Running head: CAMPUS VISITS/ENVIRONMENTS

Campus Visits/Environment Paper EDLD 6545

Lisa Newhouse
Western Michigan University

CAMPUS VISITS/ENVIRONMENTS

Campus Visits/Environments
Learning, development, and growth of the whole student has been a guiding principle of
our profession since The Student Personnel Point of View (American Council on Education,
1937). However, for many years the focus was on the learning and development that occurred in
the environment of the extra-curricular. With our professions guiding document The Student
Learning Imperative (American College Personnel Association, 1994) there was a cultural shift
in our profession and the extra-curricular became the co-curricular, and learning, development,
and growth of the student was viewed as something that occurred in every environment that the
student participated in. Therefore, knowing how people occupy and interact with campus
environments-and how those environments influence people (Renn & Patton, 2011, p. 242) is
imperative if we want to create conditions in the environment that maximize the potential for
learning to occur. Strange and Bannings (2001) environmental framework consisting of four
constructs: physical, human aggregate, organizational, and constructed, can be useful when
analyzing campus environments.
In the past two months I have visited and toured three different institutions: womens
college, community college, and a religiously affiliated college. In this paper I will discuss
noteworthy differences and similarities that I observed amongst them, and how my preconceived
notions regarding the institutions were confirmed or challenged. I will then utilize Strange and
Bannings (2001) environmental constructs of physical, human aggregate, and organizational to
provide a short summary of a component of the constructed environment that I perceived to be
salient at each institution. Lastly, I will provide a personal reflection regarding administrative

CAMPUS VISITS/ENVIRONMENTS

skills I believe are necessary to work at these institutions and whether or not I see myself fitting
into these campus environments.
Differences and Similarities
Prior to visiting any of the institutions, I anticipated that St. Marys College and Calvin
College would be similar due to their religious affiliations; assuming that each would have a
strong adherence to the religious doctrine of their faith. According to Benne (2001), there is a
spectrum of religiously affiliated institutions somewhere between the poles of fully Christian
on one side and complete secularization on the other (p. 48). Although, St. Marys displayed
numerous physical artifacts in the environment such as plaques, art work, and statues that
illuminated their religious affiliation, there was an obvious absence of a religious dialogue
among the staff and student body, and I had the impression that they were distancing themselves
from a religious doctrine. Whereas at Calvin College the exact opposite was apparent, there were
minimal physical artifacts in the environment, with the exception of the chapel, that revealed the
religious affiliation. However the language utilized by staff and students was saturated with
religious overtones throughout the day, emphasizing their religious beliefs. My assumptions
regarding the religious affiliations were challenged by my observations, which confirmed the
presence of a religious spectrum that emphasized the differences amongst them.
An additional difference amongst all three institutions was highlighted through their
respective mission statements. Each statement clearly indicated who the institution served and
my observations confirmed that the human aggregate personified the mission statement for each
institution: St. Marys College an academic community developing the talents of women, Calvin
College preparing men and women to be Christs agents, and Kellogg Community College
(KCC) providing an education to all members of the community. Interestingly it was the mission

CAMPUS VISITS/ENVIRONMENTS

statement that also revealed the strongest similarity amongst the institutions, which was their
solid alignment with their mission statements. According to Kuh (2009), when an institutions
mission is clear and coherentmembers of various groups consistently use similar terms to
describe what their college is trying to do (p. 63). At all three institutions faculty, staff, and
students persistently utilized language consistent with their mission statement, prominently
indicating who they were and what they stood for. Based on readings from Where You Work
Matters: Student Affairs Administration at Different Types of Institutions (Hirt, 2006), I
suspected that all three institutions would have a high degree of congruency between their
espoused and enacted mission statements, however I was surprised how consistently it
corresponded to the constructed environments.
St. Marys Womens College
The constructed component of community; a community that looked after each other,
cared for one another, and was an extended family of sisters was prevalent to me during my visit
to St. Marys College. Initially, it was the physical signs that were throughout the outdoor
environment communicating the core values of the institution: learning, community,
faith/spirituality, and justice. These signs lined the walkways and were visible in every direction,
clearly indicating what the institution stood for. Throughout the visit I continued to see elements
relating to all the core values, however it was the value of community that continued to be
reinforced as the day progressed.
According to the concept of proxemics, the design of physical space and the social and
psychological aspects of physical space also communicate messages (Strange & Banning, 2001,
p. 21), and provide nonverbal cues regarding the behaviors that should occur in a space. A
notable observation at St. Marys was that with the exception of one lecture hall which held 45-

