Campus Ecological Environments

All the activities that occur within an institution of learning form the learning environment that plays a vital role in the moral and professional development of the students. Daily, students interact with various components of the learning environment, and the components include the psychological, social, physical and educational context

The learning environment dictates why, how, and what the student learns, and this indicates it has a very strong impact on their overall educational achievement. There are other student factors affected by the learning environment such as the learning degree effectiveness and enthusiasm levels. Several studies have proven there is a connection between the learning environment and overall student success, satisfaction and achievement. (Bakhshialiabad, Bakhshi & Hassanshahi, 2015; Lizzio, Wilson & Simons, 2002).Similarly, students who perceive their learning environment negatively are bound to have poor educational outcomes as compared to those who perceive it positively.

There are various tools developed by scholars across the globe to study the impact of the learning environment on student academic success. However, the most widely used tool is the Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM). The DREEM allows for educators, scholars and researchers in pointing out any form of deficiencies within a learning environment (Bakhshialiabad et al., 2015). The tool uses an intervention and control group in coming up with findings of the learning environment. The findings by the tool are used in improving the overall educational efficacy and solving of educational problems. Bakhshialiabad et al. (2015) state that a large number of medical schools and campuses across the globe have used the DREEM tool in improving their learning environments.

Ecological Environments

Urie Bronfenbrenner developed the ecological theory on human development. Bronfenbrenner believed that various environmental systems have an impact on general human development. However, Bronfenbrenner’s works were based on previous researches on human development, which began during the late 1800s (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). According to Bronfenbrenner, the general ecological model consists of two major propositions. The first proposition states that an active, evolving biopsychological human being interacts with the complex and immediate environment progressively throughout phases of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). The interaction between the human and the immediate environment, in this case, is what forms the proximal processes. The second proposition states that the proximal processes’ direction, content, power and form have a systematical impact on the overall human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). These processes are dependent on the immediate and remote environment the human being is living in.

According to Bronfenbrenner, in case of a poor environment, the overall development of human being is negatively affected (1994). A perfect example would be in the case whereby a child brought up in low social class setting will have poor academic attainment as compared to one brought about in a higher social class facility. The social class is what forms the environment the child was brought up. The microsystem is made up of the developing individual’s interpersonal relations, social roles and activities that none has with the immediate environment such as peer groups, school, family and workplace (Bronfenbrenner,1994; Renn,2003). The mesosystem is a system of different microsystems represented by the relationships between a developing individual’s two or more settings (Renn, 2003). The exosystem is made up of the developing person microsystems, which are involved but not directly embedded. A macro-system includes the overall norms, value and beliefs that result from religious, socio-economic and religious backgrounds

The analysis of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory highlights that the developmental process of a human being is divided into four defining components; time, process, context and person. Interaction between all the above components is what will determine the development of a person. Therefore, basing on the Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, the role of any educational institution is to help a student in solving any adjustment issues that might exist in their learning environment. For all student within a college or institution of higher learning, development is a crucial element as they are all transitioning from one point to another, such as career development (Banning, 2016). The institution must support the student until they attain maturity. It is, therefore, important for educators and policymakers to have an awareness of the ecological environment influence the development of the students. The educators and policymakers’ must ensure that they have in place measures and mechanisms that will allow for the creation of campus environment that appropriately meets the educational needs of the students hence leading to their overall success.

Banning (2016) state that the most powerful methodology for influencing human behavior is by re-organizing the environment. Initially, a substantial number of educators and educational policymakers thought that by setting conditions that attract and retain students is key for improving their learning outcomes. However, according to Banning (2016), education should be offered indirectly through the environment and nor directly. Educational setting that has been developed using a clear and concise understanding of human environment and development dynamics and impacts will bring about fruitful efforts, as they will allow students to attain higher educational success. It is thus evident that the ecological surrounding of an institution is a crucial determinant of student success as it affects overall human development. It is the duty of the educational institutions to foster an environment that supports human development.

The Physical Environment

From the accessibility to architecture, a campus environment becomes part of the student educational experiences as it influences their behavior and perception. Strange & Banning (2015) cite that the integration and retention of any student are improved or hindered by the interaction one will have with the environment. Place is a critical aspect of the physical environment and it has an influence student behavior within the campus environment. The place does not just comprise of the built environment, including sidewalks and buildings but also the people-made artifacts and objects. The interactions between the person-to-person and person-to-place are what determines the place concept. By having a sense of place, the overall educational outcome of students within a campus can greatly improve. More importantly, a sense of place leads to an increased rate of motivation, attention and retention. Various activities within a campus such as Homecoming events are known to leave long-lasting impacts on the lives of the students. The campuses and colleges should be designed in such a manner that they allow students to develop strong feelings and belonging and attachment. The built environment of the campus represented by sidewalks, buildings, laws and designs of the buildings has a powerful role to play in student academic achievement. The place has an impact on the satisfaction and attraction rates of students.

