Építészet | Felsőoktatás » Design with Distinction, The Value of Good Building Design in Higher Education

Source: http://www.doksinet DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION Source: http://www.doksinet 2 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION CABE is the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, the Government’s champion for design quality in the built environment. It is funded by both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). Its board members are appointed by the Secretary of State. CABE will shortly be established as a statutory body but in the meantime has been incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. Published March 2005. ISBN 1-84633-001-7 The Tower Building 11 York Road London SE1 7NX T F E W 020 7960 2400 020 7960 2444 enquiries@cabe.orguk www.cabeorguk Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION Measuring the impact of architecture and design on the performance of higher education institutions. 3 Source: http://www.doksinet 4 DESIGN WITH

DISTINCTION In Memory This study is dedicated to the memory of Richard Feilden in recognition of his contribution to community architecture, environmental awareness and passion for achieving better buildings. Richard was a member of the steering group responsible for this report, but was tragically killed a few weeks before the research study was completed. RICHARD FEILDEN OBE (1950 - 2005) He was the founding partner of Feilden Clegg Bradley Architects of London and Bath. He won Building Design magazine’s Architect of the Year Award in 2004; sat on the RIBA Council for a number of years; was the driving force behind the establishment of the Higher Education Design Quality Forum, and a founding commissioner of CABE. Richard lobbied tirelessly for better standards of contemporary design and showed great empathy for the needs of the building users. He was particularly concerned that PFI funding of educational projects was undermining the quality of school design. He gave his time

generously to debate such issues in many public meetings across the country, and was a great ambassador for the architectural profession. Richard touched so many lives. We have lost a good friend, the community has lost one of its noble champions, and the RIBA has lost perhaps the best president it never had. His influence will not be forgotten, however, and his spirit lives on. Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 Methodology Summary of findings Implications of the research 7 7 9 I CASE STUDY PROFILES 10 II INTRODUCTION Terms of reference Structure of report 16 16 17 III METHODOLOGY Selection of case study buildings Overview of methodology Literature Review Qualitative research Quantitative research Profile of survey respondents 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 IV RECRUITMENT Overview of existing literature Overall influence of buildings upon recruitment Influence of buildings upon recruitment of staff Impact

of buildings upon recruitment of students Aspects of design that influence recruitment 21 21 23 26 27 27 V RETENTION Overview of existing literature Overall satisfaction with choice of university and design of the buildings Design aspects that influence the feelings and behaviour of staff & students General views on being ‘in’ the buildings 30 30 31 33 36 VI PERFORMANCE Overview of existing literature Impact of buildings upon performance Aspects of design that influence performance 38 38 39 42 VII CONCLUSIONS Summary of key findings Implications of the research 44 48 48 BIBLIOGRAPHY 49 5 Source: http://www.doksinet 6 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION PORTLAND BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION Executive Summary Over recent years, there has been a marked increase in the number of new building projects in the higher education sector, and in the complexity and importance of estates

provision and management for such schemes. However, despite this, there appears to be a distinct lack of ‘value of design’ research carried out in this area. Work in the past on measuring the impact of architecture and design on the performance of organisations occupying buildings has examined all manner of sectors: health, children’s education, offices retail and house-building. Higher education, though, has been neglected. Until now In July 2003, CABE commissioned a research study aimed at assessing the value of design in higher education. This study was funded jointly by the UK HE funding councils (HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW and DELNI) and supported by the Association of Directors of Estates (AUDE). The research was designed and data collected by the University of the West of England (UWE), while PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted subsequent analysis and reporting. Its aim was to ‘assess whether links exist between new, well-designed buildings and the recruitment and retention of

students, staff and quality of teaching, research and other outcomes’. METHODOLOGY The study involved three main strands of research: • Literature review of more than 50 research articles, identifying key themes and related issues covering a wide range of qualitative and quantitative studies on the impact of design on the recruitment and retention of students and staff • Qualitative interviews and focus groups with students and staff in four higher education buildings in England and one in Wales • Surveys with staff and students in the five higher education buildings, collecting primary data on a range of features of the building design The case study buildings were selected in collaboration with CABE and were deemed examples of good higher education design. ‘the existence of welldesigned buildings on a campus is a significant factor in the recruitment of staff and of students’ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS RECRUITMENT The research findings suggest that the existence of

well-designed buildings on a campus is a significant factor in the recruitment of staff and of students. • Approximately 60 per cent of students and staff indicated that the quality of the building design had a positive impact on their decision to study or work at their chosen university • Among staff, the quality of the buildings had the most positive impact on the recruitment of academic staff (65 per cent). Among students, the most positive impact was on the recruitment of postgraduate students (72 per cent) • When asked to identify specific features of buildings that would most influence their decision to work in a particular institution, just over half of all staff identified cosmetic and environmental features as being most influential. These included cleanliness, a feeling of space and bright working areas. Most students identified structural/ functional features, including the quality of the facilities, the library, sports centre, atriums and lecture rooms 7

Source: http://www.doksinet 8 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION • Only a very small number of either staff or students (around 10 per cent) pinpointed situational features (i.e where the building was located) as being influential in their decision to take up work or study at their institution. RETENTION The research suggests that the way people feel and behave while studying or working within buildings is linked to their overall satisfaction rates and level of happiness. This will clearly have an impact upon retention rates. ‘the way people feel and behave while studying or working within buildings is linked to their overall satisfaction rates and level of happiness’ • The functions and facilities of buildings had the most positive impact upon how the staff and students feel and behave whilst they are working or studying (more than 7 out of 10 students and staff). Staff also indicated that their office and workspace, and the size, proportion and openness of the building they worked

in were positive contributing factors to the way they feel and behave • The majority of staff and students (more than 60 per cent) agreed that the cosmetic and environmental features that impact most upon the way they feel and behave were the decoration, furnishings and furniture within the buildings • Staff and students in the focus groups identified some negative influences on their feelings and behaviour associated with cosmetic and environmental factors. These included problems with the heating and ventilation, as well as acoustics and noise • A majority of staff (more than 60 per cent) indicated that the external views and surroundings also played a significant part in the way they feel and behave whilst at work. However, students did not share this view • Overall, most staff identified situational features, such as the external views and surroundings as having the most positive impact on how they feel and behave whilst at work, whereas most students identified

structural/functional features, such as teaching rooms, on the location of stairs. PERFORMANCE The majority of staff (80 per cent) was of the opinion that the buildings they worked in impacted positively upon their performance. However, this was only the case for half of the students we surveyed. • The research showed that the buildings had the most positive impact upon the performance of research students (83 per cent) and the least impact upon the performance of undergraduate students (51 per cent) • In general, students indicated that the features of the buildings they studied in affected their performance in three main ways: - helping to motivate students in their work - facilitating inspiration amongst students - providing key facilities critical to the course content • Staff indicated that academic factors associated with their job and facilities they had access to have an equal impact upon their performance. These factors included interest in the type of work and the

quality of their office and support facilities • Students indicated that the facilities within their institution impacted most upon their performance. These included the teaching, campus and research facilities • Staff and students also stated that particular social features influenced their performance, including the locality of the university and the level of inclusion and participation they enjoyed. Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH This research breaks new ground by providing evidence on the links between building design and recruitment, retention and performance of staff and students in the higher education sector. ‘good quality higher education requires good quality environments’ However, whilst the findings of the research provide useful insights, there are a number of areas which would benefit from additional research, including: • The measurement of the design quality in higher

education buildings • An assessment of the impact of building design upon the local community • A wider sample of institutions to include those not deemed to display good design quality • An examination into the negative impact which can result from design inadequacy It provides evidence to support the belief that good quality higher education requires good quality environments. It also reinforces the need for further capital investment to modernise and upgrade buildings and equipment. • The relationship between good design on campus and the award of research grants. 9 Source: http://www.doksinet 10 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION CASE STUDY PROFILES UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND David Goldman Informatics Centre UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM Jubilee Campus UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH Portland Building UNIVERSITY OF WALES, BANGOR Adeilad Brigantia Building UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE Oxstalls Campus Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN

HIGHER EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND David Goldman Informatics Centre School of Computing and Technology St Peter’s Campus 01 ARCHITECT: BDP OPENED: PHASE 1 – 1994, PHASE 2 – 1996 AREA: 8,000M2 USAGE: SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AWARDS: SUNDAY TIMES/ RFAC BUILDING OF THE YEAR 1995, CIVIC TRUST AWARD 1998 DESIGN PROFILE The David Goldman Informatics Centre is the most radical building on the innovative St Peter’s Campus. The multi-level ground floor and balconied first floor areas are enclosed with a vast vaulted space reminiscent of a cathedral. The main computer teaching is carried on in open ‘terraces’ on the ground floor, divided into pens. Bridges link the upper balconies and the upper floor teaching rooms seem to hang over the central space. Staff offices are located on the perimeter of the building and comprise a mix of conventional offices often shared by three members of staff and ‘pods’, which are clusters of offices off a central social space. The

building was designed on ecological principles, as reflected in the external cladding and the heating/ventilation system. BUILDING OBJECTIVE To improve undergraduate and postgraduate recruitment by counteracting the negative image of Sunderland. IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND 11 Source: http://www.doksinet 12 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM Jubilee Campus School of Education 02 DESIGN PROFILE The Jubilee Campus was designed as a single entity with a ‘wall’ of educational buildings facing onto a lake, away from the adjacent industrial buildings, and with the residential halls sitting behind. The conical library building provides a central focus. Sustainability is the very visible theme of the campus, influencing the overall design, with its prominent ventilation towers and the materials used, both inside and out. The individual educational buildings are of a standardised design and are linked by glazed atria that house central functions, such as the

refectory. BUILDING OBJECTIVE To establish the new campus as a credible and desirable alternative to University Park and to give three key departments room to expand. ARCHITECT: MICHAEL HOPKINS & PARTNERS OPENED: 1999 AREA: 6,481M2 USAGE: SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, COMPUTING AND EDUCATION AWARDS: ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS RIBA AWARD FOR ARCHITECTURE 2001 IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH Portland Building School of the Environment 03 ARCHITECT: SIR COLIN STANSFIELD-SMITH OPENED: 1996 AREA: 6,200M2 USAGE: FACULTY OF THE ENVIRONMENT AWARDS: CIVIC TRUST AWARD 1997, PORTSMOUTH SOCIETY BEST NEW BUILDING 1997 DESIGN PROFILE The Portland building was opened in 1996 and houses the School of Architecture and the Built Environment. The University increasingly uses it as a conference centre. The three-storey building is designed around a central atrium or forum that provides

direct access to the refectory, main lecture theatre and the learning resource centre. Sustainability was used as the key design principle and manifested itself in the form of the heating, cooling and ventilation system. The service towers are a prominent feature of the design, while the building as a whole was designed to be the centrepiece of a new campus development that in turn was a catalyst for the regeneration of one of the poorest parts of Portsmouth. IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH BUILDING OBJECTIVE To improve undergraduate recruitment by counteracting the negative impressions of Portsmouth, and to act as the catalyst for the development of a new campus. 13 Source: http://www.doksinet 14 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION 04 UNIVERSITY OF WALES, BANGOR Adeilad Brigantia Building Department of Psychology DESIGN PROFILE The building is planned around the research needs of the staff, with individual cellular offices and small ‘break-out’ spaces for research groups to

interact informally. The reception and central circulation spaces are generous, though undergraduate teaching is not catered for in the first phase of the building. The building takes advantage of its elevated position to dominate the campus and its white elevations and sharp lines emphasise its contemporary credentials. The interior, meanwhile, capitalises on external views across the town. The upper corridors are naturally-lit by high-level roof lights. BUILDING OBJECTIVE To attract international-quality academic staff to improve the research performance of the school to the highest levels – and thereby to attract better quality students. ARCHITECT: NICHOLAS HARE ARCHITECTS OPENED: 2000 AREA: 2,200M2 USAGE: DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF WALES, BANGOR Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE Oxstalls Campus School of Sports Science 05 ARCHITECT: FEILDEN CLEGG BRADLEY ARCHITECTS OPENED:

