- Planning Types
Planning Types
Focus Areas
-
A framework that helps you develop more effective planning processes.
- Challenges
Challenges
Discussions and resources around the unresolved pain points affecting planning in higher education—both emergent and ongoing.
Common Challenges
- Learning Resources
Learning Resources
Featured Formats
Popular Topics
- Conferences & Programs
Conferences & Programs
Upcoming Events
- Community
Community
The SCUP community opens a whole world of integrated planning resources, connections, and expertise.
Get Connected
Give Back
-
Access a world of integrated planning resources, connections, and expertise-become a member!
- Planning Types
Planning Types
Focus Areas
-
A framework that helps you develop more effective planning processes.
- Challenges
Challenges
Discussions and resources around the unresolved pain points affecting planning in higher education—both emergent and ongoing.
Common Challenges
- Learning Resources
Learning Resources
Featured Formats
Popular Topics
- Conferences & Programs
Conferences & Programs
Upcoming Events
- Community
Community
The SCUP community opens a whole world of integrated planning resources, connections, and expertise.
Get Connected
Give Back
-
Access a world of integrated planning resources, connections, and expertise-become a member!
Planning for Higher Education Journal
Built Environments Impact Behaviors
Results of an Active Learning Post-Occupancy EvaluationFrom Volume 42 Number 1 | October–December 2013By Lennie Scott-Webber, Aileen Strickland, Laura Ring KapitulaPlanning Types: Campus PlanningA post-occupancy evaluation instrument was developed and piloted to measure (1) the reliability and validity of the instrument and (2) the effect of evidence-based solutions on student engagement in the classroom. Content analysis synthesized elements of engagement from multiple sciences to form the body of questions. A post/pre methodology compared the “old” row-by-column seating with the “new” classroom designs. A high degree of internal item consistency was reached between all identified factors (α = 0.91, α = 0.93, α = 0.96, α = 0.96), and highly statistically significant differences were found between the “old” and the “new” classroom designs (all p-values
MEMBERS ONLY
Attention Members: Log in to access this item.Not a member? Join now> to access this article and all journal articles for free.