Strange & Banning (2015) state that the physical environment represented by the buildings also helps in shaping a human being. This is evidenced in the case whereby, a campus that has well-built and designed hallways and doors, it brings about neat and perfect traffic flow. This shows that walking behavior is shaped by the design of the doors and hallways. However, students at times do not tend to follow the physical designs of the campuses and rearrange them, to meet their needs, such as removing bicycle racks. It is clear that to understand student behavior, defining the campus environment is important in the form of the location, layout and arrangement of space.

The connection between places on campus with other places is crucial in creating a sense of place. There are four different types of institution basing on the concept of place building which highlights their relationship of the larger environment; contingent, exploitive, contributive and transformational. Transformational institutions regard themselves as being the larger community change agents are thus interdependent with the community (Strange & Banning, 2015). Contributive institutions regard themselves as having the well-being of the larger community at heart. Contingent institutions view themselves as having little obligation to the overall community while exploitive institutions have no obligation to the larger community (Strange & Banning, 2015). Therefore, through place building and how institutions consider themselves, will also determine the inter-relationship between the students and the campus environment, such as academic departments and faculty.

Place has symbolic and functional meaning to students within a campus. The location of a place can determine its accessibility despite its function being incorrect. Campus environment thus sends symbolic messages to students, and the people can interpret them differently (Strange & Banning, 2015). The functionality of the campus environment will thus communicate various non-verbal messages to the students, and in most cases, they are ambiguous and contradictory (Strange & Banning, 2015). The physical environment can, therefore, send negative messages to the student, and this will end up affecting their overall academic success.

The Aggregate Environment

The aggregate environment is based on the principle that human beings are the transmitters of environments. However, the most dominant features of the environment that are transmitted by an individual form only a partial function of the entire environment (Strange & Banning, 2015). One of the most pivotal need for a student within a learning institution is achieving an early sense of belonging. The formation of relationships will determine the overall success of any student, not only academically but also in life. Through relationships, a student’s overall experience is shaped. Relationships will determine the sports that student will play, the courses they will take, their majors, and whether on will grow ethically and professionally.

The people who reside within its boundaries determine the dynamics of any given environment. These crucial human traits will determine the ability of the environment to retain, attract and satisfy new or existing members. Therefore, in campuses, the various academic departments will determine whether they will retain, attract and satisfy their students. An example is seen in the case whereby campuses that are dominated by a single ethnic group can be challenging and thus will not be able to attract, retain and satisfy all the people especially for those who do not share similar traits like the dominant group.

Strange and Banning (2015) state that there have been numerous studies carried out to determine the impact of human aggregates on campuses and colleges, Strange & Banning (2015) states that the characteristics of people can be categorized into six conventional, enterprising, social, artistic, investigative and realistic. Therefore, through an assessment of the traits, those with similar traits can survive in one environment as compared to those sharing dissimilar traits. Moreover, the human social environment can either reinforce or change various vocational personalities. The six personality types described by Holland are what forms the basis for understanding the overall human environments (Strange & banning, 2015). Differences in human personality can allow one in having a comprehension of the learning styles, interrelations and occupational interests.

Engagement Types

The student usage of time within a campus environment is the main measure of engagement or involvement. Collectively observable traits such as how they engage in-group discussions outside classrooms and the number of student-faculty interactions also determine their academic interests and intellectual abilities (Strange & Banning, 2015). Disengaged students are bound to score below average in academic activities and socialization with peers as compared to those who are highly engaged. Strange and Banning (2015) notes that a collaborative type of institution is one that allows the students to have ample time with peer-to-peer interactions that are also supported by technology. The students’ also have a reasonable amount of time to contact their faculty, including other aspects of campus, which are viewed as being supportive.

Therefore, the human aggregate model is vital in the creation of a perfect campus environment as it can offer educational advantages and attainment for students. The major hurdle for most campus students is developing personal identity. The human aggregate environments allow for campuses to developed residential setting, special student centers and student organizations. There is a need to ensure that aggregate environments are created in campus environments to make sure that even the underrepresented students can overcome the significant difficulties facing diversification of institutional profiles.