2001 AREA: 2771M2 USAGE: SCHOOL OF SPORTS SCIENCE AWARDS: THE CIVIC TRUST’S SUSTAINABILITY AWARD 2003, THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING ARCHITECTURE 2003 DESIGN PROFILE The Oxstalls Campus was designed as an integrated educational unit with the School of Sports Science, a Learning Resource Centre (LRC), refectory and students residences and an incomplete facility that would need to be integrated with the city’s sports facilities to work effectively. The design is light and open, using high levels of glazing to bring natural light into the building, and light timber finishes. A lofty, glazed corridor links the teaching areas to the LRC and provides an attractive entrance and design feature. The use of water unifies the two parts of the building externally. Sustainability features in the design in the form of solar panels. The LRC is the social hub of the building and has been designed not just for quiet study but also for team learning and

interaction. BUILDING OBJECTIVE To establish a credible, high quality presence in Gloucester and the poorer west of the county to counteract the university’s perceived bias towards Cheltenham. IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE 15 Source: http://www.doksinet 16 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION Introduction In January 2003, the UK Government published a White Paper called ‘The Future of Higher Education’ which identified the stresses under which higher education in the UK is operating1. One pressing issue it highlighted was the need ‘to maintain the infrastructure for research and teaching’. The report found an estimated £8 billion backlog in teaching and research facilities. An earlier study focused in particular on the infrastructure within higher education buildings2. The 2002 report, ‘Investment in Infrastructure for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education’, suggested several billion pounds of investment was needed to repair, replace and modernise the buildings,

services, IT networks and libraries of UK higher education buildings. It also highlighted that many post-war buildings used throughout the UK’s universities were reaching the end of their design life and stressed that the university sector was experiencing a climate of chronic under-funding. The report noted, too, that it is in this environment that there has been a rapid growth in the size of the student population, the introduction of new subjects and changes in pedagogic methods. However, not all of these developments have been matched by an equivalent expansion in higher education estates. ‘What is of concern to all universities is ensuring that our students, whatever their background, have a high quality experience. That requires university teaching to be informed by research, provided by high quality and motivated staff, in buildings fit for purpose and using modern equipment.’ (DIANA WARWICK, 2003: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF UNIVERSITIES UK) ‘Tony Blair stressed the need for

architects to consider more than cost and pure function when reviewing the quality of designs’ Furthermore. in the foreword to a report by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) entitled ‘Better Public Buildings’, Tony Blair stressed the need for architects to consider more than cost and pure function when reviewing the quality of designs (Department of Culture, Media and Sport, October 2000). According to Jon Rouse, the then Chief Executive of CABE, ‘there is a growing danger, in the midst of modern procurement processes, that the delight factor in architecture is being suffocated by measurement methods that favour only tangible impacts.’ TERMS OF REFERENCE Despite the number of new building projects in the higher education sector over the last number of years, and the complexity and importance of estates provision and management within this sector, there appears to be a distinct absence of ‘Value of Design’ studies in this area. The work that has been done

to measure the impact of architecture and design on the performance of organisations occupying buildings has examined sectors such as health, children’s education, offices, retail and house-building. To fill this gap, in July 2003, CABE, in partnership with the UK Higher Education Funding Councils – the funding bodies for the research – and the Association of University Directors of Estates (AUDE), commissioned a research study. The subject material was the impact of design standards in recently completed higher education buildings on the recruitment, retention and performance of staff and students. It is anticipated that partners in the higher education sector will use the research to promote higher standards of building design. The research was designed and data collected by the University of Western England (UWE). Subsequent analysis and reporting was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). 1 2 Department for Education and Skills, The Future of Higher Education (2003),

Norwich: HMSO Investment in Infrastructure for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Universities UK, SCOP and HEFCE (2002) Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION FIGURE 1.1 - OVERALL AIMS OF STUDY A SUMMARY OF THE MAIN DIMENSIONS AND FEATURES OF THE RESEARCH. OVERALL AIM OF STUDY: To assess whether links exist between new, well-designed buildings and the recruitment, retention and performance of students and staff ASPECTS OF THE USER GROUP FEATURES OF THE RESEARCH • STAFF WITH EXPERIENCE OF DIFFERENT USAGE OF BUILDINGS • QUALITY, IMPACT AND FUNCTION OF BUILDINGS • STAFF AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF THEIR CAREER • SITUATIONAL, STRUCTURAL AND COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES OF BUILDINGS. • MATURE AND YOUNGER STUDENTS; AND POSTGRADUATE, UNDERGRADUATE AND RESEARCH STUDENTS. The overall aim of the study was to ‘assess whether links exist between new, well-designed buildings and the recruitment and retention of

students, staff and quality of teaching, research and other outcomes’. In addressing the aim of the study, a number of key research questions were posed, namely: • In what ways do buildings influence the recruitment, retention and performance of students and staff in the higher education sector? • What features of buildings influence recruitment, morale and retention and performance of staff and students? • Are staff and students satisfied with the quality and functionality of their buildings and associated facilities, and do they equate good quality with better performance? • Are there variations in the views of respondents within and between staff and student groups, and between higher education sites? • What quality improvements could be made to improve the performance of staff and students? STRUCTURE OF REPORT This report outlines the main findings of the study. Its structure is as follows: • Section II – Methodology • Section III – Recruitment • Section

IV – Retention • Section V – Performance • Section VI – Conclusions. 17 Source: http://www.doksinet 18 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION Methodology FIGURE 2.1: OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY AN OVERVIEW OF OUR APPROACH This section provides an overview of the methodology used in the study. The research involved three main strands of work: a literature review, a quantitative survey with staff and students, and a qualitative strand comprising focus groups with students and interviews with staff. The qualitative and quantitative fieldwork was conducted across five case study sites. Whilst the findings provide useful insights into the experiences of two of the most important stakeholders - staff and students - the research does not attempt to measure the quality of the design. LITERATURE REVIEW RESEARCH DESIGN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ANALYSIS & REPORTING SELECTION OF CASE STUDY INSTITUTIONS The selection of the case study buildings was made in collaboration

with the project Steering Group. While the buildings selected were deemed examples of good design, a number of additional selection criteria were used in the selection process: • The inclusion of buildings that were reasonably contemporary (a cut-off date of 1996 was applied) • The inclusion of buildings that had been long enough in occupation to establish some pattern of usage LITERATURE REVIEW A general review of the literature was conducted in relation to the design of educational environments3. Over 50 articles and journals were reviewed and a bibliography is attached to the report. The literature review had three dimensions: • To define the strategic context within which the study is placed • To identify key themes and related issues • To identify areas of good practice. • Ensuring that good design was reinforced by some external indicator of merit related to an award • Ensuring that the diversity of the higher education sector, in terms of building and

institution type, was reflected. The sample included campus locations and inner-city locations, as well as different types of departments and university. JUBILEE CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITATIVE RESEARCH PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS A range of qualitative evidence was collected across the five case study institutions. Table 21 provides a summary of the types and nature of data collected. A total of 103 members of staff (69% response rate) and 287 students (57% response rate) took part in the research across the five buildings. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH Statistical analysis was performed primarily at two levels: During the visits to each of the five case study sites, questionnaires were administered to staff (academic, research and administration) and students (undergraduate, postgraduate and research). A total of 150 staff and 500 students were targeted across the buildings (30

staff and 100 students in each institution). • Descriptive analysis of individual responses to survey questions • Cross-tabulations between the background characteristics of each institution and the importance of individual factors on staff and student recruitment, retention and performance. TABLE 2.1: OVERVIEW OF QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE COLLECTED DETAILS Key informant interviews Interviews with key members of HE staff including lecturers, tutors, head of faculty/school, pro vice chancellors, state managers etc. Focus groups Held with undergraduate, postgraduate and research students Observations Research team spent time in each building noting interactions that were taking place Photographs and images On completion of focus groups the research team was asked to take photographs of those aspects of the building which appealed most to its members. Plans of the building were also examined Table 2.2 provides an overview of the content of the respective questionnaires. They

were administered by post to all institutions. TABLE 2.2: OVERVIEW OF QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE COLLECTED QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY TOPIC Staff • • • • • Student • Profile information on the background of the respondent • Reasons for choosing to study at the university • Impact of building on respondents’ decision to choose to study at the university • Impact of building on current satisfaction and performance • Quality improvements to building 3 Profile information on the background of the respondent Reasons for choosing employment in the university Impact of building on respondents’ choice of employment Impact of building on current satisfaction and performance Quality improvements to building It should be noted that, whilst most of the literature in this area relates to school buildings, specific efforts were made to obtain and review literature that focused upon higher education. 19 Source: http://www.doksinet 20 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION Tables 2.3

and 24 provide profiles of the staff and student respondents in terms of their background characteristics at each of the buildings. TABLE 2.3: PROFILE OF STAFF RESPONDENTS PROFILING CHARACTERISTICS HE 01 HE 02 HE 03 HE 04 HE 05 ALL HE Male 58% 61% 40% 42% 27% 48% Female 42% 39% 60% 58% 73% 52% GENDER AGE Under 21-30 33% 5% 0% 25% 8% 16% 31-50 58% 64% 55% 58% 42% 57% 50+ 9% 31% 45% 17% 50% 27% Full-time 96% 89% 82% 96% 92% 92% Part-time 4% 11% 18% 4% 8% 8% Academic 48% 78% 52% 52% 50% 57% Research 26% 0% 11% 9% 0% 10% Administration 26% 22% 37% 39% 50% 33% 1-2 58% 4% 16% 39% 8% 27% 3-5 34% 35% 21% 17% 0% 24% 5+ 8% 61% 63% 44% 92% 49% Number of respondents 24 23 20 24 12 103 HE 01 HE 02 HE 03 HE 04 HE 05 ALL HE Male 31% 79% 38% 63% 69% 58% Female 69% 21% 62% 37% 31% 42% Under 21-30 64% 49% 0% 40% 43% 42% 31-50 29% 42% 73% 47% 53% 47% 50+ 7% 9%

