Creating a Higher Education Facility Post-Occupancy Evaluation that Considers the Contemporary Student (with Deference to the Sub-population of Arts and Design Students)(COPYRIGHT © 2011 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)-DRAFT
Introduction
Concerns about the effectiveness of buildings and methods of their evaluation were traditionally addressed in research (especially the environment- behavior studies of environmental psychologists beginning in the 1970s as documented in 2006 and 2007 by Pol) and by an architectural assessment called a Post-Occupancy Evaluations or POE (Preiser, Rabinowitz & White, 1988). In the latter, evaluation criteria are generally determined apart from the users of the space. Increasingly, building evaluations are highlighting strengths and deficiencies by modifying the framework of conventional POE models. I propose that the common contemporary post-occupancy evaluation, framed by the institutional authority and charged to find a quantitative answer to building performance is inadequate to gauge the experience of the built environment by the users of the space – the faculty and students. Political, social and cultural aspects of the environment – the personal truths experienced by each individual are not voiced within conventional POEs. This concern is especially cogent when one considers the evaluation of a new post-secondary arts or design school within the purview of a larger university and administration. Therefore, a revised document must be developed to evaluate the building in alignment with the values of the users of the school.
In the following, I review the traditional method of post-occupancy building assessment. Secondly, I outline that which is valued by contemporary college students in regard to their educational experience as derived by survey information and research. Thirdly, I offer how that contrasts or coincides with the subpopulation of arts and design students. Finally, I provide concluding remarks.
The Traditional Method of Assessment A Post-occupancy evaluation is a common, thorough, methodical way of evaluating the room or building after it has been in use. A POE is very much a progressive document and relatively contemporary method (originating around the 1960s in America) to determine whether architectural decisions made by design professionals are delivering the performance intended as evaluated by those who use the building. These assessments provide several benefits including the identification of spatial problems and successes, the opportunity for user involvement and the establishment of prototypical spaces. Preiser, Rabinowitz and White (1988) describe the intent of a POE: as “to compare systematically and rigorously the actual performance of buildings with explicitly stated performance criteria; the difference between the two constitutes the evaluation” (pp. 3, 4). Since the latter 1980s in America, the performance method concept has been widely employed as the foundation of the evaluation. Performance criteria are usually developed by the university administration (in response to their goals for the institution); the post-occupancy evaluator determines performance measures (Please see appendix A for an example of a simple evaluation form).
Performance measures are either quantitative or qualitative. Some aspects of the building examination e.g., the amount of lighting or the performance of building elements and mechanical systems are computable and comparative. Characteristics of the analysis that solicit user opinions of security, comfort, aesthetics, etc. are qualitative portions of the evaluation.
It is important to note the subjectivity of the process (see Figure 1 for an illustration of the Performance model). Actual building ratings are dependent upon the performance criteria developed by university administrators. The performance, derived directly from values the university deems important, are not necessarily the values of the evaluator or the primary users of the space. Moreover, the building evaluation
result is reliant upon the goals of the evaluator and the performance measures developed to test the criteria.
In addition, since the performance criteria and performance measures are not developed by the users, it is important to critically consider the consequences of false positive or false negative ratings. If an evaluation of a university space is inaccurate, then who will gain and who will loose? Thus, a major concern about the effectiveness of traditional post-occupancy evaluations is that the institution often commissions the POE. Values of the school administration frame the evaluation (Preiser, Rabinowitz & White, 1988) and the university hierarchy itself serves as the primary recipient of the information (Hewitt, et al. 2005). Therefore, it is important to understand the chief users of the facility- the students, and determine that which is valued by the student population when one develops the building evaluation.
Demographic information on typical college students
Who are the contemporary students in general?
When considering the makeup of students in post-secondary educational institutions it is important to distinguish between assumptions of student populations by the institution, student assumptions about their educational experience, and the actual demographic statistics concerning college coeds.
Many research studies have verified the general disparity between the institutions expectations and assumptions of college students and actual conditions. Barefoot (2000) describe how the institution’s expectations are highlighted in the design of programs developed to stop the attrition of freshman in universities. Many of the administrators still had the view of incoming freshmen as similar to when they had attended college many years previous. Barefoot (2000) noted that the foundation of those programs still had “the same basic structure that was designed for a population of white, middle- or upper-class males who constituted the vast majority of college students until the last two decades of this century”(p.12).
