This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
Student development is a very complex concept that attempts to encompass the variedways in which students grow and change during their collegiate experiences. Basic to the development concept is the notion that students "grow" in their capacity to make more differentiated responses to the challenges of their environments. Much has been written about the challenge and support dynamic that gives rise to the development, the ways the development proceeds through levels, stages, and positions, and the several theories and models which attempt to provide a framework of understanding. Rogers (1980), however, provides sufficient working definition of student development by simply stating, "Student development is a general name given to various attempts to foster the development of college students."
Among the many methods employed to foster student development, the use of the physical environment if perhaps the least understood and the most neglected. Because the interest and training of most student development personnel is almost entirely focused on "person" rather than "environment" or the ecological relationship of "person and environment," such shortcomings are to be expected (Banning, 1980). In addition, the importance of the physical environment in shaping the outcome of complex behavior can be questioned. Proshansky (1974) warns that the more complex the behavior the more likely it is that there will be a variety of influencing factors, many of which may be more potent than the physical environment.
However, Werhli (1968) states, "When enlightened as to the effects of the physical environment upon behavior, he designs by intent; but when ignorant of these effects, he designs by default." Not using the physical environment in concert with other methods to promote student development, however, is most likely due to unfamiliarity with environmental influence rather than a judgment that the physical environment is unimportant.
The physical environment can contribute to a college student's development in two important ways. First, the actual features of the physical environment can encourage or discourage the process of development. Second, the process of designing the physical environment can also promote the acquisition of skills at the core of student development.
The physical environment of our campuses includes the buildings, offices, and spaces in which students transact. This built environment gives out important non-verbal messages. Rapoport (1982) points out that messages stemming from the physical environment communicate appropriate behavioral choices and elicit emotions, interpretations, and transactions. For example, the entrance to a college union building can communicate a warm welcome or a "not welcome" message depending on its design. Seating arrangements in a lounge or dining area can either promote or inhibit social interaction. Likewise, messages of support can enhance the student's ability to cope with college stress. These support messages can take many forms. They can signal a sense of belonging, a feeling of being welcomed, and a sense of worth and value. If the physical structure is inaccessible, the message will not be one of welcome. If we allow the physical environment to become unsafe, how can the message of "we value you" ever be believably presented? The list of examples could continue but the point is that the messages of the physical environment can indeed enhance or detract from the process of student development.
A second way in which the physical environment can assist student development is by involving students in designing and redesigning the physical environment. The foregoing point was that the messages of the built environment, "the outcome of the design process," influence student behavior and development. The point here is that the designing and redesigning of an environment or space, "the process of design itself," also promotes student development. For example, students who participate meaningfully in a design or redesign effort become involved in complex analytical behavior, participate in leadership positions, engage in significant oral and written communication skills, and work in a group setting. Again the list can continue, but the behaviors at the core of student development are almost always called into play through student involvement in the design and redesign process.
References:
Banning, J.H. (1980). The campus ecology manager role. In U. Delworth & G. Hanson (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Proshansky, H.M. (1974). Environmental psychology and the design process. In J. Lang, C. Burnette, W. Moleski (D. Vachon (Eds.), Designing for human behavior. Stroundsberg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc.
Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaningof the built environment: A non-verbal communications approach. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Rogers, R.F. (1980). Theories underlying student development. In D. Creamer (Ed.), Student development in higher education: Theories, practices, and future directions. Cincinnati: American College Personnel Association.
Werhi, R. (1968). Open ended problem solving in design. Salt Lake City: University of Utah.
Editor's Note:
Please see the January 1986 ACU-I Bulletin which includes the above article as an introduction to a full application of the physical environment/student development concepts in the renovation of the Lory Student Center at Colorado State University. (Photographs of the new physical space are included).