27% 13% 4% 11% Full-time 100% 100% 97% 93% 100% 98% Part-time 0% 0% 3% 7% 0% 2% Academic 96% 66% 0% 93% 81% 72% Research 4% 33% 85% 6% 19% 25% Administration 0% 1% 15% 1% 0% 3% Number of respondents 59 68 40 68 52 287 EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT TYPE YEAR IN INSTITUTION TABLE 2.4: PROFILE OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS PROFILING CHARACTERISTICS GENDER AGE EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT TYPE Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION Recruitment ‘the number of overseas students wanting to attend UK universities could triple to more than 870,000 by 2020. Whilst this could be worth £13bn to the UK economy, the British Council has warned of competition from abroad, including the US’ This section provides a summary of current international literature on the impact of building design on recruitment. It also presents the main findings of the issues surrounding the recruitment of both staff and students, taken from

the quantitative surveys with staff and students, together with the qualitative focus groups with students, and the interviews with staff. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), recruitment difficulties in general will continue in the first quarter of 2005, as overall levels of employment continue to rise (Personneltoday.com, 2005) Speaking in the House of Lords, Diana Warwick, Chief Executive of Universities UK, stated that there are growing problems recruiting and retaining staff in UK universities. Furthermore, research by Universities UK and its employers’ organisation (UKEA) showed that one-fifth of all universities and higher education institutions were experiencing recruitment difficulties (Universities UK, 5.022003) Recruitment of students is also an important issue for higher education institutions worldwide. For example, it has been stated that global competition between universities to attract

international students is getting fiercer, with ‘big money at stake’ (Mike Baker, BBC News, 24.012005) And, according to a report by the British Council, the number of overseas students wanting to attend UK universities could triple to more than 870,000 by 2020. Whilst this could be worth £13bn to the UK economy, the British Council has warned of competition from abroad, including the US (BBC News, 20.042004) According to Smith (1998), ‘the primary goal of recruitment programmes and activities is to influence the behaviour of prospective students, their parents and significant others in the college admission process.’ Commenting on the importance of campus image in American universities, Coffey and Wood-Steed (2001) state that there has been a move to design, add to, or renovate traditional student centres in order to appeal to their ‘consumers’. While UK universities have become increasingly concerned to maximise research income in the past decade, conventional,

government- and student-funded undergraduate teaching remains a significant, and for many institutions still a dominant, proportion of income (Price et al, 2003). For this reason, it is crucial for universities to recruit students successfully. Furthermore, a study commissioned by the HEFCE, SCOP, UCEA and UUK in 2001 found that universities throughout the UK were facing difficulties recruiting staff4. It discovered that pay is the major underlying factor in the difficulties facing universities. The majority of research on recruitment has focused on students, rather than staff choices. For that reason, the following discussion is confined to students. It appears from the literature that building design does not tend to be the prime factor of influence when choosing a university. But it is a significant variable Research undertaken by the Institute of Employment Studies (Price et al, 2003) included 20,000 students who applied to full-time undergraduate courses in universities

throughout the UK in 1998. They found that the course content was the most important factor influencing the university chosen. Additionally, students stated that cost was a significant factor in their choice of university location. Whilst they were often forced 4 Recruitment and Retention of Staff in UK Higher Education, 2001 21 Source: http://www.doksinet 22 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION to consider a university closer to their parents’ home due to financial constraints, students cited ‘overall image of the university’ as having an influence on their decision. ISMA BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF READING An ongoing UNITE/MORI study echoes these mixed findings (MORI, 2001, 2002). The 2001 study found that ‘course’ was the first feature that influenced this decision, while ‘location’ and ‘social facilities in town/city’ comprised the second and third most popular influence. It appears, therefore, that while building design does not tend to be the primary force

driving the recruitment process at universities, there is evidence to show that it is a factor in the decisions students make. SITUATIONAL FEATURES THAT AFFECT RECRUITMENT It is clear from the literature that the situation (or location) of a higher education building is a critical one in terms of campus planning. For example, planning for the campus of the University of California took over a decade. The team evaluated more than 85 sites in the area (Lund and Kriken, 2004). It appears that location is also an important issue for prospective students. A National Student Outlook (NSO) study in 2003 found that, of the 2000 responses obtained from students at five locations, three factors had a significant role in the students final selection of a college – the academics available there, the location of the college, and the college’s reputation. to university as mature students. They analysed four different types of college throughout Scotland: an ancient university; a post-1992

university; a college of further education; and a ‘Robbins’ university. By far the most commonly reported motivation for choosing a given institution was its geographical location – being close to where the students live or work. This factor was rated as one of the five most important reasons for institutional choice by 87 per cent of respondents. Female students cited it more often than males. STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES THAT AFFECT RECRUITMENT ‘where universities possessed a particularly distinctive campus (and/or location), the survey results clearly indicated that this was a marketing lever’ Other studies substantiate the notion that the situational aspect of a college is important when recruiting students. Osborne et al (2001) examined the motivations behind those who choose to return The second category of features that may influence recruitment to universities relates to structural and functional issues. These refer to the physical, architectural design of

the university buildings and the extent to which the design is fit for purpose. Research conducted by Price et al (2003) focused upon the importance of facilities management in the success of universities’ recruitment campaigns. They found that availability of desired course was universally rated as the most important recruiting factor in every institution examined. Notably though, where universities possessed a particularly distinctive campus (and/or location), the survey Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION results clearly indicated that this was a marketing lever. They found that issues such as computer outlets in accommodation and the availability of quality computers were important issues for prospective students, alongside concerns with library facilities and the availability of quiet areas for study. Coffey and Wood-Steed (2001), commenting on the importance of campus image in American universities, noted that there had been a

move to design, add to, or renovate traditional student centres in order to appeal to their consumers. COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THAT AFFECT RECRUITMENT Cosmetic features such as colours and furniture, and environmental features, such as heating, lighting and sound are often evident when students visit universities for the first time, and can make an immediate impression. Price et al (2003) also found that cleanliness of the accommodation was important to a number of students, and the availability of quiet areas for study was also ranked as being an important factor. In general, Price et al (2003) found that higher quality environments did seem to have an impact, and they noted that this may lead to problems of expectation if impressions gained during recruitment are not matched by subsequent reality. DID YOU THINK THE BUILDING HAD A ‘WOW FACTOR’ ON YOUR FIRST VISIT? STAFF (no.75) STUDENTS (no.284) 100 OVERALL INFLUENCE OF BUILDINGS ON RECRUITMENT In most of the

case study sites, staff agreed that the buildings had produced a good initial impression on potential employees. With regard to the recruitment of students, it was generally noted that the quality of the buildings stood out amongst competing universities, and in some cases, there was anecdotal evidence to suggest that students had turned down ‘renowned’ buildings due to poor facilities and accommodation. ‘.when I came down it was the summer and this building was stunning– walking around – it was great!’ (student) ‘. we invite all of our potential students to come for open days .it is quite an open space and so it’s not made up of lots of cellular spaces. So, straight away you can see what is going on and it is quite transparent. it has a very positive effect’ (member of staff) ‘.I came for the interview and was very impressed by the building. the first time you see it, it is impressive!’ (student) ‘I saw the terraces and the computers in the brochure and I

have lived in [the location] all my life. I knew the university was here, but I did not know just how spectacular it was until I got here. I didn’t know that it was going to be an up-to-date university.’ (student) 90 80 ‘I was really shocked how new everything was. I made my decision there and then that I wanted to come here.’ (student) 70 60 50 40 30 ‘.the place sells itself; I don’t have to do any selling.’ (member of staff) 20 10 % YES TABLE 3.1: ‘WOW FACTOR’ NO Figure 3.1 illustrates most staff and students surveyed indicated a ‘wow factor’ was evident on their first visit to their building. The comments above illustrate the positive impact of the ‘wow factor’ upon staff and students at various buildings. 23 Source: http://www.doksinet 24 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION On closer examination of the results, it was found that there were some variations between the views of staff and students within some of the case study sites, as detailed in Table 3.1

For example, in one institution, whilst 87 per cent of staff indicated that, in their view, the building had the ‘wow factor’, only 38 per cent of students shared this view. One explanation for the lower positive responses from students might be because this building did not have all of its sports facilities on site. Moreover, during the focus groups with students at this institution, it was noted that, during the open days, the building was not completed. Their collective responses are illustrated below DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING DESIGN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO WORK /STUDY HERE? STAFF (no.75) STUDENTS (no.284) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Conversely, in another institution, 81 per cent of students thought that the building in question had the ‘wow factor’, whereas this was the view of only 55 per cent of staff. One possible reason for this might be the dissatisfaction expressed by some staff with regard to their office space. Moreover, some staff felt

that the building might exert a more positive influence upon younger teaching professionals. 30 20 10 % YES NO FIGURE 3.2: THE IMPACT OF QUALITY OF BUILDING DESIGN TABLE 3.1: DO YOU THINK THE BUILDING HAD A WOW FACTOR ON YOUR FIRST VISIT? CASE STUDY INSTITUTION Institution 1 94 STAFF 283 STUDENTS YES NO YES NO 57% 43% 36% 64% Institution 2 86% 14% 71% 29% Institution 3 56% 44% 58% 42% Institution 4 87% 13% 38% 62% Institution 5 55% 45% 81% 19% Total 70% 30% 56% 44% There was consensus among staff across all of the case study sites that the buildings had been used extensively in marketing materials and there was a common view that the buildings had added value. Staff and students were asked to indicate if the overall quality of the buildings had had a positive impact on their decision to work, or study, at their chosen university. From these responses, it can be seen that the majority of students (63 per cent) indicated that the quality of the

building design had a positive impact on their decision to study at the university. This was also the case for 61 per cent of staff. Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION The following comments illustrate the ways in which the buildings had a positive effect on the recruitment of staff and students. ‘My view is that whenever we bring someone to this building, they are pretty gob-smacked when you show them around and it is a real plus for visitors. and then once people come here and word of mouth gets back and they go back and tell their friends to come. the numbers are growing’ (member of staff) ‘.but there is something about watching people’s reaction to it when we are recruiting staff, when we are trying to impress people. when we are wanting to say this is a very high quality organisation - the building helps us to say that.’ (member of staff) ‘I went to an open day at another university and to compare this – it was a

brand new building and everything was clean and tidy. It was clean and modern and new and that has a definite impact. I went to [another institution] on an open day and. it was grotty, dirty and dark’ (student) The results show that the majority of students surveyed (75 per cent) in one institution indicated that the quality of the building design had not had a positive impact on their decision to study at the university. It should be noted, however, that the building in question was used for research purposes, and the respondents were largely undergraduate students who were, therefore, unfamiliar with the building. Similarly, over half of the staff surveyed at one institution indicated that the buildings had not had a positive impact on their decision to work there. TABLE 3.2: DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING HAVE AN IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO WORK / STUDY HERE? CASE STUDY INSTITUTION 75 STAFF 284 STUDENTS YES NO YES NO Institution 1 67% 33% 25% 75% Institution 2