But, students too, have assumptions about their future educational life and support that are not in line with their subsequent experience. The College Student Experiences Questionnaire Assessment (CSEQ) and the College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSEQ), both administered by the Center for Postsecondary Research, examine the amount of effort students expend in their post-secondary education and student goals, respectively. Findings indicate that students, who thought they would never use the library as a silent place to study, actively did so more than three times as much as expected; likewise, students who thought they would use the library to study often, actually used it half as much.
In reality, there are several facts about student college populations, especially in regard to race, age, gender, politics, volunteerism, and alcohol use.
The US Census Bureau reports the rising number of non-white citizens in the United States. By the year 2051, Whites will be about half the population, with Hispanics at a quarter and African Americans about 15%. This represents a reversal of the positions of Hispanic and African Americans since 1980. Likewise, the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2009) reports increasing enrollment of minority students: “In 1976, 15 percent were minorities, compared with 32 percent in 2007. Much of the change from 1976 to 2007 can be attributed to rising numbers of Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander students…The percentage of Black students was 9 percent at the beginning of the time period and it fluctuated…before rising to 13 percent in 2007” USDENCES, 2007.
The number of male and female coeds has changed since the early to mid nineteen seventies. At that time males outnumbered females, but the male population was rising at a low rate. The number of female students on campus in second and fourth year post-secondary institutions overtook the male students around 1977. Since then, the rate of female students has increased, widening the gap between male and female students on campus. (See figure 2 below).
The traditionally aged student (18 - 24 years old) currently makes up about 59.4% of the total college enrollment. That number is expected to grow at 16% until 2014. When one considers undergraduate students, only 67.3% were 24 years old or younger in 2003. In contrast, in 1970 69.2% of all enrollments were by traditional-aged students (NCES, 2005). It is likely that growth in student populations of 25 – 29 year old college students is from recent graduates continuing on to higher degrees.
Nowadays 32.9% of in-coming college students label the political scene in America as “very important” compared to the lowest recorded the involvement of 28.1% in 2000 or 31.4% in 2002. The number of freshmen calling themselves “conservative” increased from 20.7% to 21.3% between 2000 and 2002; and those identifying themselves as “liberal” decreased from 29.9% to 27.8% in that same time frame. Students claiming to be centrists grew slightly from 49.5% to 50.8% between 2000 and 2002.
Volunteerism for college students has increased to the highest level recorded at 82.6% currently. The all time low was 66% in 1989.
While the medium a portrait college students and it’s being unbridled partiers, statistics indicate a decline in beer drinking to 46.5% in 2002, the lowest recorded record. The highs record was 73.7% in the early 1980’s. Likewise, consumption of other alcoholic beverages is down as well.
What comprises the general contemporary student and what does him or her value?
To examine the complexity of the typical college student it is useful to consider general student characteristics to examine contemporary coed values and expectations and review the psychological makeup of students.
Every generation can be characterized by their lived experience and similar traits (Coomes & DeBard, 2004), (Coomes, 2004). The generation of students currently in college was largely born in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s in an area labeled as the “Millennial’s”. Besides sharing similar traits they also have a shared history. This generation, the largest in U.S. history, grew up with MTV and has a deal with the aftermath of 9/11 as adolescents or young children. In regards to student values toward education, administration, and evaluation, deBard (2004) characterizes the Millennial generation as cherishing a committed loyalty to institutions, a system in which there is accountability and feedback on demand. (See Table 1 which compares values between generational traits). Likewise, Richard Sweeney, University Librarian, New Jersey Institute of Technology, 2006 indicate that contemporary students value more flexibility for their convenience and more options to choose.
When considering the whole student, Perry (2003) informs that "the first year of college is a transitional period in students' lives in which psychological control is diminished or undermined due to the emphasis on success/failure, heightened academic competition, increased pressure to excel, frequent academic failures, unfamiliar academic tasks, new social networks, and critical career choices" (p. 316). Perry and other researchers have studied the effects of the location of perceived control- whether students felt that their educational outcomes were controlled by them or beyond their control. Lavender, et. al (2010) showed that the typical student exhibited better “task-persistence, affect , motivation, and creativity” (p211) when they had an enhanced attribution of personal control.
