Learning Resources

Abstract: Student demographics, national trends, and technology have changed dramatically over the past 30 years to the point where colleges and universities must envision a future very different from the past and adjust their plans accordingly. Some of the most dramatic changes pertain to the kinds of students who now typify college-goers; the ways in which technology impacts pedagogy; and the political, financial, and regulatory landscape governing higher education. For campus planners, these developments can be daunting. In the modern university, libraries as physical places for research are less and less relevant; classrooms are being replaced by mobile devices; and dormitories, though fine for the most traditional of college-goers, no longer work for the new majority of students.

Abstract: “Designing Innovative Campuses For Tomorrow’s Students” explores increasing investment by higher education institutions in new programs and facilities that boost on-campus innovation and entrepreneurship. This trend is a response, in part, to the changing expectations and demands of Millennial and Generation Z students and their future employers. The impact of this movement, though, goes far beyond those constituencies—changing everything from campus housing to the economic development role of higher education institutions. The examples of Clemson University’s Watt Family Innovation Center and the University of Florida’s Infinity Hall are provided to illustrate the scope of influence and success of these changes.

Abstract: University libraries nationwide are changing dramatically, and those at the University of Michigan are no exception. While this article focuses on the renovated Health Science Library, many other of the 19 U of M libraries are included in this piece. The Health Science Library boasts everything from futuristic décor and visualization workstations to a virtual cadaver, inviting students from across the campus.

Abstract: Just when higher education thought it had Millennials figured out, along comes Generation Z. . . .
There are six extant generations presently represented in the U.S. populace. Millennials, or those born between 1982 and 2004, are the most studied generation in history, helping increase awareness of generational cohort theory as a unifying construct. As students, Millennials fueled more interactive pedagogical approaches while also triggering an “amenities war” on campuses across the country. This construction boom, curbed by the 2008 recession, has morphed into a call for institutional accountability and relevance. The characteristics of trailing Millennials are now providing insights into how the expectations of their successor generation, Generation Z, will differ—and how higher education spaces must continue to adapt.

Abstract: Although belonging is a key element of college student success, little is known about how campus spaces, particularly the residence hall, affect the development of student belonging. Through qualitative analysis of interviews and student-created photo journals and maps, two key findings were identified as particularly useful for campus designers to consider: (1) students need spaces for personalization and privacy, not in ways that isolate but rather in ways that promote individual well-being and belonging; and (2) residence hall design needs to be continuously assessed and aligned with residence hall programming to most effectively facilitate meaningful student interactions. When campus planners and architects, university administrators, and residence hall staff work collaboratively and feedback is solicited from students, residence halls can become spaces where students feel as if they belong.

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.