Learning Resources

Abstract: Examines educational practices that depend on new technologies and considers how those practices are shaping the way we think about what it means to educate. Also assesses how planning is impacted as a result. Explains how a campus might integrate new technologies into its existing modes of educational services delivery, resulting in a more comprehensive, "technologically responsive" institution.

Abstract: Reengineering a faculty's pedagogy and academic programs is hard. But it can be done. Subtitles: From experiments to overhaul; What we learned; Making change natural. Pull quotes: "The students became more actively engaged and less bored." "Naturally some students don't like the new pedagogy and resist the changes." "Reengineering change requires no exemptions." "To justify investments in technology, classroom teaching must change."

Abstract: This book thoroughly reviews the fundamentals of campus planning. It is divided into three sections: “Prospectus,” “The Campus and Its Parts” (such as instructional facilities, housing, and parking and circulation), and “Campus Plans,” (such as expanding the campus, building a new campus, and renovating). It is rich in concepts and specific solutions, with hundreds of photographs and drawings. It should be on the bookshelf of any campus planner. This classic was first printed in 1963 and is the work of Richard P. Dober, a charter member of SCUP, who influenced campuses worldwide as a planner and consultant to more than 350 educational institutions.

Richard Dober (1928–2014) was a planning and design advisor to more than 450 colleges, universities, and cultural institutions worldwide, as well as to foundations and government agencies, the World Bank, and UNESCO. He wrote nine books and numerous articles on planning and design and was a founder of the Society for College and University Planning. He led consulting firms since the early 1960s, including most recently, Dober Lidsky Mathey, a firm specializing in campus planning and facility planning services.

Abstract: There are good reasons—educational, economic, sociological—for educational institutions to coexist on the same site or even in the same building with governmental, residential, or commercial functions. At the same time there are roadblocks to such joint-occupancy arrangements, particularly for public institutions, in the laws governing the financing of public buildings and in bureaucratic inertia. This article is a profile of one institution—the new Inner Harbor campus of the Community College of Baltimore—that tried to share its facilities with commercial interests—and failed.