Welcome to the Neighborhood! Reinventing Academic Life for Undergraduate Students

Living on campus has become a defining feature of American higher education. For the past century, many colleges have experienced year–after–year increases in their numbers of on–campus residents, a trend that has accelerated over the past 30 years. Despite record residence hall populations, life for students on campus in most colleges and universities has remained unchanged for decades. As Caitlin Peterkin explains in a 2013 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, schools across the country have made enormous investments in developing new and creative means for housing students. Despite these attempts, most students still are assigned to living spaces in traditional dormitories, still must unite their own academic and living experiences, and still are expected to mature as a natural reaction to the rigors of academia.

Correspondingly, most large colleges and universities have struggled to address the needs of traditional students who have been thrust into a new and challenging situation with the recent independence and curiosity that comes with young adulthood. In our experience, institutional responses to these challenges are often segmented, fragmented, and compartmentalized. For instance, when instructors notice struggling students, individual departments usually respond with tutoring; problems with alcohol consumption typically are addressed through the counseling and student conduct offices; and social activities are handled by student affairs areas such as residence life. The result is a patchwork of Band–Aids that include underreactions, overreactions, and solutions to problems that may never have existed in the first place.

As one of the largest universities in the country, Michigan State University epitomizes the rapid growth of on–campus college life that has come to define the American higher education experience. With more than 36,000 undergraduate students, our residence hall system is one of the largest in the country, and our sprawling campus means students can travel miles for access to resources and services. For some of our students, our residential colleges provide an integrated academic life experience. Most of our students, however, live in large residence halls.

One of the most frustrating challenges we face at Michigan State is our high rate of first–year students on probation after a semester. For an incoming class of approximately 7,500 students, around 750 of them are on probation as they transition from the fall to spring semesters. We are acutely aware that students on probation are less likely to succeed in subsequent semesters and are significantly less likely to complete their degree. Like most other schools, we have tried a number of traditional interventions with varying levels of success. Nothing, however, was addressing our problems at levels we saw as acceptable. As we considered new avenues for decreasing the number of students on probation, our attention turned to the one place on campus where we could have a profound impact: where they live. In response to the challenges of our first–year students, we identified geographically clustered residence halls, provided them with centralized resources, and called them Neighborhoods.

Michigan State University Neighborhoods

Our neighborhoods were designed recognizing that no single administrative unit was capable of organizing the necessary changes. When we decided to innovate the residential experience, we first took a look at the literature. Many of us are familiar with the work of George D. Kuh, Ty M. Cruce, Rick Shoup, Jillian Kinzie, and Robert M. Gonyea, who have contributed much to the conversation about student engagement and its relationship to success. Gavin Henning even argued in 2012 that such student engagement leads to subsequent institutional success. Other scholars, like Lily J. Zheng, Kevin P. Saunders, Mack C. Shelley II, and Donald F. Whalen, reported in a 2002 article that learning communities increase self–reported perceptions of motivation and learning. Our intent was to emulate the success of these learning communities by giving every student access to their connective elements, like supplemental instruction, classroom space, and academic advising, while extending the reach and scope of on–campus housing. As we considered methods for further engaging students, we considered our unparalleled access to, and influence on, their lives.

Our work began by identifying clusters of residence halls that could share resources and naturally develop a sense of community. Each region became a Neighborhood and, following renovations, included dining halls, classrooms, study spaces, health services, activity centers, and communal living spaces. The physical and cultural centerpiece of each Neighborhood is an Engagement Center staffed by a director, academic advisors, a nurse practitioner, an intercultural specialist, and a residence life coordinator. We recognized, however, that a physical overhaul would not provide the seamless web of services created to support our students. We felt that our response needed to be more in–depth and systemic. Therefore, the Neighborhoods rely on community initiatives to reach simultaneously the individual student and the entire institution.

If We Build It, They Will Come: Creating Neighborhood Resources

Most colleges and universities with on–campus housing have subdivided the campus in an attempt to create a sense of community with individuals living in close proximity to each other and sharing some common interests. At Michigan State, our residence hall system is now divided into five Neighborhoods spread widely across our campus. At first glance, establishing defined Neighborhoods continues what we as colleges and universities have been doing for years. It differs, however, in three major structural aspects. First, the presence of Engagement Centers facilitates students’ access to institutional services. Second, academic resources, including faculty, advisors, and tutors, provide direct academic support for residents. Third, the staff of each Neighborhood comprises a singular unit that shares information to address problems and opportunities distinctive to the community in which it operates.

Among these aspects, the most visible change introduced by the Neighborhoods is that of the Engagement Center, a centralized facility in each Neighborhood providing space for students to study, coordinate group work, meet with advisors, and easily access important services like tutors, academic advisors, or medical professionals. Although these services have always been available to our students at centralized locations on campus, academic support staff considered them underutilized. Engagement Centers address the issue of underutilization first by removing the barrier of distance, and second by linking resources to the residents and placing professionals in close proximity to the students.

We have also made significant changes behind the scenes. While the Engagement Center is the visible centerpiece of each Neighborhood, our student, faculty, and staff interactions undergird operation of these living areas and have created a new culture in each Neighborhood. Instead of compartmentalizing duties of the residence halls (e.g., food preparation, maintenance, activities, etc.) or academic supports (e.g., tutoring, advising, labs, etc.), our Neighborhoods are each staffed by one full–time director charged with addressing student needs and coordinating staff interactions and interventions. Members of the Engagement Center staff, including the leadership of dining, maintenance, health services, academic advising, intercultural programming, and residential activities, meet every two weeks to identify and address needs specific to the respective neighborhood.

