Campus of the Future Research Briefs

GOALS

1. Offer amenities and services that enrich the teaching, learning, and research experiences on the Ann Arbor campus.
2. Promote collaborative environments.
3. Enhance campus character.
4. Support the university’s mission-driven needs and plan for growth.

Students often describe their campus experiences as “serendipitous” moments—running into faculty, staff, or student leaders in unexpected spaces and generating new ideas through these interactions. These encounters are supported by Social Infrastructure (SI), the deliberate design of spaces and amenities that facilitate social activity, community building, and cross-campus connection.

Social infrastructure includes obvious examples like student centers, libraries, and community centers, as well as less obvious spaces such as staff offices, centers for student success, or conduct offices. Centralized resources like seating, printers, and common amenities encourage gathering and prolonged interactions, while peripheral offices allow for semi-private collaboration. Proximity of offices and shared resources reduces barriers to spontaneous collaboration, making it easier for students and staff to share ideas and work across disciplines.

Programming decisions can also leverage social infrastructure: hosting events in spaces that promote connection, partnering with student organizations, or using “third spaces” such as cafes or libraries encourages interaction and network-building beyond formal classrooms.

Key Concepts from the Research Literature:

• Social Infrastructure (SI): The purposeful facilitation of connection through the design of spaces and amenities that encourage interaction and collaboration (McLane & Kozinets, 2019).
• Spatial Configuration: The arrangement of physical space—walls, walkways, furniture, and resources—that shapes how people interact, collaborate, and move through a campus (Hillier, 2007).
• Proximity & Centralization: Locating complementary offices, resources, and amenities close to one another encourages spontaneous collaboration and cross-disciplinary engagement (Dizikes, 2017; Hajrasouliha & Ewing, 2016).

Research Highlights:

• Dizikes (2017): Proximity between collaborators at MIT increased cross-disciplinary research outputs, demonstrating the importance of shared spaces for interaction.
• McLane & Kozinets (2019):Students bond and develop attachment to spaces that encourage regular interaction, flexible use, and some ownership of the environment.
• Hajrasouliha & Ewing (2016): Campus design influences student retention and degree completion by promoting social connectedness through living and learning environments.
• Działek et al. (2024): Crowdsensing studies show that when campus spaces are underutilized or lack social purpose, students gather only in limited areas.
• Soares et al. (2020): Spatial arrangements and density in parks, cafes, and campus “knowledgescapes” enhance social interactions and knowledge exchange.
• Ullah et al. (2025): Mixed-use education buildings foster social entanglement, community engagement, and learning opportunities.
• Winks, Green, & Dyer (2020): Common spaces, shared resources, and circulation areas (corridors, cafes) increase informal collaboration and cultivate a culture of innovation.

University of Michigan Examples:

• Ross School of Business – Davidson Winter Garden: Centralized co-working furniture, surrounding food vendors, skylights, and greenery encourage prolonged interaction, while peripheral offices provide semi-private workspaces.
• U-M Student Centers – Union, League, Pierpont Commons: Centralized resources and varied seating arrangements create hubs for collaboration, dining, and social interaction, fostering community connections at a campus-wide scale.

Example Outside of U-M: Mississippi State University – Holmes Center for Student Success

• Mississippi State University’s Holmes Center for Student Success is an open-concept design with centralized resources, peripheral offices, and communal amenities that encourages student-staff interaction and cross-group collaboration.

About the Author:

Ricky Urgo (he/him/his) is a second-year Ph.D. student-researcher at the University of Michigan exploring 1) socio-economic stratification and class identity, 2) the role of power and politics at institutions, including sociotechnical assemblages, 3) organizational readiness to serve strategic goals, 4) systems level approaches to student retention and success, assessment, and 5) organizational change. He can be reached at [email protected].

GOALS

1. Offer amenities and services that enrich the teaching, learning, and research experiences on the Ann Arbor campus.
2. Promote collaborative environments.
3. Enhance campus character.
4. Support the university’s mission-driven needs and plan for growth.

There are various definitions of collaborative environments at university settings. Some consider the library study rooms as the collaborative environment because students can study or work on the same project together. Some view the sports stadium as a collaborative environment because students can perform team sports. The National Education Association (2021) thinks of a collaborative environment as a space to leverage different points of view for better innovation, promoting intellectual diversity. There is no standard of what a collaborative environment should be, and this research brief will draw different literature to focus on how collaborative learning fosters collaborative environments through its positive function in interdisciplinary research and learning, spatial usage, and university collaboration hubs.