Institution 3 52% 47% 48% 53% 61% 75% 39% 25% Institution 4 62% 39% 80% 20% Institution 5 100% 0% 79% 21% Total 60% 40% 63% 37% Conversely, 75 per cent of students at the same institution stated that the building had a positive effect on their decision to study there. Table 3.2 above details the responses of staff and students within each of the five case study sites. 25 Source: http://www.doksinet 26 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION EFFECT OF BUILDINGS ON RECRUITMENT OF STAFF INFLUENCE OF BUILDINGS ON RECRUITMENT OF STUDENTS Recruitment of good quality staff is an ongoing concern for most employers. In a report produced by IRS Research (Recruitment and Retention of Academic Staff in UK Education, 2001), it was noted that there are recruitment difficulties for both academic and support staff in UK Higher Education institutions and that these have continued to get worse, year-on-year, since 1998. It is important that higher education buildings are designed to suit

the diverse needs of their users, and these needs may vary according to age. When the survey results were analysed by the students’ age, it was found that the quality of the buildings had least impact on the recruitment of students aged over 30, with 50 per cent of these respondents indicating this to be the case, as illustrated in Figure 3.4 When the staff responses to the questionnaires were analysed by employment type, it was found that the quality of the buildings had the most positive impact upon the recruitment of academic staff, as illustrated in Figure 3.3 YES NO DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING DESIGN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO STUDY HERE? 100 DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING DESIGN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO WORK HERE? 90 YES NO 80 70 100 60 90 50 80 40 70 30 60 20 50 10 40 % UNDER 21 30 20 21-30 FIGURE 3.4: 10 QUESTION TO STUDENTS (no. 282) % ACADEMIC RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 3.3: QUESTION TO STAFF (no. 74)

The following comment from a member of the academic staff in one institution illustrates the importance some employers place upon the buildings in terms of recruitment of appropriate research staff. ‘I think the building does now play a big part in our recruitment process. it was very difficult when we had major recruitment exercises. you could see people coming through the door thinking, ‘you are a world-class research operation and the paint is peeling off’. It looks shabby and you can see them having a bit of a struggle. Now people come through the door and go, ‘Oh yes!’. You can see them thinking more positively. because they have come to the new building.’ JUBILEE CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM 31+ Source: http://www.doksinet 27 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION EFFECT OF BUILDINGS UPON RECRUITMENT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF STUDENTS It should be noted that this was an open-ended question. The impact of buildings may also vary in accordance

with the specific academic requirements of different types of students. Figure 3.5 illustrates that, whilst the quality of buildings had impacted positively upon a high percentage of each category of student (i.e undergraduate, postgraduate and research), they had generally impacted most positively upon the recruitment of postgraduate students, with over 70 per cent of respondents indicating this to be so. The specific features identified by staff and students as having an influence over their choice of study and work environment were placed within one of three categories: DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING DESIGN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO STUDY HERE? YES NO 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 • Structural and functional features • Cosmetic and environmental features • Situational features. Figure 3.6 illustrates their responses It is interesting to note that the responses of staff and students were broadly similar in terms of the features identified. In

general, situational features appeared to be less influential for both staff and students. However, this may have been because the questionnaire was primarily concerned with issues specific to the features of buildings, as opposed to their location. Students placed slightly more importance upon structural and functional features in terms of influence, whereas for staff, cosmetic and environmental features of buildings were slightly more influential in terms of their decision to work in a particular institution. % UNDERGRADUATE POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH FIGURE 3.5: QUESTION TO STUDENTS (no. 282) CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE THREE MAIN FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED YOUR DECISION TO WORK HERE? YES NO 60 50 ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT According to Fleming and Storr (1999), university facilities can be an essential component of attracting key research personnel, provide environments for faster knowledge, and influence student perceptions of their academic experience (Fleming and

Storr, 1999, cited by Price et al, 2003). In an effort to explore more specifically in what ways particular features of buildings might influence individuals in their choice of university, survey respondents were asked to identify the characteristics of the building that had made an immediate impression, and that had ultimately affected their decision to work or study there. 40 30 20 10 % STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL SITUATIONAL FIGURE 3.6: QUESTION TO STUDENTS (no. 282) COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL Source: http://www.doksinet 28 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION STAFF – ASPECTS OF BUILDINGS THAT INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT From the figure above, it can be seen that 51 per cent of the features identified as being influential in recruiting staff could be classified as cosmetic and environmental. These included cleanliness, a feeling of space, having a well-lit foyer and reception area, a minimalist appearance, or light and bright working areas. In addition, 40 per cent of the features

identified by staff as potentially influencing their choice of university could be classified as structural or functional. These included lecturing and teaching rooms, automatic doors, computer terraces, internal layout and design, whether or not the building was aesthetically pleasing, and the overall shape and structure of the building. The remaining nine per cent of the features identified by staff were classified as situational. These related to the proximity of the building to the city centre, and the proximity to other major university buildings, as well as accessibility to main transport routes and links. The following comments from staff further illustrate the importance placed upon specific features of buildings when people are choosing a place of employment. During the interviews, some staff stated that, for them, the buildings were not an important factor when making a decision to work at a particular institution: ‘I was in another faculty before, and there were

five reasons why I joined - nothing to do with the building. (It was the) climate and promotion. and they had clinical facilities that I wanted in the department.’ ‘I think the buildings help, but it is less of a factor than maybe you would like me to say.’ In addition, some staff identified features that might have a negative influence on their choice of employment. These included a bad use of space, noisy buildings, and buildings that look unattractive. ‘.from the admin side, when we actually employ new people, and we have interviews. everyone says they want to come here and work – architecturally. when they come for open days, we are told they are very pleasantly surprised by what they see and the facilities. they are obviously going round different institutions, comparing what is on offer.’ ‘I’m sure the building impacts upon staff recruitment because there is a good feeling and the space is good. It has an invigorating feeling to work here.’ ‘For me,

the location. (of my last job) was more convenient. It had a big impact on my choice of employment. Now the location is more inconvenient for me, but the environment is nicer.’ ISMA BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF READING Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS – ASPECTS OF BUILDINGS THAT INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT From the same figure on page 27 (Fig 3.6), it can be seen that 52 per cent of the features identified by students could be classified as structural or functional. These included the size and layout of the building, the open plan and modern design, the choice of materials used, and the quality of the facilities, e.g terraces, library, sports centre, atrium, café and lecture rooms. Forty per cent of the features identified by students were cosmetic and environmental. These included being environmentally-friendly, having a welcoming atmosphere, the water features, e.g fountains, and having a light and airy working environment. A

small percentage (four per cent) of the features identified by students could be classified as situational. These included being easily accessible, and having a good transport link. Students that participated in the focus groups also identified features of the buildings that had influenced their decision to come to the university. ‘I think you look out and see modern buildings and you think it is a new building, loads of new facilities, and that is the first thing that came to my head. You saw the design of the building and the shape. You knew it was brand new by looking at it and then you thought – and I know I did – “we are going to have up-to-date computers”, which in some cases they did.’ ‘Personally, when looking at universities, this one had the best facilities and in particular the new building shows that they are spending money. The fact that everything is in one building had a big influence on what university I chose.’ How the building looks, it would

make you want to come – I like to come here early and wait and get a car park space – it is comfy, no cold atmosphere – it is inviting.’ ISMA BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF READING However, some students expressed disappointment with some of the features. ‘I changed my view about the library – I loved it when I first came here but now there is nowhere to work. No study area, and now there are two desks between bookshelves, and, because people are walking round they could do with a silent floor. There is nowhere to work in it, which irritates me.’ ‘.the building did not improve the canteen or library.’ 29 Source: http://www.doksinet 30 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION Retention This section provides a summary of international literature on the impact of building design on retention. It also presents the main findings of the issues surrounding the retention of both staff and students taken from the quantitative surveys with staff and students, together with the qualitative

focus groups with students, and the interviews with staff5. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE The retention of both staff and students is an important issue for all higher education institutions. Retention from the students’ perspective can be defined as ‘the maintenance of students’ satisfactory progress toward their educational objectives until the objectives are attained’ (Dollence, 1998. Issues regarding student retention have been receiving increasing attention in recent years. Research by Mantz Yorke of Liverpool’s John Moores University identified eight possible factors that can influence a student to withdraw. Notably, two of the eight relate to the location and the facilities of their institution (Yorke, 1998, cited by Scottish Centre for Research in Education, 2001). ‘a more pleasant and healthy internal environment is more likely to improve productivity and staff retention, and reduce sick leave’ Retention of staff is also an issue for employers in higher

education institutions. In a study by Gullickson and Tressler (2001) they suggest, amongst other things, that a more pleasant and healthy internal environment is more 5 It is important to state that the majority of the findings presented here relate to the level of satisfaction with the building. For the purposes of this study, a link has therefore been made between the level of satisfaction of staff and students with the buildings and their likelihood to remain at the institution. likely to improve productivity and staff retention, and reduce sick leave. After the expansion of the higher education sector in the early 1990s, anecdotal evidence suggested that an increasing number of undergraduates were not completing their courses. In 1996, HEFCE commissioned two teams to provide more robust research into why this was happening. The research found that non-completion rates were between four to five per cent per year. However, by 1997, more research commissioned by HEFCE suggested

that these figures may, in fact, be as high as eight to 10 per cent (HEFCE, 1997). The literature in relation to the impact of higher education buildings upon retention is discussed, as previously, under identified headings. SITUATIONAL FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE RETENTION Research has found location to be a significant factor in students’ decisions not to complete university courses. Research undertaken by Yorke on behalf of HEFCE (1997) examined undergraduate non-completion in England. The report identified 36 possible influences on the decision to withdraw, which were clustered down to eight possible factors. ‘Unhappiness with the locality of the institution’ was cited as the second of these possible factors influencing the decision to leave. STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE RETENTION As was found with recruitment, the literature in the area of retention is mixed. Some research indicates that the structural layout of buildings has little impact on

users’ decisions to stay on in the environment, while other literature suggests that the structural design of a building may directly influence users’ wellbeing and subsequently result in either retention or ‘exit’. Source: http://www.doksinet 31 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION For example, research reviewed in a report by the SCRE Centre found that course content and personal or financial reasons are the dominant explanations for students leave a course without completing it6. Similarly, in the study which Yorke undertook for HEFCE (1997), mentioned above, Yorke concluded that dissatisfaction with aspects of institutional provision was ‘of minimal importance’ to an individual’s decision to withdraw from higher education. He found that issues that were more significant included disenchantment with the course content, financial difficulties, family or work commitments, or university life in general. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CHOICE OF

