The House That Gen Z Built: Housing Style and First-Year Student Success

Emily Gilley, M.S., Graduate Research Assistant Amber Manning-Ouellette, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Higher Education and Student Affairs Leon McClinton, Jr., Ph.D., Director of Housing and Residential Life, Oklahoma State University

Residence halls are more than designated buildings and spaces for students to rest or sleep. They are hubs of interaction, engagement, and learning between peers who come from diverse backgrounds and experiences. They play a key role in student academic success, largely due to the extended amount of time students spend in those spaces.

Researchers have long found evidence that living on campus has a direct impact on academic success and persistence. The architectural design of living spaces can foster students’ socialization and feelings of community. A study by Brown and colleagues (2019) found that students living in traditional housing, where greater socialization occurs through shared spaces with an entire floor, had higher GPAs than students who lived in apartmentstyle housing that can limit peer-to-peer interactions.

In the fall 2019 semester, Oklahoma State University’s (OSU) Department of Housing & Residential Life (HRL) partnered with a graduate-level assessment course to build upon Brown et al.’s (2019) findings; measuring retention rate instead of GPA. This partnership was bolstered by the department and the university’s desire to examine first-to-second-year student retention. Therefore, this article’s intention is to address the complex issue surrounding on-campus living environments and student success among Gen Z students, describing one university’s investigation into housing’s architectural influence on student success. In this piece, we define success as a student achieving both educational goals and life satisfaction through academic self-efficacy, attention to study, and emotional satisfaction with academics (Krumrei-Mancusco et al., 2013). Furthermore, this article will provide recommendations to address housing’s role in student success during the first year of college.

Gen Z and Housing

First-year students living on college campuses today have vastly different worldviews, interests, and concerns than generations of students before, considering the unique eras they were raised in— for example, heightened security following September 11th, 2001, the Great Recession (2007-2009), and the emergence of technology, Internet, and smartphones. Therefore, first-year students’ residential expectations largely diverge from the original design of residential spaces in postsecondary education. Older residence halls in use today were architecturally designed to house an influx of students and address overcrowding after World War II. Therefore, they were not initially intended to promote community and co-curricular learning expectations that current students have for educational spaces (Yanni, 2019; Seemiller & Grace, 2015). Through this field of knowledge, OSU explored how housing style might impact their first-year student success.

Traditional Suite

Apartment

Figure 1 Housing configurations at Oklahoma State University

First-Year Housing Style Assessment

Partnering with a graduate-level assessment course and institutional research, the Oklahoma State University Housing & Residential Life (OSUHRL) department was able to examine the interactions between the types of residential living options and student success. At OSU, students can choose from traditional, suite, and apartmentstyle residential options. Student success was examined related to student’s achievement of both academic goals, life satisfaction through academic self-efficacy, attention to study, and emotional satisfaction with academics (Krumrei-Mancusco et al., 2013).

We collaborated with the institutional research department to examine overall university retention rates of students (first-to-second-year) based on housing style during the 2018-2019 academic year. Through the partnership of the assessment course, one of the researchers was able to explore contributing factors in residence halls that might influence the institution’s first-to-second-year student retention rate. Subsequently, we conducted a follow-up survey with first-year students (also categorized as Gen Z students) to consider how the different living options may have had an impact on student academic success at the institution. A recruitment email was sent to 2,374 first-year students, living on campus, with a response rate of 60 students. The open-ended assessment survey was conducted face-to-face and offered a $10 dining card incentive for participation. Participants were asked questions related to their learning and academic achievement while living on campus.

Key Considerations at Oklahoma State University

At OSU and within OSUHRL, suites retained more students than traditional housing and apartments, from both Fall 2018 to Spring 2019 and Fall 2018 to Fall 2019 (see Figure 2). First-year student retention data indicates that suite and traditional-style housing retained over 80% of students in contrast with apartment styles only retaining 79.3% from the first to second year of college.

While suites and traditional options have similar architectural layouts, they are priced differently. Students living in suites pay at least an additional $500 a semester for their own private bedroom. Thus, students who live in suites likely have a higher household income, an element known to be associated with greater retention from Year 1 to Year 2 (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2019). This financial implication is important to consider within housing and residential life, as research indicates students who are economically disadvantaged are also likely to have less access to academic support, capital, and resources, thus affecting college success (Stephens et al., 2014). Due to the limitations of this assessment, income level was not controlled when analyzing retention data by housing style.