Who is the typical students in the subpopulation of Arts and Design coeds and how does that contrasts or coincides with the larger population?
The Higher Education Arts Data Services Art And Design Data Summaries (HEADS) 2009-2010 solicits information from American post-secondary arts and design schools. Their findings indicate that:
A. Nine post-secondary arts and design institutions graduated a total of 396 Doctoral Students. Among these were:
3 Black, non-Hispanic male
6 Black, non-Hispanic female
1 American Indian or Alaskan Native males
2 American Indian or Alaskan Native female
0 Pacific Islander males
0 Pacific Islander females
11 Hispanic or Latino males
9 Hispanic or Latino female
75 White, non-Hispanic males
190 White, non-Hispanic females
10 Asian males
29 Asian females
18 males of other race or unknown ethnicity
42 females of other race or unknown ethnicity”
Total 396 graduates
Females are 71%
Whites are 67%
B. 122 institutions graduated a total of 2,989 Master of Fine Arts Among these were:
30 Black, non-Hispanic male
40 Black, non-Hispanic female
10 American Indian or Alaskan Native males
5 American Indian or Alaskan Native female
2 Pacific Islander males
3 Pacific Islander females
71 Hispanic or Latino males
91 Hispanic or Latino female
821 White, non-Hispanic males
938 White, non-Hispanic females
95 Asian males
187 Asian females
288 males of other race or unknown ethnicity
408 females of other race or unknown ethnicity
Total 2,989
Females are 58%
Whites are 59%
C. 298 institutions reported the following 174,373 students in arts and design school now (by percentage):
2.3 Black, non-Hispanic male
2.8 Black, non-Hispanic female
0.2 American Indian or Alaskan Native males
0.4 American Indian or Alaskan Native female
0.1 Pacific Islander males
0.2 Pacific Islander females
2.9 Hispanic or Latino males
4.7 Hispanic or Latino female
19.7 White, non-Hispanic males
38.4 White, non-Hispanic females
3.2 Asian males
5.9 Asian females
7.7 males of other race or unknown ethnicity
11.4 females of other race or unknown ethnicity”
It is important to note that like the general population of students, arts and design students have a higher percentage of female students although they are less prevalent in the Master’s program. The Department of Education had the racial- ethnic distribution in college enrollment in 2007 - 2008 at about 67% for White/non- Hispanic which is larger than the arts school enrollment in 2009-2010, which is 58.1% but matches the graduate doctoral student’s gender mix. The U.S. department of education in the 2007- 2008 school year lists the percentage of minority males to total college enrollment as Black, non-Hispanic male- about 4.9%, Hispanic or Latino males – about 5.1% and Asian males- about 3.1% . An arts and design schools have much lower male minority enrollments for each of the groups mentioned except Asian males. Statistics from the College Arts Association confirms increased enrollments in arts curriculums, although the total number of students majoring in art is only about 5.5% of the total population.
What is valued by the subpopulation of Arts and Design students in regard to their educational experience and how does that contrasts or coincides with the larger population?
To study the personal goals of art and design students one must look at their values and expectations as they differ from the general college population. Lavender (2010) states “College art instructors, like their colleagues in other disciplines, routinely cite phenomena such as student non-responsiveness to instruction, sinking motivation, and under-preparedness (i.e., insufficient academic or behavioral qualities”( p. 199). Likewise, due to the cut-back in art training in secondary and elementary schools, students may enter college with a greater assumption of their skills and unreasonable expectations of academic success.
Conclusion
There must be institutional responsibility to assess educational facilities, taking into account the make-up and values of college students. Grannis (1994) points out instances in which effective inquiry would aid in the design of successful spaces for higher education. A review of the Yale University Arts and Architecture building in 1987 gave many examples of a building not designed to fit the behavior of the inhabitants and how the students retaliated by vandalizing, defecating, trashing and eventually trying to burn down the facility.
There are other types of existing building reviews. Pomona College was listed in Princeton Review’s The Best 371 Colleges, 2010 edition as best in the nation for its classroom environment. A student remarked on its “state-of-the-art facilities”. Princeton Review evaluates university facilities in categories of: a). Housing- coed dorms or same-sex dorms; accessibility to handicapped; b). Special academic facilities /equipment-
Percentage of Computers in classrooms, dooms, library, dining areas; percentage of wireless networks. The Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design creates profile sheets of essential information for prospective students to evaluate for all the art schools within its purview yet there is no mention of the facilities and the value that might bring to students.
