Space for University Students: Specific Requirements for “Self-Learning” Environment – Theoretical Approach

The architectural dimension of the openness of modern educational institutions signifies primarily the link between university life and a local urban centre; its life and history. One of the most important elements of that link is building location. Nowadays, university buildings are located – more willingly than in the nearest past – within the city centre. Obviously, it is not always possible, especially in densely built over areas of modern metropolis; movement to the city outskirts is sometimes inevitable. However, problem of connectedness with urban life may be sometimes theorized, producing more symbolic link. This has been represented by Peter Eisenman’s design for the Wexner Center for the Visual Arts – a part of the Ohio State University Campus in Columbus, opened in 1989. The institution was conceived as a research multidisciplinary and international laboratory for the exploration and advancement of contemporary arts. According to its founders, it was to act as a forum where artists’ ideas can meet diverse audiences and in this way to participate in the city cultural life. The building was the first major public building designed by Peter Eisenman (primarily a teacher and theorist) who extended the functional program of the building by adding a lot of philosophical ideas to strengthen the link between the building and the city. An integral part of the design became the reference to the history of the place (real and re-invented) and the strategy of “mapping the past” through which the campus was to open the connection with the city (Fig. 1, 2) [6].

Figure 1.

Referring to more pragmatic aspects of location within the city is another strategy. This was demonstrated in a very particular example of Ewha Womans University in Seoul (arch. D. Perrault, 2008), where the extended campus became interrelated with the trading area of the neighbouring district. The school buildings are located – much to one’s surprise – very close to the district filled with fashion boutiques, shopping malls, nightclubs, theaters and cinemas. The names of the main streets in the area are meaningful and reflecting the specific atmosphere of this part of the town – Ewha Womans University Shopping Street and Fashion Street. The design creates a landscape that blends into an area of pre-existing parts of the campus and its sports facilities, forming together with a shopping zone a coherent whole [7].

A significant aspect of the modern strategy to “open up” the university is to make a vital functional connection. Contemporary, leading universities all over the world seem to invest more money and efforts into complex functional programmes of their new institutions which primarily serves the idea of promoting universities by dissemination through education and outreach. The new buildings which cover these programmes are usually independent from university campus and dispersed within the city fabric. They are easily accessible for everyone, inviting not only students and scholars but primarily – local inhabitants. Very important is their specific multi-functionality; they can hold libraries, classrooms, exhibit spaces and even restaurants. Very often they also serve the idea of lifelong learning and integration with local community. An interesting example of this type of building is The Bullitt Center building in Seattle (arch. Miller Hull Partnership & landscape arch. Berger Partnership, 2012), a division of the College of Built Environments, University of Washington (Fig. 3). The building was realized according to the Living Building Pilot Program, created together with the Department of Planning and Development in Seattle and many other public institutions. Its most important part is the Center for Integrated Design composed of Design Lab and the Discovery Commons, but it also holds some office spaces for rent. Its mission is “to build knowledge through discovery, advocacy and education about high performance built environments that better serve the health of people and the planet” [8]. Functionally, it works as a research centre but also a place of technical guidance (organising workshops and seminars) and education for non-academic publicity.

Figure 3.

The Bullitt Center is also an interesting example of building a vital connections on a larger scale – by its reference to the natural and cultural environment. Like many other academic centres (another example is the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability – CIRS, University of British Columbia, Vancouver [9]) it is developing its base on the principles of sustainable development, respect for the existing ecosystem and protection of natural resources, but also on the basis of natural ways of designing spaces. The pro-ecological educational interpretation of the applied solutions is especially significant with reference to that type of building. It is demonstrated here by very refined technical solutions for protecting natural resources and energy through the extremely efficient use of rainwater and sunlight, but also by “organic” way of shaping building based on Christopher Alexander’s idea of a “pattern language”. The latter is represented by the use of windows’ space and stairs which encourage to walk by offering nice views and plenty of natural light (Fig. 4–7). The “openness” of the building is also clearly demonstrated by “openness” to changes, adaptation, or even disposal of a building elements. The important part of the educative mission of the Bullitt Center is also created by the collective of people working here. They are trying to change bad habits into good ones by saving energy (instead of using lift they are encouraged to climb the stairs, reducing the use of artificial light) or by replacing cars with bicycles (the underground garage in the building was turned into the space for bicycles).

Figure 4-7.