Manuel R. Cunard is director of the Lory Student Center at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Given the complexity of educational institutions, it is quite reasonable, and useful, for them to be examined via an ecological approach. This point has been made articulately by Banning and Kaiser (1974). As pointed out by Banning and Kaiser and more recently discussed by Hobson-Panico et al. (19851, interactions within academic institutions can be viewed as a function of the constituent individuals and their environment. As a community, the institution is characterized by a set of complex interpersonal relationships, intermingled with a network of institutional relationships and hierarchies. While the institution has (and each member of the
community shares) a responsibility to foster the growth of its students and other trainees, this growth occurs within the context of changing institutional structures and attitudes. Thus, it has proven productive to examine educational institutions from an ecological or systems-oriented viewpoint.
In this context, the teaching hospital may provide an especially interesting and tractable model for examination of the ecology of educational institutions. In particular, the teaching hospital possesses the following characteristics:
1. It has multiple inter-related missions. These include patient care, research, and teaching. Moreover, the teaching hospital must work effectively with not only its patient population, but also with the community, government agencies, its teaching and support staff, and trainees at a variety of levels. This complexity alone provides a fruitful substrate for ecological analysis.
2. Many disciplines are interdigitated in the running of a teaching hospital. In academic terms, the institution may include basic science departments, (e.g. anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, etc.) as well as clinical departments, (e.g. medicine, surgery, pediatrics, etc.). These disciplines must be brought together in a cooperative manner. Thus, for example, the operating room may include a senior surgeon supervising an assistant surgeon, a resident, an intern, and a medical student or two. But there is also an anesthesiologist and there is a nursing
staff headed by a chief nurse and involving its own hierarchy. There may also be a variety of technicians who are part of other organizational hierarchies. All of these individuals (and the hierarchies that they represent) have to interact in a productive and smooth manner.
3. The teaching hospital includes several hierarchical ladders, each one characterized by its own tiered structure. Moreover, as in some other academic insitutions, the hierarchy can exhibit a considerable range along the vertical axis, extending from beginning undergraduates to internationally recognized scientists and physicians.
4. Within this community, there is a complex flow of communication, and a complex set of transactions. While there is an explicit hierarchical structure within the institution, the flow of information does not necessarily conform to this structure. Moreover, there is potential for complex, and in some cases conflictual transactions, that do not adhere to the hierarchical structure. For example, a new undergraduate, while junior to a graduate student, postdoctoral fellow or assistant professor, may interact directly with his/her professor.
5. Intra-institutional equilibria are constantly changing within the teaching hospital. Moreover, the institution is subject to a variety of forces which can perturb these equilibria, and introduce dysequilibration at a variety of levels. A well running laboratory group or operating room team is in a state of interpersonal, as well as organizational equilibrium. In some cases, the introduction of one new member into such a team, or a change in the activities or posture of an existing member, can alter this equilibrium.
6. The teaching hospital is highly dependent on external support systems, and these too can alter institutional equilibria. In this respect, clinical activities are in large part consumer-supported and consumer-driven. Research is largely supported by governmental and other public agencies. Teaching activities, while supported in part by the host institution, depend critically on clinical and research-related revenues. In fiscal terms, a very large proportion of the teaching hospital's budget is "soft". From an ecological point of view, this makes the teaching hospital especially susceptible to the influence of forces outside of itself, and magnifies the sensitivity of the institution to extra-institutional changes.
7. From the point of view of personnel, the teaching hospital is partially a "closed" system. In particular, there are more opportunities in the teaching hospital, than at other educational institutions, for trainees to remain within the system in a professional capacity. For example, it is not uncommon for a medical student to progress through internship and residency and then join the staff, all at a single institution. This provides the opportunity to study the trajectory of
individuals as they grow within the institution, and also provides a perspective on changing personal-institutional relationships.
A variety of analyses (Brody, 1973; Rosenberg, 1983) of teaching hospitals are available. However, to date, an ecological approach has not been explicitly taken. Recently, the ombudsman concept, which had previously been successfully implemented with the University setting (Mundinger, 1967; Eddy, 1973; Rowe, 1984), has been applied to teaching hospitals (Waxman et al., 1986a). As aptly pointed out by Hobson-Panico et al., (1985) the ecological perspective constitutes an important part of the ombudsman approach.
