of the plan lends overall legitimacy to the process and the plan itself.

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.