Key Concepts from the Research Literature:

• Interdisciplinary Research: Pertains to the integration of theories, methods, data, and perspectives from more than one academic disciplines to solve complex problems, create new knowledge, or explore subjects that cannot be understood within a single field (U.S. National Science Foundation, n.d.). The collaboration of scholars from different cultural, social, and academic backgrounds can have a positive impact on interdisciplinary research, including technology incorporation, database maintenance, and cultivating collective leadership (Johnston et al., 2020).
• Student Engagement: Refers to the degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion that students show when they are learning or being taught (The Glossary of Education Reform, 2016). Beyond the classroom, collaborating with working professionals and community organizations help students engage with addressing real-world issues (Mebert et al., 2020). Students’ knowledge is not limited to academic settings when they interact with non-school professionals.
• Collaborative Learning: Based on Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, collaborative learning emphasizes interaction with peers and instructors to achieve goals instead of working independently (Vygotsky, 1978).

Research Highlights:

• Laal (2013): Collaborative learning combines positive interdependence, promotive interaction, individual accountability, interpersonal skills, and group processing.
• Klippen et al. (2025): Focuses on social interaction, student dialogue, and knowledge construction rather than passive instruction.
• Qureshi et al. (2023): Peer and instructor interactions improve academic performance through collaborative learning.
• Msambwa et al. (2025): AI tools can enhance both personalized and collaborative learning but require ethical oversight.
• Kassel et al. (2025): Community-engaged, interdisciplinary research develops collaboration and leadership skills, using flexible spaces like historic sites for learning.
• Migliore et al. (2024): University hubs integrate academic, workplace, and social spaces to promote collaboration among students, faculty, and community.

University of Michigan Example: IdeaHub

IdeaHub at U-M hosts 1,500+ student organizations and shared spaces for collaboration, events, and workshops. It encourages:

• Inclusion: Accessible, diverse, and equitable environments.
• Collaboration: Working together to generate solutions.
• Discovery: Exploring passions and leadership.
• Innovation: Incubating ideas that create positive change.

Students and faculty can collaborate across organizations, host events, and access resources to build skills, plan projects, and create interdisciplinary opportunities.

Recent Example: Student art organizations used IdeaHub to coordinate acappella groups and joint art shows.

Example Outside of U-M: UC Irvine’s Anteater Learning Pavilion (ALP)

ALP provides students with the state-of-art technology and collaborative spaces to promote active learning. Surveys show students are more engaged and willing to experiment with different learning strategies.

About the Author:

Jiexiao Jacob Wu is a current MA student in Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education (CSHPE) at the University of Michigan. He received his dual BA degrees in Education (Magna Cum Laude) and Criminology (Cum Laude) from the University of California, Irvine. As a first generation international college student, Jacob understands how challenging it is to access education and he values education a lot. His primary research interests focus on evaluating career programs’ effectiveness in students’ transition to the workforce through the lens of digital skill development, especially among Underrepresented Minority (URM) and non-STEM students in career and technical education (CTE) programs. Jacob aims to pursue a career in academia and become a program evaluator to inform policy making in vocational education.

GOALS

1. Provide critical services to support students, faculty, and staff.
2. Adapt campus spaces to improve the user experience and comfort.
3. Create an environment where students, faculty, staff, and patients have access to resources and activities that promote wellness.
4. Build foundations for resiliency and community on campus.
5. Foster an inclusive physical environment where individuals can thrive.
6. Promote diverse representation within the built environment to inspire a sense of belonging.
7. Expand campus services and infrastructure needed to support a diverse campus community.
8. Distribute resources across a variety of needs that emphasize investment in equity- centered projects.

Students often lead demanding lives, balancing responsibilities inside and outside the classroom. Universities establish counseling centers and recruit personnel that help students manage their competing priorities and learn new strategies for combatting stress. However, another method to address student wellness can include designing learning spaces that serve multiple purposes.

The research presented highlights the effects of incorporating nature in learning spaces, and is grounded in the Biophilia Hypothesis, which emphasizes the innate affinity for humans to maintain connections to the natural world. Collectively, the literature demonstrates that thoughtfully designed spaces with natural elements, both inside and outside the classroom, can enhance student learning experiences. Campus planners can recognize the importance of integrating natural elements as a design priority for wellness. There is also an opportunity to enhance existing natural elements on campus by strategically placing study tables with power sources near trees and lawns to encourage learning in underutilized areas. Research shows that increased exposure to natural environments, often called "greenness," can significantly benefit student mental health and their perception of learning spaces. Studies indicate that even a brief 10-90 minute "green break" in nature can be restorative, especially after cognitively demanding tasks.

Incorporating nature into learning spaces can occur at both macro and micro levels. At the macro level, integrating biophilic design elements into new buildings, such as including greenery as prominent features around high-traffic areas and designing classrooms that maximize natural light and provide unobstructed views of their surroundings. At the micro level, department leaders and building managers can introduce potted plants or create a green wall as a focal point in entryways, enhancing the space's appeal and positively impacting student mental health. Students benefit from learning in natural environments, even if they are unaware of the restorative effects highlighted in environmental psychology research. By leveraging these insights through low-cost interventions, institutions can successfully build on Human Health and Well-Being principles. Specifically, incorporating biophilic designs can create designated areas for reflection and opportunities for learning spaces to support not only students' academic success but also their holistic wellness.

Key Concepts from the Research Literature:

• Greenness: Campus green spaces including trees, lawns, and bushes that flank walkways and occupy areas between buildings, promoting mental health and stress relief (Ribeiro et al., 2024).
• Biophilia Hypothesis: The instinctive human affinity for the natural world, which supports emotional and cognitive restoration when exposed to natural environments (Peters & D’Penna, 2020).
• Restorative Spaces: Environments that facilitate recovery from mental fatigue and stress by providing “soft fascination,” compatibility, and an escape from demanding tasks (Mason et al., 2022).
• Green Break: Short (10–90 minute), passive exposure to natural settings that replenishes cognitive resources and improves attention and working memory across educational levels (Mason et al., 2022).
• Indoor Nature: Incorporation of plants, green walls, and floral displays inside classrooms to improve perceived environmental quality and well-being (van den Bogerd et al., 2020).
• Biophilic Design: Architectural strategies integrating natural elements—such as greenery, natural light, water features, and natural materials—to enhance psychological well-being, reduce stress, and improve productivity (Terblanche & Khumalo, 2025; Abu Omar et al., 2026).

Research Highlights:

• Ribeiro et al. (2024): Positive association between campus greenery and student well-being, with nature-based interventions reducing anxiety and depression.
• Peters & D’Penna (2020): Daylight, vegetation, and views of nature support cognitive performance and lower stress in university settings.
• Mason et al. (2022): Brief “green breaks” consistently enhance attention and working memory, especially after cognitively demanding tasks.
• van den Bogerd et al. (2020): Indoor nature improves secondary students’ attention and perceived classroom quality; effects on university students less pronounced but positive trends exist.
• Liu et al. (2022): Campus green spaces improve mental health, mediated by academic achievement, with noted gender differences requiring targeted strategies.
• Montacchini et al. (2017): Living wall systems enhance indoor environmental quality, stress reduction, and student interaction with nature.
• Terblanche & Khumalo (2025): Biophilic study areas correlate with increased productivity, positive emotions, and rejuvenation among university students.
• Abu Omar et al. (2026): Biophilic design addresses emotional, social, and physical dimensions of well-being; framework shows strong reductions in stress and improved psychological health.

University of Michigan Example: Ross Sustainable Building Initiative

The U-M Ross Business School building features biophilic elements such as two green roofs for natural insulation and stormwater management, extensive skylights maximizing natural light, and a six-story skylight above the main collaborative study area to encourage continual exposure to nature.

Example Outside of U-M: Texas A&M University’s Aggie Park

Texas A&M University created Aggie Park to offer a premier green space spanning across 20 acres of campus. The park is designed to accommodate recreational activities, dedicated media utilities for national broadcasts, as well as an outdoor amphitheater. There is ample space for outdoor learning opportunities, public wifi, water features, and areas for reflection.

About the Author

Dreama Rhodes is a doctoral student in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education. Prior to beginning her doctoral studies, she worked in higher education as a Student Affairs Officer, where she assisted students with navigating the academic and social complexities of college life. Drawing on both research and professional practice, she examines how institutional responses influence campus climate and student persistence. Through this work, Dreama aims to advance research that challenges systemic barriers and promotes inclusive and supportive educational environments.

GOALS

1. Provide critical services to support students, faculty, and staff.
2. Adapt campus spaces to improve the user experience and comfort.
3. Create an environment where students, faculty, staff, and patients have access to resources and activities that promote wellness.
4. Build foundations for resiliency and community on campus.
5. Foster an inclusive physical environment where individuals can thrive.
6. Promote diverse representation within the built environment to inspire a sense of belonging.
7. Expand campus services and infrastructure needed to support a diverse campus community.
8. Distribute resources across a variety of needs that emphasize investment in equity- centered projects.

Creating equitable and accessible campus environments ensures that all students can participate fully in academic, social, and recreational life. Goal 5 emphasizes designing spaces that enhance physical accessibility, adapt learning environments for neurodiverse students, expand access to recreational spaces, and improve wayfinding across campus. Research indicates that intentional design—grounded in Universal Design, sensory-responsive environments, flexible learning, and accessible recreation—reduces barriers, supports wellbeing, and strengthens inclusion for students of all abilities.

Concepts from the Research Literature

1. Universal Design (UD)

Definition: UD treats human variability as the baseline, designing spaces usable by diverse populations without needing specialized accommodations.Key Principles (Connell et al., 1997):

• Equitable Use: All users can access facilities without segregation (e.g., integrated accessible seating, automated doors).
• Flexibility in Use: Supports different abilities and preferences (e.g., adjustable-height desks, captioned lecture recordings).
• Simple & Intuitive Use: Easy to understand regardless of experience or language (e.g., self-service stations with clear instructions).
• Perceptible Information: Communicates essential information across sensory modalities (e.g., tactile, visual, and verbal signage).
• Tolerance for Error: Minimizes hazards and consequences (e.g., lab emergency shut-offs, LMS assignment reminders).
• Low Physical Effort: Reduces physical strain (e.g., lever-style doors, touchless hydration stations).
• Size & Space for Approach & Use: Provides sufficient space for mobility and reach (e.g., wheelchair-accessible classroom layouts).

2. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) & Neurodiverse Spaces

Concept: Multiple Means of Action & Expression allows students to engage and demonstrate learning in ways that align with their cognitive, sensory, and learning preferences (CAST, n.d., 2024).Implementation:

• Flexible classroom layouts and furniture arrangements
• Sensory-responsive design (adjustable lighting, acoustic zoning, low-stimulation spaces)
• Lecture capture systems and multiple media for communication

3. Inclusive Recreation

Definition: Recreational programs where individuals with and without disabilities participate together with necessary accommodations (Mayer & Anderson, 2014).Assessment Tools: AIMFREE evaluates accessibility of fitness and recreation spaces across operational, programmatic, and physical dimensions (Project AIMFREE, 2010).

4. Wayfinding & Accessible Navigation

Concept: Clear spatial layouts, signage, and environmental communication help all campus users navigate complex environments (Passini, 1996; ADA Standards, 2010).Implementation:

• High-contrast, tactile signage, Braille, consistent placement
• Maps highlighting accessible routes, entrances, elevators, and parking
• Integration of signage with campus pathways and building layouts

5. Biophilic & Restorative Design

Concept: Natural campus elements (trees, gardens, green roofs) support cognitive restoration, stress reduction, and connectedness (Alves et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2015).Implementation:

• Green pathways, accessible gardens, study spaces with natural views
• Short restorative micro-break opportunities embedded in learning environments

University of Michigan Examples

• Rackham Quiet / Sensory-Responsive Study Space: Acoustic furniture, partitioned seating, and sound-masking strategies support neurodiverse learners.
• Matthaei Botanical Gardens & Nichols Arboretum: Accessible trails, buildings, and mobility equipment expand equitable outdoor engagement.

Examples Outside of U-M:

• University of Washington – Disability & Deaf Cultural Center: Combines cultural support, community engagement, and accessible facilities.
• UCLA – Campus Accessibility Map: Centralizes accessible routes, entrances, elevators, and parking, reducing navigational barriers for students with mobility needs.

About the Author:

Zhehao (Jeremy) Feng (He/Him/His) is a first-year master’s student in the Higher Education program at the University of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education (CSHPE), focusing on Student Access and Success. Originally from Shanghai, China, he earned a B.A. in Education, Communities, and Organizations from the University of Washington in 2025.