UNIVERSITY AND DESIGN OF THE BUILDINGS In the surveys conducted with staff and students, respondents were asked to indicate if they were satisfied with their choice of university or with their place of employment and, as Figure 4.1 illustrates, the vast majority of staff and students stated that they were satisfied with both. ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR CHOICE OF UNIVERSITY/EMPLOYMENT? STAFF (no.96) STUDENTS (no.207) 100 COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE RETENTION 90 80 70 Again, the literature here is limited in relation to higher education buildings. However, Kennedy (2002), whilst focusing upon schools, argued that cosmetic quality contributes to overall quality. Griffin (1990) introduced person-environment interaction theory, which investigates the impact of a variety of physical attributes upon people’s behaviour. Whilst Griffin’s work was confined to the classroom, he found that a number of significant physical environmental factors affect human

behaviour. Griffin argued that spatial arrangements and physical design were significant factors. He found that, in general, less crowded spaces which offer each person more room produced less stress. He also found that colour tended to impact upon people’s behaviour. In particular, pleasure has been found to be heightened by brightness (especially warm colours). 60 50 40 30 20 10 % YES NO FIGURE 4.1: SATISFACTION When these results were analysed by institution, there was a consistently high level of satisfaction across each of the buildings, as illustrated in Table 4.1, below TABLE 4.1: ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR CHOICE OF UNIVERSITY/EMPLOYMENT? CASE STUDY INSTITUTION Institution 1 96 STAFF 207 STUDENTS YES NO YES NO 96% 4% 93% 7% Institution 2 74% 26% 97% 3% Institution 3 100% 0% 100% 0% Institution 4 100% 0% 95% 5% Institution 5 90% 10% 96% 4% Total 92% 8% 96% 4% 6 See www.screacuk/scot-resarch/wastage/ch5html Source:

http://www.doksinet 32 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION Staff and students were also asked to indicate if, in their view, the building was generally well designed. Figure 42 below illustrates that almost 90 per cent of students indicated that they felt it was, and just over 70 per cent of staff also thought this to be the case. IS THE BUILDING GENERALLY REGARDED AS BEING WELL DESIGNED? Interviews with staff within these buildings uncovered some possible reasons for these responses. ‘.my feeling is that I work better here than where I was before because the environment is much pleasanter, polite and it is a pleasant environment to be in. But there are two sides to that. Within the corridors, there is much more interaction than there used to be, but across the whole building it has become divisive.’ STAFF (no.101) STUDENTS (no.282) 100 90 80 ‘.the constant fight and fighting all the time, the constant day-to-day management having to deal with too little space for people it is a

constant struggle. But the irony is, with very minor things being done - most of them are on the management side - this building would be a dream.’ 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 % YES NO FIGURE 4.2: REGARDED AS WELL DESIGNED TABLE 4.2: IS THE BUILDING GENERALLY REGARDED AS BEING WELL DESIGNED? CASE STUDY INSTITUTION 101 STAFF 282 STUDENTS YES NO YES NO Institution 1 96% 4% 97% 3% Institution 2 65% 35% 92% 8% Institution 3 47% 53% 74% 26% Institution 4 82% 18% 85% 15% Institution 5 50% 50% 93% 7% Total 71% 29% 96% 4% Table 4.2 above details the variations across the case study sites. From this table it can be seen that whilst students consistently indicated that their buildings were well designed, in two of the buildings surveyed, a lower percentage of staff (47 per cent and 50 per cent) indicated this to be the case. The above comments from staff illustrate that there are a set of related factors governing the impact that buildings have upon

mediating the relationships between people. In this respect, some staff made positive comments about the buildings. Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT INFLUENCE THE FEELINGS AND BEHAVIOUR OF STAFF AND STUDENTS ‘I like the joined-up-ness of the buildings. We are all part of a diverse group, and the unity of the campus suits our purpose. The university is bigger than all of us, and we are happy to show and express that.’ In a review of the literature by Griffin (1990) which investigated the impact of a variety of physical attributes upon people’s behaviour, it was found that spatial arrangements/physical design are significant in terms of their effect upon human behaviour. For example, Griffin found that less crowded spaces, which offer each person more room, produce less stress. Staff and students were asked to choose from a range of building characteristics to uncover those that influenced the way they

feel and behave. The way people feel and behave is an indicator of their overall level of happiness, which will undoubtedly influence their decision to remain at an institution. TABLE 4.3A: FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE STAFF RETENTION CATEGORY OF FEATURE FEATURE STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL Function/Facilities 76% Office and work space 70% Size/proportion/openness 60% Lighting 58% Stimulating character 55% Accessibility/entrance 53% Materials 52% Teaching rooms 52% Flexible spaces 49% Research facilities 37% Acoustics 31% All features 54% Decoration/Furnishings 64% WOW factor 62% Health/Safety/Security 58% Staff rooms 49% Air quality/Ventilation 32% Heating/Cooling 25% All features 48% External views 61% External surroundings 60% All features 60% COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL SITUATIONAL STAFF % POSITIVE 33 Source: http://www.doksinet 34 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION Tables 4.3a and 43b illustrate the extent to which the feelings and

behaviour of staff and students were positively influenced by specific structural and functional, cosmetic and environmental and situational characteristics of the buildings they frequented in the course of their day-to-day activities. ‘We have plenty of options with sizes of rooms. possibilities of extending, shortening rooms. So there is that sort of thing in the design, and we are very fortunate.’ In order to identify which of the categories of features most influenced the retention of staff and students, the total percentage of very positive/ positive responses was calculated for each feature, as presented in these tables. TABLE 4.3B: FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE STAFF RETENTION CATEGORY OF FEATURE FEATURE STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL Function/Facilities 71% Teaching Rooms 66% Size/proportion/openness 66% Lighting 61% Stimulating character 59% Research facilities 58% Flexible spaces 56% Accessibility/entrance 53% Acoustics 43% Materials 52% COSMETIC

& ENVIRONMENTAL SITUATIONAL STUDENT % POSITIVE Office and work space N/A All features 60% Decoration/Furnishings 60% Air quality/Ventilation 54% Heating/Cooling 54% WOW factor 54% Health/Safety/Security 46% Staff rooms N/A All features 54% External surroundings 53% External views 53% All features 52% Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES Analysis of Table 4.3A and Table 43B reveals that the functions and facilities of the buildings had the most positive impact upon how both staff (76 per cent) and students (71 per cent) feel and behave. Staff also indicated that the office and workspace (70 per cent) and the size, proportion, and openness of the building were positive contributing factors to how they feel and behave whilst at work. This view was shared by around two-thirds of students, who also indicated that the teaching rooms had a positive influence on their feelings

and behaviour. During the interviews and focus groups, staff and students were given the opportunity to highlight specific problems with the structural features of their building. Some of these comments were positive, others negative, as illustrated below. ‘South-facing glass panels make working in the offices in the summer impossible.’ ‘The acoustics of the place - you can make one noise and it carries over. Even the teaching rooms on level 2 - they have halls on top. As you pass, you can hear what each individual lecturer is saying. So it coincides and affects people’s concentrations.’ ‘For people who don’t know the building, it is constantly difficult to find their way around. It is difficult to access the building and to find the staircase, as well as the toilets.’ ‘There was an initial concept/solution for unisex toilets which was not going to work. So they were relocated and are now on different floors.’ ‘It all looks very nice on the outside.

What I do not like is the stairs. People are coming out of one lecture and, while people are waiting to go in, they are queuing on the outside and they have to wait. One day, someone is going to have a terrible accident. And the second thing that they did not think about is that they are professionals and they can hear everything that is happening next door – one to one – it is really off-putting.’ ‘I agree with what people are saying. It is a lovely place. and it is quiet The downside being open plan - it is noisy and there is nowhere to sit and read. main desks have a computer, but where do you just sit and read?’ COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ‘The buildings’ ‘wow factor’ was nominated by 62 per cent of staff as having a positive impact on the way they feel and behave’ A majority of staff (64 per cent) and students (60 per cent) agreed that the cosmetic factors that most influenced the way they feel and behave were the decoration, furnishings and

furniture within the building. In terms of environmental features, it was interesting to note that a relatively small percentage of staff identified these features as having a positive impact upon their feelings and behaviour: heating and cooling was indicated by 25 per cent of staff, and air quality and ventilation by 32 per cent of staff. However, conversely, 54 per cent of students indicated that these same environmental features had a positive impact on their feelings and behaviour. The buildings’ ‘wow factor’ was nominated by 62 per cent of staff as having a positive impact on the way they feel and behave, and this view was shared by 54 per cent of students. 35 Source: http://www.doksinet 36 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION The following comments illustrate the positive and negative influences staff attributed to the cosmetic or environmental features of the buildings. They also highlight some suggestions of areas for improvement. ‘It is a very nice working environment,

even on a grey day, and the fact that it has light space and that you can come into this space is quite uplifting. So coming to work is an experience. it does have an effect on people wanting to stay, whether it is a student or a member of staff. If you have a nice working environment, it makes a difference.’ (member of staff) ‘In relation to the temperature, the heating is not the best. There are sometimes real temperature extremes, which cause real discomfort, especially in hot summers.’ (student) ‘The ventilation doesn’t work well. Windows can be either closed or wide open. It is sometimes difficult to work here.’ (member of staff) ‘Acoustics is another issue. It allows no privacy and is disruptive for concentration work.’ (member of staff) SITUATIONAL FEATURES While students generally did not feel that the situational features of the building had a positive/ very positive impact on how they feel and behave, around three-fifths of staff indicated that both the

external views (61 per cent) and surroundings (60 per cent) played an important, positive role in how they felt and behaved during their working day. ‘overall, for 60 per cent of staff, situational features exerted the most positive influence in terms of their feelings and behaviour on a day-to-day basis’ An examination of the categories in the table above and the features within them, reveals that, overall, for 60 per cent of staff, situational features exerted the most positive influence in terms of their feelings and behaviour on a day-to-day basis. For 60 per cent of students, meanwhile, it was the structural and functional features of the buildings that had the most positive impact upon how they feel and behave. ‘Noise and smell is difficult.’ (member of staff) GENERAL VIEWS ON BEING ‘IN’ THE BUILDINGS ‘Generally, there is a noise problem in the building as well as a circulation problem.’ (staff) ‘Heating in the building - they use a sensor reader in big

areas and they put all the sensors in strange places. So it is freezing in the building’ (student) ‘As impressive as the terraces are, they are a waste of space – they are covered with computers and there is everything above it and nothing below it. You could have expanded the floors and you would have had loads and loads of space. It would appeal to students’ (student) During the interviews and focus groups with staff and students, they were given the opportunity to give their overall views on the quality of the buildings. The following comments illustrate the range of views expressed. ‘I lived on the old campus for two years. I think this is a beautiful campus. It has a style to it I found the other campus small. this library to me is so much better, more beautiful, and more pleasant to work in, in terms of the lighting and warmth. In the other one, there was always a cold breeze. and now it is lovely It has a different feel’ (student) Source: http://www.doksinet THE

VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION ‘It appears that the issue of space is not a problem in this building. They share it with other departments, with community groups, and with members of the community. The building seems to facilitate this shared space, which is perhaps key to architecture.’ (member of staff) ‘It is a pleasant building and I enjoy working in it, with reservations about a few things, and I think it is an adaptable building.’ (member of staff) ‘This building was never built with educational purposes in mind. It is too open-plan It does not work as an educational building.’ (member of staff) ‘This feels like a place of education. In my opinion, this is what it should look like - professional, a bit like a school, narrow corridors, big rooms and you feel grown up to come here – all day.’ (student) .personally, I would like to see a gym onsite and it is really lacking a swimming pool – a gym I cannot see as expensive. it definitely

would benefit’ (student) 37 Source: http://www.doksinet 38 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION Performance This section provides a summary of international literature on the impact of building design on performance. It also presents the main findings of the issues surrounding the performance of both staff and students taken from quantitative surveys with them, together with the qualitative focus groups with students, and the interviews with staff. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE Despite a wide review of literature, searching for the impact of buildings on organisational performance, not a great deal of information was uncovered. However, the literature that was unearthed in relation to performance is discussed within the three identified categories. It should be noted that most of the literature is taken from research conducted in schools rather in universities. However, the findings bear clear relevance to this study. STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES THAT AFFECT PERFORMANCE Several

studies have examined the influence that open-space classrooms have on teacher and student attitudes. Lewis (1976) looked at this relationship and found that teachers housed in open-space classrooms showed attitudes that are more positive. Similarly, Jones (1974) found that teachers’ attitudes towards their students in openspace classrooms improved significantly. Mills (1972) also concluded that teachers in open-space areas exhibited behaviours that allowed greater pupil freedom and self-direction7. Ikpa (1992) found a significant negative relationship between the age of school buildings and achievement. The data gathered indicated that, as the age of the school building increased, the achievement test scores tended to decrease. COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THAT AFFECT PERFORMANCE SITUATIONAL FEATURES THAT AFFECT PERFORMANCE The relationship between educational performance and situational factors is under-researched. According to Lackney (1998), embracing the concept of

‘place’ and ‘place-making’ is critical to understanding the way in which design principles for optimal learning environments are intended to be approached. Lackney suggests that design must be approached in a holistic, systemic way, comprising not only the physical setting, but also the social, organisational, pedagogical, and emotional environments that are integral to the experience of place. All of these are necessary if optimal learning environments are to be created. 7 The above information was found in the University of Georgia’s School Facilities Planning webpage: http://www.coeugaedu/ sdpl/researchabstracts/attitudes.html The discussion here is limited to the impact of environmental features. According to Lackney (2003), thermal comfort has been shown to influence task performance, attention spans and levels of discomfort. He cites a range of research that supports these claims (Berglund & Lindvall, 1986; Cohen, et al, 1986; McGuffey 1982). Lackney notes that

achieving good indoor air quality is as essential as providing comfortable, healthy thermal conditions and functional, aestheticallysound lighting and acoustic environments. He notes that strategies for improving indoor air quality include increasing the levels of fresh air intake and increased ventilation rates in buildings. These preventive design measures cost very little and save energy, as well as providing a healthier environment for learners. Griffin (1990) found that visual factors such as natural light and use of shade can affect an individual’s behaviour. It was found that white light increased activity while too much light could be detrimental to activity. Source: http://www.doksinet 39 THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION EFFECT OF BUILDINGS ON PERFORMANCE When the results were analysed by age, it was found that there was little difference in the responses of students across a range of age categories, as Figure 5.3, below, illustrates Staff and

students were asked to indicate if the buildings had a positive impact on their performance. Figure 51 illustrates that 80 per cent of staff believed that they did. For students, this was the case for almost 50 per cent of those surveyed. YES NO DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE? 100 DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE? 90 STAFF (no.100) STUDENTS (no.278) 80 70 100 60 90 50 80 40 70 30 60 20 50 10 % 40 UNDER 21 30 20 21-30 31+ FIGURE 5.3: 10 QUESTION TO DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS (no. 282) % YES NO FIGURE 5.1: PERCEIVED IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE It was found that buildings had the least impact upon the performance of undergraduate (49 per cent) and postgraduate (53 per cent) students surveyed, and the most impact upon respondents that were research students (83 per cent). DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE? YES NO 100 In general, students who indicated that the building had an influence upon their performance stated that the buildings had

contributed in three main ways. First, they helped to motivate students in their work. Second, they facilitated inspiration amongst students, and finally they provided key facilities critical to the course content. ‘.if it was a normal, standard office or lecture room, you would not speak to many people. it is that sort of informal interaction that enables you to experience. that is an important part of education’ ‘.you feel obliged to put that little bit more effort in. If you were coming to an old, grey building every day.’ 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 % UNDERGRADUATE POSTGRADUATE FIGURE 5.2: QUESTION TO STUDENTS (no. 282) RESEARCH ‘buildings helped to motivate students in their work, facilitated inspiration amongst students, and provided key facilities critical to the course content’ Source: http://www.doksinet 40 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION ‘.yes, as a first year who does not use this building a lot, it is something that you can aspire to. you look at this

building and think ‘whoa!’ It is a goal that you set yourself to be in here.’ The results from the staff questionnaires were analysed by the nature of their employments, and Figure 5.4 below illustrates that the buildings had least impact upon administration staff. However, this figure was still high at 70 per cent. Similar to the student responses, the buildings had most influence on the performance of research staff (90 per cent). YES NO DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE? Table 5.1 illustrates that there were some variations between student and staff views in the case study sites. For example, 80 per cent of staff in one institution indicated that the building affected their performance, whereas this was only the case for 14 per cent of students in the same institution. The qualitative research uncovered that the building in question was largely used for research purposes. Moreover, whilst overall, 50 per cent of students indicated that the buildings affect their

performance, in one institution this figure rose to 71 per cent - there was a high level of satisfaction with the building within this institution generally amongst both staff and students. The following comments from the interviews highlight the ways in which staff believed the buildings improved their performance, and identify some concerns. 100 A 90 ‘.I don’t think there is any doubt that it has an impact on me. It is at the risk of talking about it in a very general way. There is no question at all that the building is an extremely pleasant place to come to. It is a good working environment. And I think it is a happy working environment.’ 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 % ACADEMIC RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 5.4: QUESTION TO STAFF (no. 97) ‘.there are positive and negative parts Positive side. good community for discussing ideas in the pods. the large room with research students in it. it is a good environment for research students and mixing with academic staff –

that is the positive. Negative side, the staff would say can’t get my head down and do serious work.’ TABLE 5.1: DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE? CASE STUDY INSTITUTION 100 STAFF 207 STUDENTS YES NO YES NO Institution 1 80% 20% 14% 86% Institution 2 91% 9% 58% 42% Institution 3 84% 16% 55% 45% Institution 4 67% 33% 56% 44% Institution 5 82% 18% 71% 29% Total 80% 20% 50% 50% Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION ‘.this building does what the previous building didn’t – it gives us opportunities to learn through the building. For example, if I teach perspective, I get perspective use of this space. The light comes through in a particular way and you can teach without a shadow. we can talk to a student about certain types of material and how the materials go together – and they can physically see it.’ ‘staff and students were of the opinion that whilst other factors, undoubtedly,

had an impact upon their performance as employees and students, the buildings and associated facilities were also a significant factor’ As one respondent illustrated, in terms of having a positive impact on performance, it is important that the design features of buildings encourage and facilitate the casual meeting of individuals to enable collaboration to take place. ‘.I would not say it makes a vast difference The building is nice to be in. and I am sure we all work a little bit better in a building that seems smart and organised and has all the right sorts of facilities, but in general I have worked in all different facilities and I do not feel my work is less productive here or more productive if I was in a less attractive building.’ 41 Source: http://www.doksinet 42 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT INFLUENCE PERFORMANCE In an attempt to uncover the extent to which staff and students were influenced by the features and functions of the buildings, as

opposed to other considerations, they were asked to indicate how much their performance was influenced by a range of issues within the following categories – academic, social and facilities. In order to identify which of the categories of features most influenced the performance of staff and students, the total percentage of very positive/ positive responses was calculated for each feature, as presented in Tables 5.2a and 52b An examination of the academic issues that were most important in positively impacting upon staff and students’ current performance revealed that, in the case of staff, attitude, motivation and interest in type of work (94%), as well as the quality of fellow staff (89%) and support staff (79%) were the most positive features. For students, the amount and level of learning (87%) proved to be the most significant positive feature that influenced their performance, while the teaching quality (83%) and course material (82%) also proved to be highly

significant features. In the case of staff, the locality of the university (69%) was cited as the main positive social feature that had an impact on their performance. TABLE 5.2A: FEATURES OF THE BUILDING THAT INFLUENCE STAFF PERFORMANCE CATEGORY FEATURE ACADEMIC Attitude, motivation and interest in type of work/study 94% Quality of fellow staff 89% Quality of support staff 79% Amount and level of working/learning 61% Research quality of the department 58% Quality of taught students 55% Quality of research students 54% University and departmental policies and governance 52% Ability to attract external funding 46% Course material N/A Level of admin support N/A My preparedness for university education N/A SOCIAL FACILITIES STAFF % POSITIVE Teaching quality N/A All features 65% Location factors 69% Inclusion, involvement, participation 52% Interaction, community, relationships 53% Town 41% Financial reward/matters 46% Social facilities 33%

