Learning Resources

Abstract: FLEXSpace—The Flexible Learning Environments eXchange—and the Learning Space Rating System (LSRS) are tools that can help you plan, design, assess, and improve learning spaces on your campus. In this session, you will learn about the newly released FLEXspace 2.0 along with the LSRS. We'll cover the features and benefits of both tools and how they can be incorporated into the planning process. Come learn how to use these tools to inform designs and support end users from planning through post occupancy.

Abstract: On-campus living has been linked to student success and is a key factor in admissions decisions. As campuses look to expand and improve their housing inventories in a challenging fiscal environment, there are more options than ever available. One institution will share its recent experiences with several of these options. The University of Massachusetts (UMass) Lowell has more than doubled its on-campus housing inventory in the past five years using a combination of P3, real estate acquisitions, and conventional construction. This session will compare the relative benefits and particular challenges in utilizing these types of housing delivery methods. Come learn from campus facilities planning and student affairs officials, who will address the pros and cons of different delivery methods (P3, purchase/renovation, and conventional construction) from the perspective of up-front costs, operating and maintenance factors, student experience, and functionality.

Abstract: “A look at what the future looked like in 1995, and what happened in higher education as we moved through seventeen years to 2013? Then, a look ahead . . . Remember: Just because we are changing a great deal does not mean we are transforming.” Another SCUP title, Transforming Higher Education—A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century, was once a higher education bestseller. In this monograph, co-author and SCUP Distinguished Service Award recipient Donald M. Norris and his team review what the Academy was doing and thinking in 1995, and what has happened since. They take stock of the present and look back at it from the perspective of 2020. Pragmatically, they suggest dual paths forward. Which will your institution take? Path A, reposition the core? Path B, leap into the future? Or perhaps, as the authors suggest, both?