While the detailed characteristics of the interpersonal interorganizational, and personal-organizational interactions within teaching hospitals are still only partially understood in terms of systems theory, it has become clear that the ombudsman concept provides a useful and effective vehicle for interacting with members of the various constituencies, including students, staff, faculty and administration, within teaching hospitals (Waxman et al., 1986b). Moreover, this vehicle provides the opportunity to study interactions within, and between, these groups. It seems likely that, as the ombudsman concept is implemented at an increasing number of teaching hospitals, the transactional structure of these teaching institutions will be examined more closely. In this sense, it is not unreasonable to expect that over the next few years, teaching hospitals will provide a fruitful substrate for studying the ecology of academic institutions.
References:
Banning, J.H. and Kaiser, L. (1974). An ecological perspective and model for campus design. Personnel and guidance Journal, 52(6), 370-375.
Brody, H. (1973). The systems view of man: implications for medicine, science, and ethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 14(1) 71 -92.
Eddy, J.P. (1968). Campus ombudsman in American higher education, Kappa Delta Pi Record, 5, 34-35.
Hobson-Panico, P., Ahuna, L., & Hobson-Panico, S. (1985). Can ombudsmen influence organization effectiveness through the practice of campus ecology?. The Campus Ecologist,
3(4), 1-2.
Mundinger, D. (1967). The university ombudsman - his place on the campus. Journal of Higher Education, 38(9), 493-499.
Rosenberg, J. (1984). Life on the wards: one student's view. in Medicine as a Human Experience. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Rowe, M.P. (1984). The non-union complaint system at M.I.T.: an upward-feedback mediation model. Alternative to the High Cost of Litigation, 2(4), 10- 18.
Waxman, M., Vosti, K.L., & Barbour, A.B. (1986a). Role of the ombudsman in the modern medical center. Western Journal of Medicine (in press).
Waxman, M., Vosti, K.L., & Barbour, A.B. (1986b). Use of a medical center ombudsman's office by medical students. Journal of Medical Education (in press).
Editor's Note:
Merle Waxman is the ombudsman at Stanford University Center in Stanford, California. The Ombudsman's office address is 750 Welch Rd., Suite 314, Palo Alto, CA 94304.
"By coining the term counseling ecology, I am not attempting to introduce a new specialty to add to counseling psychology, clinical psychology, and counselor education, or to human ecology and social ecology. Heaven forbid-we have enough turf wars already to keep everyone busy! Yet I find the label a powerful one for trying to capture the thrust of what it means for a counselor to adopt an ecological frame of reference for practice, and, thus, to potentially redefine a professional focus." (Page 2-3) " . . . counseling ecology offers a compelling model for helping to improve both people and environments." (Page 11)
Conyne, Robert K. (1985). The counseling ecologist: Helping people and environments. Counseling and human Development, 18(2), 1-12.
Editor's Note:
For those of you who have made a 1986 NEW YEAR'S resolution to read the more significant books focusing on the concepts of behavior and environment, John Zeisel in his book Inquiry by Design (1981) offers the following list (page xiii):
Christopher Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form (1964)
Irwin Altman, The Environment and Social Behavior ( 1975)
Roger Barker, Ecological Psychology (1968)
Paul Bell et al., Environmental Psychology (1978)
David Canter, The Psychology of Place (1977)
Clare Cooper, Easter Hill Village (1975)
Roger Downs and David Stea (Eds.), Image and Environment (1973)
Leon Festinger et al., Social Pressures in Informal Groups (1950)
Herbert Gans, The Urban Villagers (1962)
Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), and Behavior in Public Places (1963)
Roberg Gutman (Ed.), People and Buildings (1972)
Edward Hall, The Hidden Dimension (1966)
Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961)
Christopher Jones, Design Methods (1970)
Jon Lang et al. (Eds.), Designing for Human Behavior (1974)
Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City (1960)
William Michelson, Man and His Urban Environment (1970)
Constance Perin, With Man in Mind (1970)
Harold Proshansky et al., Environmental Psychology (1970)
Amos Rapoport, House Form and Culture (1969)
Robert Sommer, Personal Space (1969)
Eugene Webb et al., Unobtrusive Measures (1966)
John Zeisel, Sociology and Architectural Design (1975)
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.