Improving Student Learning with Well-Designed Student Life Facilities

illustration of online learning with computers and printed documents

“What I have seen, and this has been a relatively fast path over the last ten years, is the rise of students’ expectations of instant access, a 24/7 mentality about services, and immediacy — that there are immediate answers to their questions and that programs and quality-of-life amenities are in place and ready to respond immediately to their needs.

We are called upon in student affairs, classically, to work with the out-of-classroom experience. I think it is passe to say that there is a classroom experience and an out-of-classroom experience. There is a holistic experience. So that expectation of immediacy exists in the classroom, in the residential facility, in the recreational facility, in the student union, etc.”
George Brown, University of Alabama

This means, Brown continues, that today’s physical campus needs to be seamlessly connected with technology. “You can’t have gaps,” he warns. “It is a fundamental expectation of today’s students and parents that technology can be delivered to them anywhere, at any time.”

George Brown is the University of Alabama’s executive director of university recreation and the assistant to the vice president of student affairs for strategic health and crisis planning. He is also a leading thinker on how residential and recreational facilities can map to and improve the student experience.

  • Where will the student live?
  • What services and quality-of-life amenities available?
  • Ease of services? (Is there a “one stop” approach?)
  • What is the availability of services across campus?

Lisa Ferreira, an associate architect at Goody Clancy, adds that she has seen the move toward a fully integrated student experience inspire some significant design changes in residential facilities on quite a few campuses in the last five years: “We have seen more faculty-in-residence units, more classrooms or other academic-support spaces integrated into residence halls.”

She elaborates: “For a long time, colleges and universities were building suites and apartments, because they had heard from students that that is what they wanted and what would attract them to live on campus, especially as upperclassmen. Student life professionals have felt the negative impact of the all-suite buildings in terms of how this design discourages the formation of community beyond the walls of the unit. As a result, in the last 2-5 years, universities have been developing projects with smaller personal space (i.e. within the unit), and instead the focus has been on the shared spaces such as lounges and studies.”

Bringing Together the Right People

“It is critical for good minds to come together from different areas on campus,” Brown advocates. “The error of omission is not including enough people at the table. Decisions on changing/modernizing/renovating the student residential experience have to be holistic. You need a lot of input to plan this well.”

Brown recommends making sure that these voices are present early in the conversation:

  • The leadership of student affairs — the vice president, the student union director, student health, student recreation, the director of housing, the leads for academic support initiatives, the director of the first-year student experience director.
  • Students — “You need to listen to students. We underestimate students’ ability to be introspective. Harness students’ incredible energy through surveys, focus groups, etc. Ask them what characterizes their student experience on campus. They will default to talking about parking and similar trouble points, but they’ll also talk about student groups and events, recreation, etc., and they will be honest. Draw on students who do work study, students who take part-time jobs in the dining facilities or student unions, students who are involved in intramural sports. Be intentional about gathering their input.”
  • Faculty — “This is not an us vs. them. We need early conversations with faculty because we want the residential experience and the learning experience to be interwoven.”

“When it comes down to the tough decisions, you need a smaller group. But to make informed and effective decisions, you need to first talk to the right people, and a lot of them, during the information-gathering stage.”
George Brown, University of Alabama

WHAT TO DO WITH AGING HOUSING STOCK AND A FINITE CAPITAL BUDGET

According to Lisa Ferreira at Goody Clancy: “The first priority would be to develop a housing master plan, where an institution would assess where it stands in terms of unit types, their sizes and distribution, the ratio of shared space to private space, and of course the condition of the buildings’ systems. This would also be the opportunity to establish long range goals for ‘where you want to be.’ With a clear and comprehensive programmatic vision, it becomes much simpler to prioritize expenditures and possibly identify opportunities for fundraising. A master plan could address issues such as swing space and could identify small interventions that could have a positive impact on residential life.”

For more about developing a housing master plan, check out this Academic Impressions article in which we interviewed David Jones, previous assistant vice president for student affairs at the University of Alabama and currently the associate vice president for student affairs and enrollment management at Minnesota State University Mankato.

When the Modern Recreational Facility is Much More Than Just a Gym

When it comes to improving the student experience, your recreational facilities are often an untapped resource, as well — though it may seem odd to say so. Typically, recreational facilities are seen as having a positive impact on recruitment, but Erik Kocher of Hastings+Chivetta Architects, Inc., suggests that the most significant impact may be tied to retention, not just recruitment. After all, Kocher points out, as more facilities come on line, the effect on college choice is diminished. “But while the cost and extravagance of campus recreation centers has been negatively portrayed by the media as a factor in the increased cost of education, administrators are finding regular student use of recreation facilities increases retention level and overall GPA.”

With this in mind, we asked Kocher to comment on the trends that, to his mind, have largely characterized the shift in design of campus recreational facilities over the past decade. He drew attention to three shifts in particular:

  1. Weights and fitness areas, Kocher notes, “continue to grow relative to all other activities found in recreation facilities. The increase in equipment size has contributed to some of this growth, but the majority stems from the expanding popularity of functional training. Additional area is required for the various training zone activities including TRX (Training Resistive Exercise), plyometrics, sled training, medicine ball work outs, and incline training.
  2. Increased inclusion of social spaces in recreation facilities. “Social ‘hang out’ space, quiet lounges and cafes are regularly included in new centers. Combined ‘hybrid’ recreation and campus centers are becoming more popular as a complete onestop student social hub for the campus.”
  3. Inclusion of wellness centers, student counseling services and health services. The new recreational facility design, Kocher emphasizes, offers opportunities “to approach student wellness from several different service opportunities and recognizes the strong mental and physical health connection among these amenities.”

As you consider designing recreation centers intentionally for an impact on student persistence and academic success, Kocher advises getting students themselves involved early in the design process: “Because most new student recreation centers are supported by student fees (not tuition), student campus leaders should always be involved with planning new recreation facilities. Unfortunately, this is often not the case for several reasons. Student classes and extracurricular activities compete with the planning meetings and student leaders can graduate long before projects are seen through to completion. Additionally, some institutions limit student involvement as a matter of choice. However, greater student involvement in planning recreation facilities usually leads to more creative and interesting centers.”

In this issue: