The International Living-Learning Center
A Global Community
ACUHO-i 2012 Annual Conference
July 9, 2012
Anaheim, California
Please TURN OFF your cell phones or
switch them to silent.
If you must leave the program early, please
do so in a manner that does not interrupt the
presenters or other program attendees.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Enjoy the presentation.
ACUHO-I Annual Conference & Exposition
Program Committee
Follow the conference and contribute to
the conversation through Twitter with
the official association hashtag: #acuhoi
Agenda
Introduction
International trends
The partnership - INTO-UK and OSU-UHDS
Challenging methodologies with the ILLC
Educational
Cultural
Social
Operational
Lessons learned – one year later
Presenters
Dan Larson, Associate Director
University Housing and Dining Services
Oregon State University
Kurt Haapala AIA LEED AP
Associate Principal
Mahlum
Located in Corvallis, Oregon
Established in 1868 as Land Grant Institution
Current enrollment: 24, 977
200 Undergraduate degree programs
80 Graduate degree programs
4th national-wide utilizing renewable energy
Historic District listed on National Register
$261.7 million in external funding
$2.06 billion in statewide economic footprint
Founded in 1938
Offices in Seattle & Portland
Pacific Northwest / West Coast
regional focus
70 professional staff
Award-winning practice with focus on
educational design
Over 11,000 student beds completed
on 35 University and College campuses
Leaders in sustainable and
environmental responsive design
International Trends
International Trends
Changing Student Demographics – 2010/2011
723,277 international students currently studying in US
32% increase of international students since 2000/2001
$21.2 billion dollars into US economy
63.4% funded by personal or family wealth
Global student population studying abroad would form the 7th largest nation
It is estimated that by 2020 - 7 million students will study abroad
International Trends
Top Places of Origin – 2010/2011
1. China
157,558 23.0%
7. Japan
21,290 -14.3%
2. India
103,895 -1.0
8. Vietnam
14,888 13.5
9. Mexico
13,713
2.0
3. South Korea
73,351
1.7
4. Canada
27,546 -2.1
10. Turkey
12,184
-1.7
5. Taiwan
24,818 -7.0
11. Nepal
10,301
-8.3
6. Saudi Arabia
22,704 43.6
12. Germany
9,458
-0.9
International Trends
Top Destinations – 2010/2011
1. USC
8,615
7. Ohio State
6,082
2. Indiana
7,991
8. Michigan
5,995
3. NYU
7,988
9. Michigan State 5,748
4. Purdue
7,562
10. Harvard
5,594
5. Columbia
7,297
11. Indiana
5,471
6. UCLA
6,249
12. Boston
5,464
International Trends
Top Fields of Study – 2010/2011
1. Business & Management
7. Health Professions
2. Engineering
8. Intensive English Language
3. Math & Computer Science
9. Education
4. Physical & Life Sciences
10. Humanities
5. Social Sciences
11. Agriculture
6. Fine & Applied Arts
12. Other
International Trends
Challenges International Students Face
Lack of English proficiency (written & verbal)
Acculturation
Culture Shock / Stress / Depression
Discrimination
Alienation / Isolation
Loneliness / Fear
Post 9/11 Labeling
International Trends
Live/Learn Model
Ease of transition to University life
Intellectual growth & abilities
Increased self-confidence
Diversity appreciation
Improved peer interaction
Higher cumulative grades
Direct access to classes / faculty
Lower alcohol abuse
Social and academic connections
Better overall satisfaction
The Partnership
INTO-UK and OSU-UHDS
Corporate Mission / Visions
INTO establishes partnerships with world leading universities, creating
distinctive and exceptional study experiences for international students
worldwide.
15 University sites in UK, USA and China (including OSU, UFS and CSU)
32,500 commencements worldwide
90% progression to University (or other higher educational setting)
$500 million invested in global economy
Vision Statement
To be recognized
as a world-class
housing, dining,
and educational
enterprise.
Mission Statement
To provide a living-learning
environment as a gateway for
academic and personal success
through inclusive and innovative
programs and services.
On-Campus Housing: 4318
14
Residence Halls
4
Cooperative Houses
107
Family Housing Apartments
3
Dining Centers
4
Coffee Shops
1
Retail Market
Partnership & Project Priorities
Expand joint-venture between INTO &
OSU by developing a world-class facility
Create top-notch international student
experience
Create Live/Learn facility to support INTO
programs and to ‘ease’ matriculation into
OSU campus
Create a ‘destination’ not just a building
Provide clear, secure divisions of residential
and academic spaces
Mix functions to promote interaction
Support international food culture
Create a ‘platform’ for cultural awareness &
education
International Living-Learning Center
ILLC at a glance
Virtual Tour
From concept to realization
ILLC | International Living-Learning Center
ILLC at a Glance
Composition ::
352 students / 152,000 SF
Large, Comprehensively resourced,
Student & Academic Affairs based
Single program based on INTO
delivery model
12 month Pathway Programs
General English
Academic English
Exposure Programs
Integrated INTO Offices
Academic Resources
1 Auditorium
1 Academic Resource Center
25 Classrooms / Conferencing
Integrated Faculty Offices
Computing Center
Academic Lounges
Residential Resources
Residential Lounges & Nooks
Multi-Faith Center
Community Kitchens
ILLC | International Living-Learning Center
‘Traditional’ Conceptual Diagram of Live/Learn Relationships
Learn
Live
ILLC | International Living-Learning Center
Security & separation diagrams
3D program development
ILLC | International Living-Learning Center
Sectional study at Mixing Chamber
ILLC | International Living-Learning Center
Ground level
Fourth level
Grand Opening | October 10, 2011
ILLC | Mixing Chamber
ILLC | Mixing Chamber
ILLC | Lobby-Lounge
ILLC | International Market & Cafe
Challenging Methodologies
Educational
Cultural
Social
Operational
Educational Challenges
Pedagogy
Technology integration
Flexibility
Integrated environments
Pedagogy
Pedagogy
Technology Integration
Flexibility
Integrated Environments
Cultural Challenges
Student concentrations
Food & religion
Transition to America
Culture shock /depression
Fear factor
Dominant cultural ‘pressures’
Social pressures within cultures
Enrollment volatility
Creation of a truly global community
Student Concentrations
2011 Demographics
Food Culture & Religion
Food Culture & Religion
Food Culture & Religion
Food Culture & Religion
Financial / wealth disparities
New-found freedoms
Over indulgence / abuse
Transition to America
Culture Shock
“a state of bewilderment and distress experienced by an individual who is
suddenly exposed to a new, strange, or foreign social and cultural
environment”
Depression
“a condition of general emotional dejection and withdrawal; sadness
greater and more prolonged than that warranted by any objective reason”
Dictionary.com
Culture Shock / Depression
Cultural Views on Depression
Chinese are of the opinion that it is caused by a weak liver
Russians often feel that depression doesn’t exist due to many
factors in Russian life
Japanese view Depression as a symptom of being lazy
Arabic people with depression are often stigmatized and are seen
as having a flaw in their personality.