Jeremy currently serves as CSHPE Graduate Student Intern, supporting coordination between internship hiring teams and students, managing application tracking systems, and assisting with stakeholder-facing events such as informational sessions for hiring teams, admitted students, and international students adapting to learning and living in the United States. He is also a member of the Campus of the Future (COTF) research team led by Dr. Michael Brown, contributing to a research brief on Human Health and Wellbeing with a focus on fostering inclusive physical environments in higher education.

This summer, he will participate in the Experience in Program Evaluation (EPE) program, collaborating with the University of Michigan International Center on a project examining the experiences of recent graduates in the U.S. job market and workplace. As an international student navigating similar transitions, he is particularly interested in this work for its potential to inform how universities can better support international graduates and their communities.

Outside of academics, Jeremy enjoys road trips and exploring new landscapes as a car enthusiast.

GOALS

1. Make art and humanities a central element of the campus experience.
2. Foster a vibrant environment that offers a variety of opportunities and diverse daily experiences.
3. Make programmatic connections across and beyond campus boundaries.
4. Reinforce U-M’s role as a welcoming place.
5. Create a vibrant and active public realm network.

Cultivating meaningful engagement on campus is essential for creating an environment where students can feel welcome and integrated within a community. Such a process is done on multiple levels, largely focusing on the interaction between students, research, and knowledge with the broader community in both their campus’ environment and location, and with those environments on a global scale. When institutions consciously foster these connections, they support students to develop a stronger sense of belonging and see themselves as active participants in shaping their communities and societies.

Two dimensions of engagement in higher education are civic engagement and global engagement. Civic engagement is the participation of individuals in the community that they are situated in, usually to improve it and its future for the benefit of all community members. These activities may include voting, volunteering, and participation in local organizations and community events. Civic engagement is often rooted in a sense of responsibility to influence the community one participates in and benefits from. Universities frequently play an active role in fostering civic engagement by promoting voting behavior, connecting students with local organizations and service-learning opportunities, and funding community-based research collaborations.

The increasing interconnectedness between higher education institutions and individuals across different national and cultural backgrounds additionally necessitates programming oriented around global engagement. Global engagement takes place across a variety of levels within higher education, including at the individual student level (e.g. study abroad), the institutional relations level (e.g. cross-institutional partnerships), and the governmental level, where national initiatives such as the Fulbright Program support collaboration between universities and scholars across countries). Technological advancements and the state of global affairs have expanded the opportunities for global engagement; as a result, universities nowadays participate in broader intellectual networks that enhance collaboration and cross-cultural learning (Peterson and Helms, 2013; Hyter et al., 2017).

Through implementing programming that bolster civic and global engagement, institutions can cultivate a campus culture that promotes collaboration, belonging, and shared responsibility.

Key Concepts from the Research Literature:

• Communities of Practice (CoP): Social groups organized around shared interests or disciplines where learning occurs through sustained engagement and shared meaning-making (Wenger, 1998; Hindi et al., 2022; Terry et al., 2020).
• Third Spaces: Informal or semi-formal environments outside classrooms and residential halls that foster spontaneous interaction, identity development, and community building (Garvey et al., 2019; Lynch et al., 2025; Spreen, 2023).
• Civic & Global Engagement: The integration of students into their local, national, and global communities through meaningful participation, leadership, and cross-cultural collaboration (Peterson & Helms, 2013; Adler & Goggin, 2005).

Research Highlights:

• Cross et al. (2025): Third-space collaborations with librarians and learning specialists improve faculty capacity and student learning outcomes in multimodal assignments.
• Garvey et al. (2019): Transgender students benefit from third spaces that acknowledge identity and promote belonging, mitigating marginalizing campus climates.
• Hindi et al. (2022): Communities of practice support professional skill-building and identity development in pharmacy trainees through experiential learning.
• Lynch et al. (2025): Third spaces in teacher education disrupt hierarchical norms and enable equitable, collaborative curriculum development.
• Spreen (2023): Third spaces foster critical consciousness and social justice by allowing participants to challenge dominant systems and experiment with new social relations.
• Terry et al. (2020): Successful CoPs rely on mentorship, collaborative environments, and structured participation; barriers include hierarchy and limited access to meaningful tasks.

University of Michigan Example: Theme Years/Theme Semesters

The University of Michigan’s theme semesters and theme years are an apt example of how institutions can create programmatic connections across their campuses by organizing academic and co-curricular activities around a shared intellectual topic. These initiatives bring students, faculty, staff, and community members together around themes; for instance, in recent years, themes have included such as sustainability, arts and resistance, and democracy and debate.