All features 49% Support of facilities 75% Quality of office 73% Campus 64% Teaching facilities 61% Research facilities 50% Learning facilities N/A All features 65% Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION For students, the town in which the university was in or was near to (63%), as well as the level of inclusion, involvement and participation (61%) were the main social features in this regard. In terms of the buildings’ facilities that positively influenced performance, staff indicated the support facilities (75%) and the quality of the office (73%) had the most significant influence. For students, meanwhile, it was, unsurprisingly, the teaching facilities (90%), campus (81%) and research facilities (78%) that had the most positive influence on their current performance. In summary, staff indicated that the academic features (65%) and the facilities (65%) on offer within the buildings had an equally positive impact

upon their current performance. In the case of students, they indicated that the facilities (72%) on offer within the buildings had most impact upon their performance. Social factors also had impact upon the performance of 49% of staff and 56% of students. These included where the institution was situated and issues around the involvement and participation within the institution. From these findings, it can be concluded that staff and students were of the opinion that whilst other factors, undoubtedly, had an impact upon their performance as employees and students, the buildings and associated facilities were also a significant factor. TABLE 5.2A: FEATURES OF THE BUILDING THAT INFLUENCE STUDENT PERFORMANCE CATEGORY FEATURE ACADEMIC Teaching quality 83% Amount and level of working/learning 87% Attitude, motivation and interest in type of work/study 82% Course materials 82% My preparedness for university education 71% Level of admin support 66% Research quality of the

department 45% University and departmental policies and governance 38% Ability to attract external funding N/A Quality of fellow staff N/A Quality of research students N/A Quality of support staff N/A SOCIAL FACILITIES STUDENT % POSITIVE Quality of taught students N/A All features 69% Town 63% Inclusion, involvement, participation 61% Location factors 59% Interaction, community, relationships 58% Social facilities 50% Financial reward/matters 47% All features 56% Teaching facilities 90% Campus 81% Research facilities 78% Learning facilities 39% Quality of office N/A Support facilities N/A All features 72% 43 Source: http://www.doksinet 44 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION Conclusions This research emphasises the benefits of investing in the higher education estate. The aim of this research was to assess whether links exist between new, well-designed buildings and the recruitment, retention and performance of staff and students within higher

education institutions. The short answer is that they do. Overall, this research has focused upon the quality, functionality and impact of buildings from the perspective of the individuals who use them. • The majority of staff identified cosmetic and environmental features as being most influential. These included cleanliness, a feeling of space and bright working areas. The findings from this research highlight the importance of the ‘wow factor’ of buildings, alongside the more traditional concern of function. This is important evidence, which confirms the significance of the performance indicators produced by the Construction Industry Council. These encourage architects and bodies commissioning new buildings to consider whether the planned building has the ‘wow factor’ as well as taking account of the more traditional concerns of function and cost (Kelso, 2000). In this research, the vast majority of staff and students (in excess of 90 per cent) was satisfied with

their choice of university, and the vast majority was also of the opinion that the buildings they worked and studied in were well designed. As Price et al (2003) note, it is important that the expectations of staff and students gained during recruitment are matched by the subsequent reality of their experiences once they begin to use the buildings. Indeed, as Fleming and Stor (1999) state, university facilities can impact positively or negatively upon student perceptions of their academic experience (cited by Price et al, 2003). STAFF AND STUDENTS IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC FEATURES OF BUILDINGS THAT IMPACTED UPON THEIR RECRUITMENT According to Coffey and Wood Steed (2001), students have become more aware as consumers, and are asking more of their universities: ‘they want an environment more like the one-stop shopping of the malls they frequent - more convenience, more interaction, and better amenities.’ This research has highlighted that: • The majority of students in our study

identified structural and functional features, including the quality of the facilities, the library, sports centre, atrium and lecture rooms as being those that exerted most influence PARTICULAR FEATURES OF BUILDINGS CONTRIBUTED POSITIVELY AND NEGATIVELY TO THE WAY STAFF AND STUDENTS FEEL AND BEHAVE WHILST WORKING AND STUDYING ‘staff and students were of the opinion that whilst other factors, undoubtedly, had an impact upon their performance as employees and students, the buildings and associated facilities were also a significant factor’ In light of this, our findings are relevant because they highlight the importance placed upon specific features of buildings not only in the recruitment process, but also in terms of their impact upon how staff and students feel and behave whilst they are working or studying. Moreover, these findings provide useful insights into both the positive and the negative impact of buildings’ features from the perspective of staff and students.

Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION This research has highlighted that: This research has highlighted that: • The functions and facilities of buildings had a very positive impact upon how staff and students feel and behave whilst they are working or studying • The majority of staff was of the opinion that the buildings they worked in impacted positively upon their performance. This was also the case for half of the students surveyed • A majority of staff indicated that the external views and surroundings also played a significant part in the way they feel and behave whilst at work. This view was not shared by students • The buildings had the most positive impact upon the performance of research students and the least impact upon the performance of undergraduate students • Staff and students identified some negative influences on their feelings and behaviour associated with cosmetic and environmental factors. These

included problems with the heating and ventilation, as well as acoustics and noise • The facilities associated with their institution impacted most upon student performance. These included the teaching facilities, and campus and research facilities. • Staff indicated that their office and work space, and the size, proportion and openness of the building they worked in were positive contributing factors to how they feel and behave • Students identified teaching rooms and stressed the importance of the size, openness and proportion of the buildings as contributing factors to how they feel and behave. HIGH QUALITY, WELL-DESIGNED HIGHER EDUCATION BUILDINGS HAVE A POSITIVE INFLUENCE UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF STAFF AND STUDENTS GOOD QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION CANNOT BE SUPPORTED WITHOUT GOOD QUALITY ENVIRONMENTS According to Edwards (2000), universities are communities – they are places where new concepts like sustainability can be demonstrated, and they have a strong sense of

place. Lackney (1998) suggests that embracing the concept of ‘place’ and ‘place-making’ is critical to understanding the way in which design principles for optimal learning environments are intended to be approached. Edwards (2000) argues strongly for the historic link between university buildings and intellectual inquiry. This research has highlighted that: According to SCOP (2002), if higher education colleges are to maintain high-class services and quality, the UK higher education sector requires substantial capital investment to modernise and upgrade buildings and equipment, many of which are outdated for the purpose they now serve. As noted, the research literature in relation to the impact of buildings upon the performance of staff and students in the higher education sector is limited. The findings in this report, therefore, provide a valuable insight into the ways in which staff and students perceive good quality buildings influencing their overall performance. •

In general, students who indicated that the features of the buildings they studied in impacted upon their performance stated that this happened in three main ways. They helped to motivate students in their work; they facilitated inspiration amongst students; and they provided key facilities critical to the course content • Staff indicated that academic factors associated with their job (including interest in the type of work and the quality of their fellow staff and support staff), together with the facilities they had access to, (including the quality of the office and support facilities) impacted equally upon their performance. 45 Source: http://www.doksinet 46 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION SUMMARY The tables below provide a summary of the key findings of this research as they relate to the recruitment, retention and performance of staff and students, with particular focus on those groups of features which have exerted the most positive influence. OUTCOME INDICATOR FEATURES OF

BUILDING DESIGN RECRUITMENT SITUATIONAL ••• •• • MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE THIRD MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE STAFF TOP THREE ASPECTS OF BUILDING DESIGN RETENTION PERFORMANCE • Proximity to city centre • Proximity to other major university buildings • Accessibility to main transport routes and links STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL • Lecture and teaching rooms • ICT availability • Internal layout and design COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL • Cleanliness of building • Feeling of space • Aesthetic appeal SITUATIONAL • External views • External surroundings STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL • Functions/facilities • Office and work space • Size/proportion/openness COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL • Decoration/furnishings/furniture • Wow factor • Health/safety/security ACADEMIC • Attitude, motivation and interest in type of work • Quality of fellow staff • Quality of support staff SOCIAL • Location factors •

Inclusion, involvement, participation • Interaction, community, relationships FACILITIES • Support facilities • Quality of office • Campus OVERALL IMPACT • •• ••• ••• •• • ••• • ••• Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION OUTCOME INDICATOR FEATURES OF BUILDING DESIGN RECRUITMENT SITUATIONAL STUDENTS TOP THREE ASPECTS OF BUILDING DESIGN RETENTION PERFORMANCE • Proximity to natural beauty • Accessibility of university • Accessibility to main transport routes and links STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL • Modern design - size and layout • Quality of facilities e.g ICT • Types of materials used COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL • Cleanliness of building • Environmentally-friendly features • Atmosphere SITUATIONAL • External views • External surroundings STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL • Functions/facilities • Teaching rooms • Size/proportion/openness COSMETIC &

