|
Student Affairs
Daniel Salter Penn State University Editor Stuart
Brown |
|
Fall 2000 Vol. 1, No. 3 |
|
|
||
|
Join our mailing list!
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Physical Features |
|
|
The physical features of a campus environment include both natural features such as geographic location, climate, terrain and manmade features such as buildings and open space. |
The web master chooses whether or not to include features of the campuses physical environment. If depicted on the site, the physical features of the environment can be carefully selected or edited. The climate and terrain can be "edited", for example showing only pictures taken in summer or fall. Pictures depicting the campus can focus on modern buildings or on more traditional architecture. Web-only features of the physical environment include the structure of the page, the images selected and the placement of and relationship of images to one another. The web page in effect replaces the physical environment. |
Human Aggregates |
|
|
Human aggregate as an environmental feature reflects the strength of environmental press, especially in a highly congruent environment. Human aggregate is best understand if we think in terms of campus "personality" or student culture. It is the human aggregate that largely determines a student's "fit" at a given institution. As an example, Astin identifies student types as follows: Scholars, Student Activists, Artists, Hedonists, Leaders, Status Strivers, Uncommitted. To the extent that one or more of these "types" predominates at the campus, the human aggregate element of the environment exerts a press to conform to the dominant type. |
The concept of human aggregates can best be understood using the assumption that dominant features of the environment are a reflection of the dominant characteristics of people within it. What will we infer about people based on the dominant images and text on the web site? |
Organizational Structures |
|
|
Organizational structure refers to the reporting and decision-making units of the institution. Dynamic systems are most often associated with successful educational experiences. Dynamic systems are characterized by high complexity (colleges, departments) and high value placed on quality (research, writing, prestige). Dynamic systems feature low centralization (independent colleges or departments) low formalization (collegial decision-making) , low stratification (few layers of authority), and efficiency (time lines for change in higher education). |
Campus organizational structures are apparent on the web, as each of the highly complex, decentralized units of the college presents a unique website. Though the web reflects the typical organizational structure of a college, this is often the least student-focused aspect of an institution of higher education. |
Constructed MeaningThe most difficult to define of the environmental components is constructed meaning. Essentially, the perception of environment is reality. The constructed meaning is the whole of all the parts, the impression that one constructs based on all individual components. Constructed meaning is one's impression of the culture, including, but not limited to assumptions about students, institutional values, and behavioral norms. |
|
|
Our constructed meaning comes from interactions with the environment. We form an impression based on physical artifacts, culture as conveyed through history and tradition, and behavior, such as celebrations and events. |
We create a constructed meaning from our website experience exclusively. The image conveyed through the web becomes the reality of the college for the web visitor. |
A simple approach to applying environmental theory to websites is to view the site and ask questions related to each element.
It can be helpful to create an analysis matrix to compare the goals of the site with each of the sites environmental elements. For each cell within the matrix, determine whether the environmental feature furthers the goals or mission of the site.
|
||
|
Environmental Elements |
|
|
|
Physical |
|
|
|
Human Aggregate |
|
|
|
Organizational |
|
|
|
Constructed Meaning |
|
|
For purposes of practicing our analytical skills, viewing campus homepages is particularly useful for two reasons.
The sites below were chosen as good examples from institutions with clear and unique missions and cultures. Or, in the case of Yale, as an example of overcoming a university organizational structure with user-friendly interface.
The Xavier University homepage offers an excellent example of a website's congruence with institutional mission and values.Mission Statement: Xavier University of Louisiana is Catholic and historically Black. The ultimate purpose of the University is the promotion of a more just and humane society. To this end, Xavier prepares its students to assume roles of leadership and service in society. This preparation takes place in a pluralistic teaching and learning environment that incorporates all relevant educational means, including research and community service.The Evergreen University site makes a clear statement about the human aggregate at the institution.
At Yale University, the unique navigation system makes the organizational structure more human scale and user friendly.
Looking Toward the Future
One of the most exciting things about technology and environmental theory is the new and growing reality of using technology to improve the educational environment. Again, from Strange's (1996) chapter in Student Services, effective educational environments have physical features that are enabling, human aggregate conditions that are reinforcing, and organizational structures that are dynamic. Technology is already improving each of those factors.
Through user-specific interfaces offered at University of Minnesota, UCLA (My UCLA), and from portal services like Mascot and CampusPipeline, students can control their own web-environment. Students are empowered to control this aspect of their college experiences and surround themselves with their own supportive human aggregate. It is the technological equivalent of painting your own residence hall room. A great way to enable and empower students.
The services above, or a simple redesign of existing sites, can also help students maneuver the "dynamic" yet unwieldy world of a comprehensive university. Rather than simply replicate the potentially confusing organizational structure of an institution, the website can offer user-specific services from menus written in language which reflects the needs of the user.
The looming question is how these technological advances will impact the outcome of student experience. Currently, we can simply apply our existing theories to technology and assume some similarity of experience. It will require both time and research to confirm which current theories translate and to define new theories specific to technological delivery of student services.
Boyer, E.
(1987). College: The undergraduate experience in
America. New York: Harper
& Row, Publishers.
Keeling,
R.P. (1999) The Merger of Life and Learning in the New
Academy. Net Results. (On-line) Available: http://www.net-results.org/members/archive/keeling.cfm
Moffatt,
M. (1988). Coming of age in New Jersey: College and
American culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Strange,
C.C. (1996). Dynamics of campus environments. In S.R.
Komives & D.B.,Woodard, Jr. (Eds.). Student services:
A handbook for the profession (pp. 244-269). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft,
M. L., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Looking beyond the
horizon: Trends shaping student affairs: Technology.
ACPA Senior Scholars Conference Presentation. Available
online at: http://www.acpa.nche.edu/seniorscholars/trends/trends5.htm