Can the design of a residence hall be associated with a student’s academic performance? The authors of “The Hidden Structure: The Influence of Residence Hall Design on Academic Outcomes†in the Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice say the answer is yes, at least in a roundabout fashion. The authors draw on evidence that first-year students who develop a healthy sense of belonging on campus will have a higher grade point average and be more likely to persist and attain a degree. After reviewing four years of data from two different types of residence halls (corridor and apartment styles) on one campus, the authors then argue that residence hall design that encourages interaction versus isolation can be a driving factor in promoting that sense of belonging and, particularly, in promoting homophily, i.e., the tendency to form friendships with others similar to themselves. While this connection is important for all students, it can be particularly valuable, they hypothesize, for students of color at predominantly white institutions.
Joshua Brown, an education professor at the University of Virginia, was lead author on this article (along with professors Fred Volk of Liberty University and Elisabeth M. Spratto of James Madison University). He answered emailed questions from the Talking Stick about how socializing architecture strategies can help students.
Talking Stick: You propose two driving forces in recent campus housing expansion: growing student bodies and more luxurious updates in design. Overall, would you say this opportunity to update housing is one that campuses have been able to capitalize on, or have they come up short on their potential?
Brown: The leaders of many institutions, with their ears attuned to the feedback of students, have capitalized on the opportunity to overhaul existing residence hall facilities. Not all institutions have the ability to erect new luxury-type residence halls, but many have seized the chance to update existing ones. Many of them are broad access, tuition-driven institutions that depend heavily on securing annual enrollments to sustain their organizations. As such, whether it may be residence hall preferences, academic preferences, or social preferences, they are regularly seeking feedback about what prospective students want from the residential undergraduate experience.
TS: You note that many of the new halls are designed with more isolating factors (such as private apartment-style rooms), but we also know that halls increasingly include community features like classrooms, workout rooms, and makerspaces. How do these factors affect homophily?
Brown: The residence halls we examined did not have the features you list above. Rather, we examined two typologies – socializing and isolating. As you mention, there are certainly other approaches that hybridize or blend these isolating and socializing features in innovative ways. But there is variation in the ways schools blend these features. As such, I might suggest that it is important to ask what percentage of students in a given hall will use the blended features? If we add a classroom to the hall, what type of courses will it be used for and what percentage of students in the hall will use it? If we add a workout room, yoga room, or study room, what percentage of students in the hall might use these facilities? And are these facilities open access or guarded in some way? In our study, the socializing feature of the residence hall was the communal hallway and communal restrooms. One hundred percent of students on that hall made use of these design features. It was a matter of function. As university leaders consider new designs or overhauled designs, the proportion of students served in the hall should be a key point of interest, among the many they will consider. The communal features will only be as effective in promoting homophily as they are available and accessible to students.
TS: Knowing that your research focused on one campus, you obviously didn’t see all the amenities that a hall may include, but were you able to make any determination that some of these extras deliver more value than others?
Brown: What our study did highlight was an interaction effect. It suggests that social environments are complex contexts whose outcomes cannot be reduced to a single variable (i.e., race or ethnicity alone). Rather, there are other factors at play. We tried to underscore this in the discussion section of the article because the principle applies widely to many student affairs areas beyond just residence life. While the residence hall was the context in which we found this phenomenon, we believe it has much broader implications and encourage student affairs professionals to consider this and suggest that other student affairs researchers examine this.
In my view, the extras are those features that facilitate increased opportunities for social interaction for the greatest number of students. For example, adding a classroom at the back of the building with only an exterior entrance would isolate the feature that is supposed to be increasing community within the living-learning environment. In contrast, situating the classroom along a major thoroughfare, using glass for walls, and offering an interior entrance for residents increase the chances of homophily. The principle of this example applies to other design features and amenities in the residence hall.
TS: If a campus could only implement one feature of the socializing architecture you describe, what one would you urge them to consider?
Brown: I would suggest two. First, intentionally include communal spaces that offer the opportunity for the interaction of multiple residents. The design should seek to impact the highest percentage of students as possible and should be functional (i.e., I have to use it) and inviting (i.e., I want to use it). Second, limit the number of locked doors beyond the main entrance to the residence hall in a way that does not compromise security.
The isolating suites in our study had four locked doors for students to enter. Residents had to work diligently to see and engage with one another because design constrained opportunities for interaction. In contrast, the socializing residence hall in our study had a single locked door beyond the main secure entry. Succinctly, strive to increase socialization, but not at the cost of security.
TS: What policies or practices do you recommend campuses pair with these updated architectural styles?
Brown: In addition to the specified examples in the discussion section of the article (i.e., facilities assessments, customized residence hall programming, tailored RA training, etc.), we believe that residence life professionals should consider the extent to which their own policies enable or restrict socializing opportunities across diverse student groups. This may require regular examination of student demographics by residence hall type. For example, while the self-selection of residence hall location may be a value that is emphasized and provided to students, if students are selecting locations that cluster groups by race or ethnicity, this may limit cross-race interactions and thus cross-race learning.
The interaction effect in our research highlights that environment (i.e., design) and policies (i.e., room selection/people “like meâ€) interact in ways that are associated with specific outcomes (i.e., GPA). Each campus has a unique combination of student types, residence hall types, and policies that influence each other. The combination of these factors (i.e., the interaction effect) will differ from school to school. As such, rather than suggesting a single policy for all universities, we can only suggest that campus leaders give thoughtful attention to the different ways in which these factors come together. For example, the policy of self-selection into a residence hall may be ideal for customer preference and desire, but, when examined, campus data may show that first-year students who choose to reside in isolating residence halls may be more likely to perform worse academically. Thus, leaders might remove the isolating residence hall options for first-year students specifically or restrict the self-selection policy in other ways.
We also strongly urge campus leaders to consider the role that finances play in allocating students to residence halls. Gradient pricing policies have the potential to stratify students along socioeconomic lines, potentially allocating more affluent students to the luxury residence halls they can afford while relegating the poorer students to the cheaper housing. University leaders should regularly re-examine whether their policies are unintentionally stratifying students by race, class, or other social and economic factors. Should leaders discover that their policies have inadvertently done this, modifications to policies should be made immediately.
— James A. Baumann