Organizational Environments

In campus, getting organized is important, and it shapes and influences the behavior of the campus services, student groups, students in residence halls, faculty in classroom and academic departments and administrative unit staff. An organized environment is one that adheres to a strictly planned, systemic and organized structure. Every organization has been constructed to attain specific goals and objectives, and without adhering to a set structure, it cannot fully accomplish its goals. All learning institutions are organizations whose sole goals are to educate students, disseminate and construct knowledge and to serve the community. According to Strange and Banning (2015), organizations have three key characteristics; divisions of power, labor and communication responsibilities, availability or one or more power centers and substitution of personnel.

Campuses and colleges thus exhibit all these three organizational characteristics as its academic departments are organized, and the staff have reporting procedures basing on one’s roles and responsibilities. The campus and college must also meet certain set institutional goals and objectives. Some procedures allow for procedural review of staff performances, and this determined whether one would become demoted, promoted or fired. 

As an organized environment, the campus must have a clear mission and vision statement that drives its ability to attain the overall goals. However, in case some boundaries cut the vision, mission, power and resources, the organization lacks functionality as it becomes disorganized. It is vital for an organized environment to have centralization of decision-making abilities. This is by determining who has the power to make various decisions. More importantly, rewards are important in organized environments as they will act as motivators and boost the morale of the people present within the environment.

Socially Constructed Environments

The environmental press, culture and climate of any environment are what determines the perceptions the people living within it will develop which in turn influences their attitudes and behaviors. Socially constructed environments are very different from the physical, aggregate and organizational environments. Constructed environments are based on the perceptive that people develop and grow within themselves. Strange and Banning (2015) state that for one to fully understand how people will react to their environment, it is important to first determine their worldviews on the environments from outside and observers and inside participants. The construct, perception and evaluation of a particular environment are determined by the level of attraction and satisfaction that people have concerning a particular environment.

The environmental press refers to the perceptions about a particular environment as laid down by those who live within the environment. A consensual report of activities by the environment’s participants and observers can help in measuring the environmental press of a particular environment (Strange & Banning, 2015). Within a particular environment, the social climate determines the effects and nature of p different environmental personalities as viewed by the participants. The social climate consists of three main domains; relationship dimension, personal growth and development dimensions and system maintenance and change dimensions. Each of the three dimensions varies depending on the type of environment, and each dimension has specific impacts on the participants and observers living within an environment.

Strange and Banning (2015) state that another means of understanding constructed environments within learning institutions is by focusing on the campus culture. The culture reflects the people’s thoughts, beliefs, assumptions and values. Understanding culture can help one in determining the meaning of events and actions within any environmental setting. The character any given university or college is shaped by its assumptions, values, campus traditions and influence of institutional history. By understanding these various culture facets, students become aware of what is required of them and what is considered as ”acceptable behavior”.

It is evident that by understanding the campus culture, environmental press and social climate, one can determine the nature of campus environment. The three constructs determine the perceptions that students within the campus develop and thus a key source of having an awareness of the student behaviors and attitudes.

Problem Identification

The major problem at the campus is that the student center building is located very far away from the students. The student career center is very important in their academic success. Especially related to making better career-related choices. The career center is thus one of the most important centers within a campus, as it will help a student in envisioning and planning. Professionals who have specifically been trained to help students as they hold master’s degrees in counseling or closely related fields staff the career center. The staff at the center can also work closely with some of the organizations that will hire the students upon completion of their higher education studies. The career center is also a better place for students to meet and interact with other students who share similar career objectives and thus leading to the formation of better academic related relationships.

Another major issue at the campus is the poor relationship between the career center staff and the students. The staff at the center must have positive and strong relationships with students if they would want to assist them. This has brought about poor relationships between the students and the staff at the career center. In case students need the staff to help them, they are always not available. Moreover, the staff who always went out of their way to assist the students have stopped as they have become bored and feel they have already done enough.

Theoretical Perspective

Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement

According to this theory, the more involved learners are in the academic and social aspects of college life, the more they are likely to attain academic success. The involvement of students includes being part of the college organizations, devoting more of their time studying, spending time with peers and interacting with faculty members from various departments (Long, 2012). Similarly, Astin cited that the availability of quality programs and resources within colleges is crucial as it allows the student to become actively involved. Students, who invest a substantial amount of their time in campus life and academic life, have a higher academic achievement as they are more physically and emotionally invested in the results. However, the inability of campus to offer quality services and programs, the student will not become involved. The lack of faculty members, professionals and other students to become involved in campus activities makes it hard for students to involve themselves in campus life. Long (2012) states that Astin encourages campuses to ensure they have in place mechanism to ensure the students are directly involved in campus life, which boosts their overall academic success.