“Hi, Neighbor!”: Intentional Neighborhood Interaction

As we strengthened student life AT the individual level, we were also acutely aware of a sense that many departments, like Residence Life or the Office of Student Services, have felt disconnected from others, like the Provost and Academic Affairs. To address this issue, we created intentional connections at the highest organizational levels, including the Offices of the Provost, Residence Life, and Student Services. Using weekly meetings of the leaders in each of these departments, we improved communication across the institution and, more importantly, developed a strong professional rapport among these individuals.

More open lines of communication and stronger relationships allow for two broader changes in how our institution provides services for our students. First, we became more intentional in our design and implementation of academic and residential programs and services. Second, our conversations allowed information to travel more freely throughout the campus, wrenching units once tightly coupled to the centralized institutional model free to operate with more autonomy.

Once residential settings become more intentionally and collaboratively designed, each Neighborhood is freed to program for its specific needs and issues. Our previous model was centralized, creating a one–size–fits–all response and requiring students to seek out multiple and specialized locations across campus to meet their needs. As we introduced the Neighborhoods, we gave students direct access to a multitude of resources that were previously widely scattered across our campus. More importantly, each of these resources could be adapted to address needs specific to a given Neighborhood. For example, while one Neighborhood may be dealing with an outbreak of the flu, another may be experiencing higher–than–average rates of depression. Under the old model, our residence hall healthcare professionals may have chosen one of the two problems, neglecting the other. Using the Neighborhoods model, each Neighborhood can more autonomously react to a specific issue while still communicating the presence of that issue to the broader institution.

The Evolution Continues

The first neighborhood was launched as a pilot program for the 2010–2011 school year. We expanded to three Neighborhoods the following year and increased to five Neighborhoods this year (2012–2013). During that time, we have experienced success. General perception of campus life has improved, we have noticed a stronger sense of community, and services provided to the students have recorded a marked increase in use.

In addition to the benefits, we have also faced some challenges in making this change. Specifically, it has been difficult to communicate the breadth and depth of the neighborhood concept to some of our constituencies. Therefore, it has been difficult at times to react in the face of budgetary constraints. Moreover, despite the goal of cross–unit conversations, it has been a challenge in some situations to connect our administrators and managers efficiently. Because of the breadth of our changes, we have not yet seen a remarkable decrease in first–year students on probation nor can we report significant changes in academic retention or success. We remain faithful, however, as our approach is intended to be organic in nature. Just as we teach in our agricultural program, the strongest farms are those that embrace and adapt to their environment. Such adaptations cannot be hurried. It is our goal to use this work as fertile ground for new revelations about the relationship between the social development of young adults and their academic success.

We have, however, noticed a drastic change in our living spaces. Externally, perceptions of some of our halls have improved. For example, after renovating the halls and creating Neighborhood spaces that include the Engagement Centers, we have evidence of a modest increase of students living on campus past their first year. Internally, the new spaces have seen a significant environmental change, with staff members reporting that students are taking greater pride in their living space. In addition to changes in the living environment, we also see an increase in utilization of institutional services. As part of our assessment of the Neighborhoods, we have asked anyone providing services to students in the Neighborhoods, such as math or writing tutors, to maintain records of how frequently students attend their sessions. In most cases, participation has grown as these services have been located more conveniently for students.

Despite feeling confident in our achievements, this reinvention of campus life has faced a number of challenges. First and foremost, the integrated nature of this project has been complicated by the bureaucratic nature of budgeting and the compartmentalized nature of our institution's administration. Although we have been successful in fostering unique relationships among people at many levels and across multiple units and divisions, on occasion it has been difficult for people to break their habits of working within their own department. Additionally, we have faced some interesting challenges in appropriating funds. For example, we held discussions about whether monies for cocurricular classes in residence halls would come from the originating department or from housing and residence life. Despite the connections and relationships between individuals in both areas, we found it necessary to involve other administrators to clarify how to proceed and provide students with more integrated experiences.

A final challenge is related to the deep complexity of our reinvention. It has been difficult to share our vision with specific administrative units in a coherent and simplified manner through which we would gain their commitment and participation. To be sure, we have significant support from many faculty and staff who are directly involved. At times, however, given the intricacies of the changes, describing how each individual department or unit will be affected can be difficult, resulting in some administrative hesitance to implement new solutions.

From Pioneering Land Grant to Pioneering Neighborhoods

Student access and success is central to American higher education. As colleges and universities, we have a great chance to embrace this unparalleled opportunity to effect change in the lives of our young adults. When students come to our campuses, they give us unprecedented access to their behaviors, academic habits, and lifestyles. At Michigan State, we became committed to redefining our relationship with our students and to maximizing their success. We have attempted to achieve this goal by transforming our residential spaces into an integrated extension of the academic experience. If we are going to require students to live on our campuses, we felt we must also assume responsibility for continuing their maturation into adulthood. We hope that by beginning these Neighborhoods on our own campus, we can provide a model for other schools of a clear path to student retention, persistence, and graduation. If an institution the size of Michigan State can adopt these changes, then similar models should also be viable at other schools. Our school began as a leading model for American Land Grant colleges and universities. Our Neighborhoods are an effort to continue this tradition, reinventing the model to transform education on our campus and, hopefully, on campuses across the nation.