CAMPUS VISITS/ENVIRONMENTS

50 students, the classrooms were small accommodating approximately 15 students, and all the
chairs and tables were on wheels to promote close interactions. In addition, the common spaces
in the buildings were designed in clusters of small tables and seating areas with comfortable
furnishings surrounding them. Analyzing these spaces utilizing proxemics communicates the
message that the physical spaces were designed to encourage close group interactions, which
foster a feeling of belonging and ultimately lead to engagement and building of communities
(Strange & Banning, 2001).
The perception of community continued to be carried forward into the human aggregate
as well. It began with the assistant admissions director indicating that fostering relationships and
community was predominant. The theme of community continued with our student tour guide
who relayed a story about being driven to and from the bus station by a staff person in order to
go home, stating we care for each other and help one another, like family (Shelby Losco,
personal communication, September 30th, 2014). Throughout the day similar statements and
sentiments were echoed by staff from admissions, student involvement and multicultural affairs,
residence life, and campus ministries.
Organizational policies and procedures also contributed to the construct of community.
St. Marys has a 90% residential living status, which is largely due to a policy that requires the
students to live on campus for 6 terms. In addition, they encourage the students to identify with
their graduating class by keeping the freshmen together in a residential hall, and the upper
classmen in another hall. Moreover there are policies that allow students to access all classrooms
until midnight each night. Keeping the classrooms unlocked throughout the day and into the late
evening encourages students to gather and meet in them, which I observed during my visit.

CAMPUS VISITS/ENVIRONMENTS

These are all examples of policies and procedures that foster and promote the construct of
community.
Kellogg Community College
According to Renn and Patton (2011), a major mission of community colleges is to
create access to higher education for anyone who desires the opportunity (p.246). It is the
constructed component of accessibility that I felt was striking in the constructed environment at
KCC. Predominantly located at the top of the stairs by the student center is a monument
engraved with the following statement Education offers the greatest opportunity for really
improving one generation over another. For myself, this monument signified the value of an
education for everyone, and begins to outline the construct of accessibility that is present at
KCC. An additional element in the physical environment that continued to strengthen the
construct of accessibility was The Hub, which is a one stop environment that provides services
for admissions, financial aid, records and registration, academic advising, and support services.
Providing easy access to all the essential services that students may need in one location,
indicated to me that the institution values accessibility.
The verbal and non-verbal communication that was demonstrated by the human
aggregate manifested accessibility as well. At the beginning of our tour we viewed a
promotional video for KCC which repeatedly utilized language indicating that KCC consisted of
everybody, and everybody belonged here. In addition, we met with a student panel that was
noticeably diverse representing different races, nationalities, cultures, sex, age, and sexual
orientation; providing a non-verbal message that a broad array of individuals would be
comfortable in this environment. Each of the above examples illustrates a high degree of
accessibility among a wide spectrum.

CAMPUS VISITS/ENVIRONMENTS

Lastly, KCC admission policies indicate that KCC will admit any individual who is 18
years of age or older and has a high school diploma or a GED. According to Terah Zaremba,
Dean Student Service, there is no GPA requirement and they cant say no to anyone (personal
communication, October 17th, 2014). In addition, there is an open enrollment policy, which
allows students to be admitted and enroll in classes anytime during the calendar year, further
illuminating the construct of accessibility.
Calvin College
There is no question that Calvin College aligns itself strongly with its religious mission.
However in addition to the religious construct in the environment, there was an element equally
strong, which demonstrated the institutions connection to the liberal arts. It was the connection
to the liberal arts, which endorses free and independent thinking that was dominant and revealed
the constructed component of critical thinkers within the environment.
Environmental possibilism assumes that certain behaviors have probabilistic links to the
built environment (Strange & Banning, 2001, p. 14). It was this correlation between the design
of physical space and student behavior that I discovered during the campus tour. Throughout the
visit I noticed that the signage on campus was minimal and somewhat difficult to find. Initially I
viewed the lack of signage critically, however as the tour progressed the student guide provided
information that revealed the intentionality behind this design element. She indicated that until
recently there were not any signs on campus, in order to promote an actionable campus
(Kjhlajhi Sanford, personal communication, November 7th, 2014) which encouraged students to
stop and ask questions from those around them. Through the design of the physical environment,
Calvin College pushed its students to discover and learn independently strengthening the
construct of critical thinkers.