Programming for theme semesters and theme years typically include lectures, teach-ins and workshops, performances, interdisciplinary courses, and public convenings.

Impact on Living and Learning Environments

Theme semesters and theme years lay the foundation for the organization of communities of practice across campus, as they encourage participants to engage with shared ideas in both formal academic spaces along with co-curricular settings. In creating multiple points of engagement across different departments and units, this kind of initiative fosters interdisciplinary collaboration, including opportunities for students to participate in intellectual communities beyond their primary field of study. In addition, participants often engage in collective meaning-making around timely societal issues.

Example Outside of U-M: Other Institutions

• UC Berkeley Affinity Housing: Residential communities centered on shared cultural identities and academic interests foster belonging, engagement, and interdisciplinary learning.
• Cornell University Language House: Students live together to practice a shared language while engaging in culturally immersive programming, supporting language fluency and community-building.

About the Authors

Vivian Nguyen is a Ph.D. student in Higher Education at the University of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education (CSHPE). Vivian’s research interests broadly examine race, racism, and decision-making in higher education through the lens of critical organizational studies.

Kaitlyn Dodgen is a Ph.D. student at the University of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education. Her research interests center on how state policies impact student access and success in community colleges and Career and Technical Education.

Audrey Lyons is a Master’s student in Higher Education with a concentration in student access and success at the University of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education. Audrey comes from a primarily admissions centered background, and focuses on access to college for historically marginalized communities.

GOALS

1. Make art and humanities a central element of the campus experience.
2. Foster a vibrant environment that offers a variety of opportunities and diverse daily experiences.
3. Make programmatic connections across and beyond campus boundaries.
4. Reinforce U-M’s role as a welcoming place.
5. Create a vibrant and active public realm network.

Students’ arrival on campus is a key moment for developing a sense of connection. Universities can support this through orientation programming, residential experiences, and student activities, helping students form dynamic relationships with the campus. Two concepts are central to understanding this process:

Key Concepts from the Research Literature:

• Spatial Belonging: How physical, digital, relational, or structural spaces impact student perceptions of acceptance, respect, and support.
• Place Identity: A person’s sense of self shaped by the social and physical elements of a place, influenced by lived experiences within that environment.

Research Highlights:

• Chow & Healey (2008): Students’ place attachment evolves over time, influenced by social relationships, proximity to home, and place significance.
• Qingjiu & Maliki (2013): Later-year students and domestic students generally report stronger attachment to campus environments.
• Samura (2018): Built environments in residence life influence students’ sense of belonging; different spaces serve diverse roles for different students.
• Taff & Clifton (2022): Inclusion and social support from peers, faculty, and staff are key to fostering belonging; gaps exist in research around assessment and curriculum.

University of Michigan Example: Theme Years/Theme Semesters

U-M’s Summer Bridge Scholars Program is a 7-week on-campus program for students from rural, low-income, or under-resourced high schools. Students take credit-bearing classes while engaging in workshops, mentoring, and community-building activities. The program supports a less intimidating introduction to campus, enhancing spatial belonging, identity formation, and access to resources.

Impact on belonging and identity: This program aids students in their transition to college and can help build identity. Because of the additional time for adjustment and limited number of students involved, students can engage with the university as a space in a less intimidating environment. Additionally, the plethora of resources available during Summer Bridge could help students feel more supported, thus heightening their sense of belonging.

Example Outside of U-M:

• Camp Yale Programs – Yale University: Pre-orientation experiences allow incoming students to explore campus, connect with peers, and engage in themed activities such as design challenges, arts programming, and community service.
• Pre-Orientation Programs – University of Chicago: Optional early-arrival programs enable students to explore the city and campus through tailored experiences aligned with academic or extracurricular interests.

About the Authors

Vivian Nguyen is a Ph.D. student in Higher Education at the University of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education (CSHPE). Vivian’s research interests broadly examine race, racism, and decision-making in higher education through the lens of critical organizational studies.

Kaitlyn Dodgen is a Ph.D. student at the University of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education. Her research interests center on how state policies impact student access and success in community colleges and Career and Technical Education.

Audrey Lyons is a Master’s student in Higher Education with a concentration in student access and success at the University of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education. Audrey comes from a primarily admissions centered background, and focuses on access to college for historically marginalized communities.