A post- occupancy evaluation to solicit information about the likes and dislikes of the facility that considers students, might query about matters that concern student values and include the following:
1. Are the common spaces arranged in a manner that promotes community-building?
2. Does the art facility and its spaces support my level of trust for the institution? Is the layout straight-forward or misleading?
3. Does the educational space allow me to do meaningful work in class, or am I constantly moving chairs and equipment or reconfiguring the learning environment to facilitate classroom activities?
4. Are there internet and virtual classroom capabilities everywhere on the grounds of the campus?
5. Does the classroom and overall facility layout contribute to my sense of being in control of my educational outcomes?
6. Does the classroom and facility layout project institutional control? Are rooms and corridors positioned to monitor participants in spaces?
7. Is there a hierarchy of accoutrements or amenities that serves to indicate the ‘nicer’ parts of the building and label my position in the institution?
8. Is the Post-Occupancy Evaluation administered in a way that allow for access to answer 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week online within a determined evaluation period?
9. Does the Post-Occupancy evaluation offer an ombudsman option that allows me to give constant feedback whenever I want after initial building questions are submitted?
10. Does the facility have integrity? Is the design trying to project an image that it is not?
Rhatigan & Schuh (2003) wrote an article in which they described how little interactions with students where faculty and administration extend themselves to support, encourage or listen to their concerns, have the potential to make great changes in student’s lives. They describe these opportunities as “small wins”. A post-occupancy evaluation can be a diminutive way to give students some control of their environment and demonstrate that their opinion is valued. Part of asking about their likes and dislikes of the facility is considering the issues that they value when it is not the same as the creators or initiators of the building evaluation. Rhatigan & Schuh state “small wins can produce results that are electrifying and, in some cases, life changing…What kind of campus environments are you creating that allow and support each student to feel comfortable in his/her “skin”? What “small wins” are you creating?” (2003, pp.425–426).
References
Barefoot, B. (2000) The first-year experience: Are we making it any better? About Campus, January–February, p. 12–18.
The Coomes & DeBard (2004). A Generational Approach to Understanding Students. In Coomes and DeBard, Serving the Millennial Generation. New Directions for Student Services, n106 p5-16.
Coomes (2004). Understanding the Historical and Cultural Influences that Shape Generations. In Coomes and DeBard, Serving the Millennial Generation. New Directions for Student Services, n106 p17-31.
Grannis, P. (1994). Post occupancy evaluation: An avenue for applied environment-behavior research in planning practice. Journal of Planning Literature, 9, 2, 210-219.
Hewitt, D., Higgins, C., Heatherly, P. & Turner, C.(2005). A market-friendly post-occupancy evaluation: Building performance report. White Salmon, Washington: New Buildings Institute.
Lavender, R., Nguyen-Rodriguez, S. and Spruijt-Metz, D. (2010) Teaching the whole student: Perceived academic control in college art instruction. Studies in Art Education, Spring, 51, 3 pp. 198─218.
National Center for Education Statistics (2004h). Digest of Education
Statistics, 2004: Table 173 [Data file]. Available from National Center
for Education Statistics Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/
d04/tables/dt04_173.asp.
Perry, R.(200 3). Perceived (academic) control and causal thinking in achievement settings. Canadian Psychologist. 44, 312-33 1.
Pol, E.(2006). Blueprints for a history of environmental psychology (I): From First Birth to American Transition. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 7, 2, 95-113.
Pol, E. (2007). Blueprints for a history of environmental psychology (II): From architectural psychology to the challenge of sustainability. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 8., 1y2, 1 – 28.
Preiser, W. ,Rabinowitz, H., White, E. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Preiser, W. ,Rabinowitz, H., White, E.(2005). Building performance assessment-from POE to BPE, a personal perspective. Architectural Science Review, 48, 3, 201-205.
Rhatigan, J. and Schuh J.(2003) The first-year experience: Are we making it any better? About Campus, March -April, p. 17–22.
(COPYRIGHT © 2011 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)-DRAFT