Tinto’s Theory of Student Departure

Tinto argued that the poor interactions students have with the university or college is what makes a higher number of them to leave these institutions without earning degrees. The students who join universities and colleges have unique needs such as different ethnic backgrounds, diverse social-economic backgrounds and reason for higher education (Long, 2012). This can lay down a foundation for increased conflicts between the students and colleges and universities. The major causes of student departures result from low commitment levels with university and colleges, academic problems and lack of integrating intellectually and socially with the college and university culture (Long, 2012). Tinto called for colleges and universities to increase opportunities for faculty/student and informal student interaction and extracurricular activities.

Ecological Environment Relationships with Current Problem

Strange and Banning (2015) state that the physical setting is a crucial requirement for attaining overall student success. The physical environment does not include the build structures but also the people objects within a campus. The career center is part of the building dimensions of “Place” according to Strange & Banning (2015). The career center is described as being asocial learning environment allows for collaboration, peer-to-peer interactions and engagements between students and faculty members. A social learning space that offers students an ability to interact and discuss their career goals, read and relax is described as being an ambient social space. The physical designs of such places can either promote or inhibit social interaction. A career center is thus a place, which supports informal learning for the students through its ability to connect the student to faculty members and peer who might share similar career choices (Strange & Banning, 2015).

However, the career center at the campus does not fully meet the place requirements highlighted by Strange and Banning (2015). One of the most important concepts that define a perfect place is accessibility. No student would want to get lost or not be able to get to a certain point due to distance. Wayfinding involves very important aspects; using signs and various communication techniques to show direction and ease of getting to where one wants. A place that matches these aspects is regarded as being user friendly. A perfectly designed physical environment would allow the students to easily know where they are getting to and easily reaching the points without any struggle s (Strange & Banning, 2015). Disorientations and difficulties associated with way-finding are considered as being highly stressful as they bring about insecurity, low self-esteem and insecurity (Strange & Banning, 2015). Therefore, with a poorly designed physical environment, the students will not access the career center, and they will lack the ability to making informed decisions about their future career choices.

Moreover, the cornerstone of every individual is having access to quality education. However, having motivational and engagement tools will improve the overall outcomes of education. Motivation is not intrinsic to some students, and this is where a need arises for having in place people who can guide students on their educational and career paths. It is the duty of educators and other professionals within an intuition of learning to build and nurture an inclination for learning. One of the greatest predictors of academic engagement and achievement is the relationship that is developed between students and their educators and other professionals within the learning institution (Banning, 2016). Students who feel their teachers are supportive will most likely have higher educational attainment levels. In order to ensure this is enabled, the learning environment is important as it natures the growth and development of this student engagement and interest. A student who feels actively engaged with the faculty members will develop a vigor for learning.

Strange and Banning (2015) state that the human aggregate environment is responsible for the existence of relationships between students and their peer, faculty and community. However, in the case of the campus, a major problem is poor relationships between the career center staff and the students. The students are generally upset every time they visit the career centers, and there is no one to assist them in making informed career choices. Some of the staff have also given up on taking time to go and assist the student in making informed career choices.

Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement asserts that the more engaged learners are in the social and academic aspects of college life, the more they are likely to attain academic success. The involvement of the student is not only linked to their relationships with peers but also other aspects of the campus such as faculty member, academic departments and educators. In this case, the relationship is very poor, and thus this is bound to affect their overall academic success. Tinto’s Theory of Student Departure also supports the fact that poor relationships in campus and colleges lead to higher rates of student departures. Strange & Banning (2015) also state that the Kolb Theory of Experiential Learning can be used in determining academic environments such as classrooms, academic departments and majors effects on the human aggregates.

Similarly, engagement is a crucial element of the aggregate. Strange and Banning (2015) found out that highly disengaged students have very low academic attainment and poor socialization with their peers. Therefore, there is a poor engagement between the students at the campus and the career center staff. This is bound to lead to academic achievement, as they will have low scores. The socialization of the student with peers will also be poor in the end.