ENVIRONMENTAL • Decoration/furnishings/furniture • Air quality/ventilation • Heating/cooling ACADEMIC • Teaching quality • Amount and level of working/learning • Attitude, motivation and interest in type of work SOCIAL • Town • Inclusion, involvement, participation • Location factors FACILITIES • Teaching facilities • Campus • Research facilities OVERALL IMPACT • ••• •• • ••• •• •• • ••• 47 Source: http://www.doksinet 48 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS • These findings suggest that the cosmetic and environmental features of buildings, such as cleanliness, a feeling of space and aesthetic appeal, are most influential in the recruitment of staff in the higher education sector. For students, however, it would appear that structural and functional features, such as modern design, the quality of the facilities and types of materials used exert most influence in terms of their recruitment • In

retaining staff, it would appear that situational features such as external views and surroundings are most important, whereas the feelings and behaviour of students were most influenced by structural and functional features, such as size, proportion, and openness • With regard to what was perceived to influence performance, staff placed equal value upon academic issues such as motivation, interest in the type of work and the quality of their fellow staff, alongside the facilities they had access to. Students, on the other hand, suggested that the quality of teaching had less influence upon their importance than did teaching and research facilities. Finally, this research is a welcome addition to the limited existing evidence base on the links between building design and recruitment, retention and performance of staff and students in the higher education sector. Our findings support Edwards’ (2000) claim that good quality higher education cannot be supported without good

quality environments, and they further reinforce the need for capital investment to modernise and upgrade buildings and equipment, as highlighted by SCOP, 2002. ‘cosmetic and environmental features of buildings, such as cleanliness, a feeling of space and aesthetic appeal, are most influential in the recruitment of staff in the higher education sector’ IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Whilst the findings of the research provide useful insights into the experiences of the two most important stakeholders – staff and students – the research does not attempt to measure the quality of the design. Consequently, this is an important area for future research. It would be particularly useful to take account of the Construction Industry Council’s Design Quality Indicator assessment, which enables respondents’ opinions on building quality, functionality and impact to be measured. In particular, future research could expand the range of stakeholders to include, for example,

designers, commissioners, developers, constructors, and project managers. Another important issue that begins to emerge from the research and which would benefit from further investigation is the negative impact which can result from design inadequacy. In particular, it would be useful to explore in depth what is perceived to be high quality and what is merely acceptable. For example, it would be useful to investigate with the full range of stakeholders the importance of eliminating the negative aspects commonly found in buildings, against the importance of creating a ‘wow factor’. And finally, it would also be useful to assess the impact of well-designed higher education buildings upon the local community, and to investigate the relationship between well-designed higher education buildings and the award of research grants. Source: http://www.doksinet THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Audit Commission (2003), PFI in Schools: The

quality and cost of buildings and services provided by early Private Finance Initiative schemes JM Consulting (2002) Investment in Infrastructure for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Universities UK, SCOP and HEFCE BBC News 20.042004 Overseas students ‘set to triple’ http://news.bbcnetuk/1/hi/education/3640141stm Baker, M (2004). ‘Scramble to win student millions’ http://www.bbcnetuk/2/hi/uk news/education/4201721stm Berglund & Lindvall. (1986) Sensory reactions to sick buildings Environment International, 12, 147-159 Betts, K.S (2003) National USA survey of student recruitment satisfaction and retention. http://wwwnationalstudentsoutlookcom CABE, (2002) Design Review, www.cabeorguk/publications 23042003 Coffey, J.S and Wood-Steed R (2001) Campus image: centre of attention. American School and University http://asumagcom/mag/ university campus image centre/ Cohen, S., Evans, GW, Stokols, D, & Krantz DS (1986) Behavior, health, and environmental stress. New

York: Plenum Demonica, D. and Ogurek, D (2003) A New Approach to Community College Master Planning. In College Planning & Management, June 2002 Department for Education and Skills (2003) The Future of Higher Education, Norwich: HMSO Department of Culture, Media and Sport (October 2000). Better Public Buildings. London: HMSO Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (2001), Building Better Outcomes: The impact of School Infrastructure on Student Outcomes and behaviour, http://www.destgovau/schools/publications/2001/digest/buildingpdf Doidge C, (2000) Post Occupancy Review of Buildings. RIBA Dolence, M.G, (1998) Strategic enrolment management In CC Swan (Sr. Ed) and SE Henderson (Ed), Handbook for the college admissions profession, 127-139 Westport, CT Edwards, B (2000) University Architecture, London, Spon Press Feilden R, 2001, CABE, Design Quality and PFI Schools A speech given at the PFI Schools Conference, The Millennium School, Greenwich.

http://wwwcabeorguk/eFFvzhkWfwk=8PhmcV98tqg/news/ speeches/speech.html?speech id=14 28/04/03 HEFCE (1997) Undergraduate Non-completion in Higher Education. HEFCE Griffin, T. (1990) The Physical Environment of the College Classroom and its Effects on Students. In Campus Ecologist vol 8 no 1 Gullickson, A.R and Tressler, GR (2001) Recruitment and retention in the ATE program. The Evaluation Centre Western Michigan University HEFCE, SCOP, UCEA and UUK . (2001) Recruitment and retention of staff in UK higher education Ikpa, V. (1992) The Norfolk Decision: The Effects of Converting from a Unitary Educational System to a Dual Educational System upon Academic Achievement. Norfolk City Schools, Virginia Jones, W. (1974) Comparison of Cognitive and Affective Change of Ninth Grade Students in Open-Space and Closed-space classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University Kelso, P. (2000) Architects urged to go for the ‘wow factor’ in designs for Britain’s new public

buildings. The Guardian newspaper, 27 November 2000 Kennedy, M. (2002) Creating Ideal Facilities American School and University January 1. http://asumagcom/DesignPlanning/university creating ideal facilities/ Lackney, J.A (1998) Twelve Design Principles Based on Brain-based Learning Research Regional CEFPI Conference workshop, Minneapolis, MN, Brain-based Learning Track, 6/8/98, see http://www.designsharecom/ Leaman, A., Bordass, B, 1999, The Probe Occupant Surveys and their Implications, CIBSE National Conference Leaman, A. and Bordass, B (2001) Assessing Building Performance in use. Building Research and Information, Vol 29, No 2: 129-143 Learning and skills development agency (2001). Capital projects in further education. The educational impact A report by the LSDA for the LSC Learning and skills development agency Lewis, F. (1972) The Influence of Open-Space Classrooms and Closedspace Classrooms on Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the School Building Unpublished doctoral

dissertation. University of Georgia: Athens Lund Kriken, J, (2004) Principles of Campus Master Planning. Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 32, No 4 McGuffey, C.W (1982) Facilities In Walberg, HJ (Ed) Improving educational standards and productivity: The research basis for policy Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing. 237-288 Metcalf, M. (2000) Changing the Rules College Planning & Management, July 2000 Mills, F. (1972) A Comparison of Teacher Performance and Attitudes of Teachers Performing Independently in Self-Contained Classrooms and Teachers Performing Cooperatively in Open Instructional Areas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona, State University MORI, (2001) Student Living Report 2001. Commissioned by UNITE, MORI, Bristol MORI, (2002) Student Living Report 2002. Commissioned by UNITE, MORI, Bristol. Available at: wwwunite-groupcouk/docs/unite SLR 2002.pdf National Students’ Outlook (2003) The National USA Survey of Student Recruitment, Satisfaction & Retention

Osborne, M., Brink, B, Cloonan, M, Davies, P, Marks, A, Turner, E and Williams, J. (2001) For me or Not for me in Scotland? A Report on mature Student Participation in Higher Education. CRLL: Glasgow and Stirling Personneltoday.com (2005) CIPD research predicts continuing recruitment problems http://wwwpersonneltodaycouk/Articles/2005/01/19/27391/CIPD+research+predicts 49 Source: http://www.doksinet 50 DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION BIBLIOGRAPHY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PricewaterhouseCoopers (2000), (Research Report RR242) Building Performance: An Empirical Assessment of the Relationship Between Schools Capital Investment and Student Performance, London, HMSO This report is produced with sincere thanks to the staff and students of the case study institutions who gave time and shared their experiences and views on building design. OECD, (2001) Designs for Learning, 55 Exemplary Educational Facilities, OECD Publications, Paris The authors and CABE are indebted to the project steering group

for its assistance throughout this project: David Chiddick – University of Lincoln (Chair), Bernard Dromgoole (HEFCE), Richard Feilden (Feilden Clegg Bradley Architects), Roger Hawkins (HEDQF and HawkinsBrown Architects), Chris Higgins (King Alfred’s College, Winchester), John Plumridge (De Montfort University), David Kirkwood (University of Sussex), Andrew Nightingale (University of Essex). The project has been managed for CABE by Tom Bolton and Sarah Carmona. OECD (2000) The Appraisal of Investments in Educational Facilities Pearce, M., 2001, University Builders, Wiley-Academy, Chichester Price, I., Matzdorf, F, Smith, L, Agahi, H (2003) The Impact of Facilities on Student Choice of University Facilities. 21, 10: 212-222 Schneider, M., (2002) Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? National Clearing House for Educational Facilities (www.edfacilitiesorg) SCOP (2002) A creative step-change – Maximising Participation in Higher Education.

wwwscopacuk/UploadFolder/Final%20Submissiondoc Scottish Centre for Research in Education (2001). Retention and Wastage in FE and HE. wwwscreacuk/scot-research/wastage Siedman, A (1998). Recruitment begins with retention: Retention begins with recruitment. Centre for the Study of College Retention www.cscsrorg/article recruitment beginshtm Smith, J.E (1998) Recruitment: student outreach strategies In CC Swan (Sr. Ed) and SE Henderson (Ed), Handbook for the college admissions profession, 127-139 Westport, CT: The Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers) UCEA (Universities and Colleges Employers’ Association), (2002). Report highlights serious recruitment and retention difficulties in higher education. http://wwwuniversitiesukacuk/mediareleases/show asp?p=1&MR=298 Universities Business (June 2004). First impressions: climbing enrolments, increased retention and lifelong connection are linked to the quality of the campus’ facilities.

http://wwwfindarticlescom/p/articles/ mi m0LSH/is 6 7/ai n6054466 Universities UK (2002). ‘University buildings and services in critical state’, says new report. http://wwwuniversitiesukacuk/mediareleases/ show.asp?MR=303 Universities UK, SCOP, and HEFCE (2002). Investment in Infrastructure for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Warwick, D. (2003) Diana Warwick speaks in House of Lords about problems of retention and recruitment in UK Universities. http://www.universitiesukacuk/mediareleases/showasp?MR=340 Wolff, S., (2002) Design features for Project-Based Learning Oregon State University. http://wwwdesignsharecom/Research/Wolff/Wolff DesignShare 3 7 02.pdf The research was designed and the data collected for CABE by the University of the West of England: Professor Bob Grimshaw, Professor Martin Symes, Dr Marie Puybaraud, Christen Peglow, Nada Brkljac. The research findings were analysed and the report written for CABE by PricewaterhouseCoopers: Dr David Armstrong,

Michael Kane, Dr Valerie Bunting, Barry McKiernan, Dr Emer O’Hagan, Ana Purina, and Kelly Long, with Professor Bryan Lawson of the University of Sheffield. As the purpose of this publication is to disseminate information, extracts may be reproduced, other than for gain and reward, subject to permission being given by CABE, and acknowledgement being made. Care has been taken to establish that the information provided in this publication is accurate at the time of publication and that the sources of third-party information are mentioned and acknowledged. Neither PricewaterhouseCoopers nor CABE accepts any responsibility for any errors or omissions which may be found, or for the consequences of using or acting upon any of the information or opinions contained in this publication. GRAPHIC DESIGN Draught Associates Limited / www.draughtcouk Source: http://www.doksinet Source: http://www.doksinet The Tower Building 11 York Road London SE1 7NX T F E W 020 7960 2400 020 7960 2444

enquiries@cabe.orguk www.cabeorguk ISBN 1-84633-001-7