Americans very comfortable with diagnosis and treatment
Culture Shock / Depression
Factors impacting students
Post 911 labelling
Fear of living with international students
Threat to traditional collegiate experience
Fears over change in community demographic within small town
Fear Factor
Factors impacting students
American stereotypes
Fear of living with ‘big muscular Americans’ on campus
Threat to safety and wellbeing
Pressures of American College experience (abuses)
Fear Factor
Social Challenges
Layered communities
Passive & active spaces
Public to private
Mixing it up
Semi-private residential lounge
Private student nooks
Active social spaces
Layered Communities
Passive & Active Spaces
Passive & Active Spaces
Public to Private
Mixing it up
Mixing it up
Operational Challenges
Shared ownership / branding
Demand on facility
Residential life
Lease-up
Shared ownership / branding
International tenants want certain look / image (cost)
Campus context and campus standards
Residential programming versus controlled corporate image
Shared ownership / branding
Room turnover
Wear and tear on spaces (350 live here but over 1,000 use the facility daily)
Café and Market intensity of use
Interior finishes and durability
Building maintenance staff (addition day porter to keep up with use)
Extended (read: constant) hours of operation
Demand on facility
Traditional unit types versus UK model (on-suite unit)
Posters & communication
Judicial affairs / behavior management
Sex education
Residential programming needs to adjust to global thinking
Roommate conflict management
Residential life
Build it and they will come (maybe ?)
International roommate
Price point
Actual Population
Enrollment fluctuations
Contractual adjustments to ensure
occupancy
Lease-up
Targeted Population
Lessons Learned: one year later
What the students are saying – Satisfaction Poll
Partnerships
Educational
Cultural
Social
Operational
ILLC : Satisfaction Poll
ILLC : Satisfaction Poll
How satisfied are you with your living experience in the ILLC this year ?
ILLC : Satisfaction Poll
How much did the ILLC contribute or promote US domestic students
and international students interacting?
ILLC : Satisfaction Poll
How freely were you able to express your culture and values in the ILLC ?
ILLC : Satisfaction Poll
How positive and culturally welcoming was the living environment in the ILLC?
ILLC : Satisfaction Poll
Would you encourage other OSU students to live in the ILLC?
ILLC : Satisfaction Poll
What features do you use regularly at the ILLC?
ILLC : Satisfaction Poll
Where do you plan to reside next year?
ILLC : Satisfaction Poll
Reasons for not planning to reside in the ILLC next year?
Too expensive
29
Moving off campus
7
Housing contract expires
2
Want to be in a different environment
2
Inconvenient location of building
1
Size of room (too small)
1
Studying abroad
1
Moving to a different hall
1
Conflict with other students
1
Partnership Lessons
Get in the conversation early and be clear about your mission, values
and commitment to program success
Inter-department planning on how you will capitalize on the partnership
Engage in facilitated “partnering”
Get clarity early on facility expectations
Educational Lessons
Provide spaces that are open & flexible for multiple uses
Careful access to daylight & views (glare)
Promote visual connection to adjacent uses (distractions & acoustics)
Integrated technology at formal and informal spaces
Encourage inter-disciplinary models to promote synergy of programs
Provide academic lounge space for informal group or project work
Integrated faculty offices to support student-faculty interaction
Cultural Lessons
Arrival and check-in is critical
Staffing is a 365 days/week effort
Cultural integration is hard !!
Orientation needs to cover residential spaces/expectations early
and in small groups
Prepare for approaching policy issues
Smoking, abandoned property, cleanliness
Prepare for Cultural norms, expectations, and typical “young adult”
behavior
Social Lessons
Provide flexible, open social spaces, adjacent to other uses
Provide hierarchy of community space for scalable uses
Locate community space at vertical and horizontal circulation crossroads
Access to daylight & views (not just rooms – corridors, etc)
Integrated technology at formal and informal spaces
Explore connections to communities by visual and spatial connections vertically
Support cultural differences by integrating community kitchens and
multi-faith rooms
Operational Lessons
Information management system (Assignments/Room Management)
Business rules (term periods, rates, cancellations, etc)
Documentation (Wiki)
Price IS a consideration
Use this as an opportunity to evaluate the flexibility and adaptability of your
business rules
Don’t underestimate the cost of facility management
Questions
Dan Larson, Associate Director, OSU UHDS
dan.larson@oregonstate.edu
Kurt Haapala, Associate Principal, Mahlum
khaapala@mahlum.com