CAMPUS VISITS/ENVIRONMENTS

The construct was further illuminated by the human aggregate. Repeatedly throughout
the day, staff indicated that students were encouraged to explore, research, and make decisions
for themselves. When questioned whether something was mandatory for students, staff indicated
consistently that they prefer students make their own decisions. Furthermore they intentionally
designed programs that encouraged students to reflect, contextualize, and practice to stimulate
deeper learning. The construct of critical thinking was echoed by a student stating the professors
provide tools to explore...and discover for themselves (Chelsea Bischer, personal
communication, November 7th 2014).
Lastly the construct of critical thinking was revealed by the lack of policies and
procedures dictating behavior. Despite having strong religious affiliations there are no policies in
place dictating that the students attend chapel services. Chapel services are held five days a
week, but there are no rules mandating that students attend. In addition, there are no rules
against drinking for students who are of legal drinking age, preferring students make decisions
for themselves. In each instance, the college made a decision to promote free choice, which is
the cornerstone of critical thinking versus mandated behavior.
Conclusion
During each campus visit I found myself asking the question would I fit in this
environment? From an administrative viewpoint I believe I would be compatible in all three
environments. Based on my observations, many offices were short staffed or staffed by one
individual, requiring individuals who are self-directed and able to work independently. I also
noted that departments were frequently combined, providing an array of services requiring staff
members who could perform multiple roles. Being able to work independently and have a
variety of work is not only appealing, but it interconnects with my strengths. In addition,

CAMPUS VISITS/ENVIRONMENTS

developing relationships with students and staff was highly valued at each institution; which is
extremely important for me personally in a work environment. Therefore, on the surface all
three environments would appear to provide a fit for me. However, with deeper reflection I
realize that another key component for me is my fit with the institutions mission, which relates to
my foundation. According to Westfall (2011), match between institutional mission and personal
and professional values is essential (p. 65) and needs to be considered heavily. Although I
could embrace the mission statements of St. Marys College and KCC, I could not fully embrace
Calvin Colleges mission statement and therefore I do not believe this would be a good fit. Prior
to returning to higher education, I had worked as a professional for many years and was
cognizant of my need for congruency in my personal foundation and in the work that I perform.
It is the congruency that feeds my authenticity and going forward I believe the skills that I have
developed analyzing environments will be invaluable in determining whether or not an
institution will be a good fit for me personally and professionally.

CAMPUS VISITS/ENVIRONMENTS

10
References

American College Personnel Association. (1996). The student learning imperative: Implications
for student affairs. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.myacpa.org/sli/sli.htm
American Council on Education. (1937). The student personnel point of view. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/pub/documents/1937.pdf.
Hirt, J.B. (2006). Where you work matters: Student affairs administration at different types of
institutions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Kuh, G.D. (2009). Understanding campus environments. In G.S. McClellan, J. Stringer, &
Associates (Eds.), The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration (3rd ed., pp. 59-80).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Renn, K.A. & Patton, L.D. (2011). Campus ecology and environments. In J.H. Schuh, S.R.
Jones & S.R. Harper (Eds.), Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession (5th ed.,
pp. 242-256), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strange, C., & Banning, J. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning environments
that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Westfall, S.B. (2011). Success as a small college senior student affairs officer (pp.65-69). In
G. Dungy, G.J., & Ellis, S.E. (eds). Exceptional senior student affairs administrators
leadership. Washington, DC: NASPA.