Learning Resources

Abstract: This report was produced by the researcher awarded the M. Perry Chapman Prize for 2016–2017.

This research evaluates the role the campus built environment plays in student retention and graduation. The relationship between objective and perceived measures of the physical campus and student academic performance was examined using the California State University (CSU) campuses as the sample. The results show that both objective and perceived measures are significantly associated with academic performance and provide higher education institutions with insight regarding the role of the physical campus in enhancing student retention and graduation rates.

Abstract: The study described in this article investigated diversity in a unit within a postsecondary institution using the model described by Cox in Creating the Multicultural Organization by verifying the unit’s view of diversity, examining existing strategies used for diversity, evaluating consistencies, and identifying areas of improvement. The study included an analysis of unit employees to verify broad diversity by race and gender and an interview with senior leadership about the strategic plan for the unit on matters related to diversity. Overall analysis showed that the unit is doing better than most peer institutions in hiring female and minority candidates for positions. However, there are gaps in the unit’s approach to diversity that impact its ability to be an effective multicultural organization.

Abstract: Public-Private Partnership (“P3”) procurement models for built infrastructure serving higher learning institutions started to gain attention in North America in the late 1990s—mostly as an alternative approach to adding student housing at select universities and colleges. More recently, P3 models have been applied to a diverse range of higher learning projects, with some serving core academic and research functions.

Although many institutions are considering P3 approaches among their options to address emerging pressures to expand or update their facilities, their implementation is not yet common. The researcher’s intention was to better understand P3 models and learn how they have performed, possibly generating some useful lessons for how P3 models can be applied with desired outcomes.

Abstract: How can buildings be both flexible and concrete? It’s a contradiction in terms and a huge challenge facing university planners and facility managers as they try to keep up with rapid changes in technology, curriculum, teaching techniques, and student demographics. This article explores some of these trends in education and how construction techniques are evolving to meet the need for reconfigurable spaces.

Abstract: Makerspaces designed for collaborative learning are appearing on campuses throughout the United States, including at Drexel University. These spaces succeed because they permit students to collaborate, observe, and learn from professors and peers. Unique to the Drexel project is the intermingling of engineering undergraduates, graduate students, post-docs, faculty, and commercial interests in one facility with laboratories, machine-shop equipment, and informal study areas. Facilities that give students great visibility into nearby research, contain areas where they can take breaks without leaving the building, and lend themselves to informal encounters with peers, faculty, and others result in better academic experiences for undergraduates.

Abstract: Industry and academia are partnering like never before as entrepreneurship and maker culture become more important to our economy and a regular fixture in higher education curricula. With the influx of allied industry partnerships, evolving pedagogies, entrepreneurship programs, and a maker culture comes a pressing need for new spaces, ranging from fabrication and prototyping studios to innovation districts devoted to new kinds of research partnerships. Schools like the University of Washington, Babson College, and Arizona State University are leading the way on new collaborations. In this article, Sasaki planners and urban designers examine how design disruption will guide the development of campuses that enable 21st-century teaching, learning, and research paradigms.

Abstract: Leers Weinzapfel Associates recently talked with campus planners and facilities directors nationwide about the big issues driving campus planning. Rapidly evolving pedagogies are demanding radical rethinking of effective teaching and learning spaces. Better use and optimal configuration of these venues is key as the stereotypical “sage on the stage” mode of instruction rapidly expands through a wide range of interactive, hands-on, and socially enhanced settings. Several examples of the firm’s work—the University of Massachusetts Amherst John W. Olver Design Building, the University of Arkansas (Fayetteville) Stadium Drive Residence Hall, and the Wentworth Institute of Technology (Boston) Multipurpose Academic Building—substantiate these findings in practice.

Abstract: A critical concern of universities today is ensuring that students remain in their selected major and graduate promptly. In addition, there has been a renewed emphasis on scientific education presented to non-science majors. Through the renovation of the Ritenour Building, Penn State’s Eberly College of Science created an Academic Support Center as a hub of advising and assistance for prospective students, science majors, and science education. The center’s layout provides opportunities to share knowledge of science teaching with advising staff and the online learning department. The design of this space has been crafted to enhance these retention and educational goals.

Abstract: After its first application nearly 40 years ago, responsibility center budgeting/responsibility center management (RCB/RCM) is now in place at nearly 70 major North American universities. An unstudied fact is that despite its popularity RCB/RCM is rarely deployed to its fullest extent. Instead, it usually exists in parallel with conventional planning and budget models. This study asks why, instead of fully implementing RCB/RCM, universities have chosen to apply it partially. The study finds multiple explanations. On the revenue side, some universities hold back a portion of income to create funds that are used to underwrite institution-wide strategies or subsidize mission-central academic programs that cannot be fiscally sustained under RCB/RCM. In other cases, revenue is held back to fund shared “public utility” services, while in still others the practice of holding back revenue for allocation by some other means is due to difficulty in drawing a functional line between the “academic” and the “non-academic.” On the cost side, some universities have limited the application of RCB/RCM in order to limit market behavior and forestall “fragmentation” (Burke 2007). The study points to several problems in both the practice and theory of RCB/RCM. For example, models meant in theory to complement RCB/RCM may in practice compete with it or promote monopolistic behavior.