Change and Innovation Strategies

Brown (2019) states that people have always thought that innovation supported by technology brings about strong and positive change outcomes. However, this is not the case, as people should focus on new means of supporting change and innovation. The innovation approach should be one that can be integrated into all aspects of society and business, which result in the generation of better ideas. Innovation supported by a design thinking process helps in tapping into overlooked capacities. One develops an ability to create processes that will remain forever etched in society and business, as they do not become obsolete as time progresses.

Human beings can adapt to physical spaces that fit their needs due to design, planning and architecture. It is important for designers to understand how interactions between people and their environment affect them before coming up with changes aimed at improving the processes. Renn and Patton (2011) states that before implementing changes in campus, it is vital for designers to have a full awareness of the campus ecology. This involves studying the affiliation between the campus environment and the students (Banning, 2016). From the above case scenario at the campus, the relationship between the campus environment and students is negatively affected because of the physical and aggregate environments. The aggregate human environment revolves around the poor interactions between the persons in the campus environment; in this case, the students and career center staff (Renn & Patton, 2011; Banning, 2016). The physical environment is made up of human-built environments in the form of buildings and other natural elements and artifacts.

According to the ecological theory by Bronfenbrenner, as student experience life within their learning environment, which contributed to their overall academic success. The campus environment has numerous settings and systems that the students interact with. The settings that allow for student interactions at campus form the mesosystem and these include the career centers, family members, friends, faculty and classrooms. The mesosystem consists of the relationships between two or more microsystems (Renn, 2003). In this case, the career center can qualify as a microsystem within a student environment. However, the outreach abilities of a career center can form the microsystem, microsystem and ecosystem. Through having direct interactions with the students, the career center becomes a microsystem. However, the career center can interact with other systems such as faculty and parents and students interacts with them, and they become part of the mesosystem.

By developing outreach programs at the campus, they will enable the career staff to connect with students outside the career center office settings. However, outreach does not have to be a face-to-face meeting with students as it can involve even a simple activity such as sending students’ emails and responding to the emails about their career choices. However, the outreach programs should not just be directed towards the career center but should involve other systems such as faculty and parents, which will broaden the microsystem into a mesosystem. Outreach programs should be a shared responsibility, and this brings about a collaborative atmosphere within campus. Renn and Patton (2011) cite that through design thinking, the designers of change ensure that their strategies of innovation spread to other settings. An outreach that allows for a collaborative relationship between departments at the university will ensure that other departments and faculties adopt an outreach program that will improve overall student outcomes. For the career center to have an awareness of the new students, it must work in collaboration with the student registration department. By turning the outreach programs into a shared responsibility with the overall educational community, it will turn the campus into a collaborative institution.

The campus environment is crucial determinant of overall student academic success. The campus environment consists of various systems as outlined by Bronfenbrenner and this includes the microsystem, mesosystem, microsystem and exosystem. The interactions between these system components of vital in boosting the overall student success. The main problem identified at the campus environment is a far location of career building and poor relationships between career center staff and the students. This affects the campus’s physical and aggregate environments. The Astin Theory on Student Involvement and Tinto’s theory on Student Departure require that a campus environment should be one that fosters good relationships between students and professionals’ faculty and academic departments. At the campus, a design thinking innovation will allow for the creation of an outreach career center that will help improve student academic outcomes.

References

Bakhshialiabad, H., Bakhshi, M., & Hassanshahi, G. (2015). Students’ perceptions of the academic learning environment in seven medical sciences courses based on DREEM.  Advances in Medical Education and Practice ,  6 , 195.

Banning, J. H. (2016).  Campus ecology and university affairs: History, applications, and future.  Colorado: Terra Cotta Publishing.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International encyclopedia of education , vol. 3, 2nd. Ed. Oxford: Elsevier. Reprinted in: Gauvin, M. & Cole, M. (Eds.), Readings on the development of children , 2nd Ed. (1993, pp. 37-43), New York: Freeman

Brown, T. (2019). Change by design, revised and updated: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation . New York: Harper-Collins.

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students' perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice.  Studies in Higher education ,  27 (1), 27-52.

Long, D. (2012). Theories and models of student development. In L. J. Hinchlie & M. A. Wong (Eds.), Environments for student growth and development: Librarians and student affairs in collaboration (pp. 41-55). Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries

Renn, K. (2003). Understanding the identities of mixed-race college students through a developmental ecology lens. Journal of College Student Development. May/June, 44 (3), 383-403

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 (pp. 242-269). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Strange, C.C. & Banning, J.H. (2015). Designing for learning: Creating campus environments for student success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.