In the open-ended assessment feedback from Fall 2019, suite residents mentioned the impact of living-learning programs (LLP) on their feelings of community and study habits. Living-learning programs are a form of learning communities found in select OSU residence halls—most commonly suite and traditional-style housing—where students are given the opportunity to live in close proximity to peers who have similar interests, majors, or personal identifying characteristics (OSU Housing & Residential Life, 2019). One student stated, “I live in [disclosed hall] so we have a lot of the same general education classes. That helps a lot because we can study as a group and help each other when we don’t understand a topic.” Additionally, LLPs have created a sense of responsibility and importance of dedicating more time to academics within their residential community. Another student added, “It makes me feel guilty when I don’t [study] (living-learning communities you know).”

Students living in apartment and suite-style halls boasted about their larger spaces and the privacy provided by separate bedrooms, which allowed them to study with minimal distractions. Though students in traditional halls reported that designated community spaces in their residence halls were conducive to studying, many reported their rooms were too compact, and the hallways were too noisy for them to properly focus on their coursework. Several noted that they studied outside the residence hall altogether—at the library or other places on campus. These considerations help provide a foundation regarding implications for practice.

Implications for Practice

Similar to the findings of Seemiller and Grace (2015), students at OSU preferred to have a designated area with limited distractions for greater focus when studying. They also favored areas that had the resources to support successful study time, including Internet access and sufficient table space. Learning spaces within residence halls that offer an array of setups, including rooms for small groups, reading lounges, presentation practice rooms, and those with interactive technology and computer equipment, appealed the most to Gen Z students. Therefore, as a result of this feedback, OSU has modified buildings and diversified the spaces where Gen Z students can learn, study, and gather.

Unfortunately, at OSU and elsewhere, there may not be enough traditional or suite-style living for first-year students. Subsequently, HRL departments may need to be strategic and innovative in ways to engage students who live in apartment-style housing. The following strategies should be considered in developing academic support spaces within residential spaces for first-year Gen Z students.

One promising strategy is to prioritize the clustering of first-year students in apartment communities. This would allow students to locate peers in close proximity, aligning with Gen Z preferences (Seemiller & Grace, 2015). Additionally, being intentional about assigning community mentors that understand the unique needs of first-year students is critical in these specific areas of housing. More specifically, Gen Z students have been found to respond favorably to guidance by peer leaders (Seemiller & Grace, 2015). First-year experience units should become involved by advocating how housing style may affect students’ success.

Feedback from OSU first-year students indicates that LLPs within apartment, suite, and traditional styles of housing is an intervention that promotes, not only student success but community engagement. By encouraging incoming first-year students to join an LLP or reside in suites or similar styles, students would be able to choose a specific community of “shared values and shared hobbies” that would lead to greater connection and relationship with their peers (Seemiller & Grace, 2015). Further, continuing to advocate for suite-style housing and similar designs in the future, could increase the likelihood that students would find communities that supported their academic achievements.

In conclusion, our assessment indicates that residence hall living environments influence academic and holistic student development. With heightened efforts to increase student retention, along with diminished resources and funding, housing and residential life must collaborate with other departments to create simple, yet impactful initiatives, that meet both the personal and academic needs of our students. Creating and adapting environments known to be beneficial for first-year students is one such way to make an impact, as well as understanding how architecture and style play a role in positive and negative interactions with academics.

References

Brown, J., Volk, F., & Spratto, E. M. (2019). The hidden structure: The influence of residence hall design on academic outcomes. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 56(3), 267-283.

Krumrei-Mancusco, E. J., Newton, F. B., Kim, E., & Wilcox, D. (2013). Psychosocial factors predicting first-year college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 54(3), 247-266.

National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2019). High school benchmarks report: National college progression rates (7th ed.). https://nscresearchcenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019_ HSBenchmarksReport_FIN_ 04OCT19.pdf

OSU Housing and Residential Life. (2019b). Living learning programs (LLPs). https://residentiallife.okstate.edu/current-residents/living-learningprograms

Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2015). Generation Z goes to college. Jossey-Bass.

Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). Closing the socialclass achievement gap: A difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological Science, 25(4), 943-953.

Yanni, C. (2019). Living on campus: An architectural history of the American dormitory. University of Minnesota Press.

CONTACT

Emily F. Gilley

emily.gilley@okstate.edu

Dr. Amber Manning-Ouellette

amber.manning-ouellette@okstate.edu