The openness of modern academic centres consists also in matching the university to the needs of users. For this purpose, a number of detailed educational and design programmes are developed which support pro-democratic decision-making methods in terms of shaping the architecture of the university environment. As shown by research on this subject, the attractiveness of a given university – apart from the obvious prestige factor (expressed, inter alia, by occupying a particular place in various rankings) – is perceived inter-subjectively. There are a number of factors described by some researchers as student-institution fit that influence its assessment [10]. Matching university with a student profile is based on a certain consistency between the student’s expectations and characteristics and the institution’s ability to respond to these variables [5]. The first well-known manifestations of this trend (1970) were: a pilot participatory project led by Christopher Alexander (then principal architect of the Berkeley Centre for Environmental Structure) on the extension of Eugene State University (University of Oregon) [11] and Lucien Kroll’s design for the halls of residence at Louvain University Faculty of Medicine implemented at about the same time (1970–71). In both cases, the aim was to establish a real dialogue with students and to engage them in the critical decision-making process on the formation of the university environment. Those participatory designed buildings represented “freedom, equality […] independence from the typical architect and client relation” [12:148]. A number of contemporary academic centres (such as Princeton University, University of Oregon) include participatory strategies for decision-making in extending and adapting the institution to the contemporary needs of its users (including students). The dialogue with students, as well as academics and other groups of university environment users, is a helpful tool of collecting necessary information on users’ needs and expectations for pre-design considerations. But the primary reason for dialog is equal treatment of different groups of interest. Students’ participation allows to treat them not only as mere users but as the most important “client” of the university. Consulting university projects directly with students, draws attention to the fact that the university environment is something more than a school. It is a lively place of many interactions based in education; a place of students’ individual and group work, a place of scientific research and a place for living (housing, food, cultural life, attractions). The privileged position of higher education institutions and science both in the hierarchy of education and in the individual and social life of man is also significant here.

Students’ engagement in schools – as stressed by many scholars – is an important construct that has been associated with learning success. In the general sense, it means a “growth producing activity through which an individual allocates attention in active response to the environment” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) [13:67]. It reflects person’s involvement in a task or activity which has been identified as a primary variable in understanding a gradual process operating in a student’s life influencing improved academic performance. It can be viewed, thus, as a value associated with positive student’s contribution. It is suggested that students’ engagement is multi-dimensional and is associated with several similar constructions such as “school connectedness” or “school bonding” [13:68]. A number of studies point to a strong and mutual relation between engagement and motivation. Motivation frequently precedes involvement; it is necessary but not sufficient; one can be motivated but not actively engaged.

Engagement is defined with use of many components including both indicators (such as affective, behavioural and cognitive) as well as facilitators (both personal and contextual factors). [13:68]. Each of those components is important to a complete understanding of students’ active involvment. Speaking of facilitators of engagement one must consider both individual and environmental or contextual factors, such as: family, peers, school (including “school climate”). The last ones are constituted, inter alia, by school or university architecture (but also the relations between teacher and students and the teaching methods). It is also claimed that “engagement must not be disconnected from time, place and space” (Zyngier, 2007) [14:23]. The three-dimensional model of students’ engagement in learning is composed of three subtypes which are its indicators; they are: (1) affective/emotional; (2) behavioural and (3) cognitive components [13]. Emotional component is expressed by identification with school, sense of belonging and appreciation for learning; it refers to student’s feelings towards their school. Among many other items included in The Student Engagement in School Questionnaire (SESQ) measuring affective linking for school there are: “I like my school” (a11), “I am proud to be at this school” (a13) or “I am happy to be at this school” (a17) [13]. Behavioural component may be measured primarily through “participation” in school life; it includes observable students’ actions, activities, attendance and work habits. Cognitive part of engagement reveals in students’ perceptions and beliefs associated to school and learning. Primarily it shows up through investment in learning [13, 4].

There are three groups of variables that are significant in the process of evaluation and functioning of the learning environment. These are: (1) student characteristics (including goals, abilities, needs, interests and values); (2) characteristics of the learning environment (including: physical [architecture], academic and social characteristics of the environment); (3) student-environment interaction results [10]. Among the frequently mentioned factors influencing the students’ evaluation of the learning environment, there are those relating to the practical aspects of university life – often neglected by authorities – such as location, housing conditions, socio-cultural and sporting attractions as well as dining service conditions. These elements are usually the most frequently criticized aspects of the university environment similarly to various types of services and facilities. Students also observe and criticise some environmental features such as overcrowding, social dimension of places, lighting, dining and split sites [10]. The results of the research conducted by the Facilities Management Graduate Centre (Sheffield Hallam University in Great Britain, in 2000 and 2001), on a big sample of about 2000 students, showed a classification of the significance of specific learning environment features from the students’ point of view. These were: courses offered by university, computer availability, library, teachers’ academic standing, availability of quiet places and individual work areas, quality of public transport, student-friendly attitude, food prices, cleanliness, land use, housing terms, quality of lecture rooms, quality of catering services on campus, union social facilities, availability and range of shops and other services [10, 5].

Those and other research results indicate a correlation between the quality of the educational environment – in the general sense – with the level of student engagement and the average academic performance. There are, certainly, different relations between individual sub-variables being given. This diversity concerns both the characteristic parameters describing the learning environment, such as: building age, building quality (including architectural design), building size and organization, cleanliness and ongoing maintenance (lockers), lighting, thermal comfort and indoor air quality, specific building features such as science laboratories and libraries, as well as bathroom and food facilities, and the specific learning outcomes. For instance, studies conducted in US high schools have shown a significant correlation between environmental conditions and the overall “school climate” (“defined in terms of teacher, student, and parent perceptions about self, student achievement, organizational rules and policies, and the facility itself” [15:60]), and this, in turn, has a direct impact on the specific learning outcomes (such as student achievement in English and mathematics). It is difficult, however, to clearly state to what extent environmental conditions affect the improvement in learning outcomes and what plays a key role here, mainly because they always constitute a set of unique, unrepeatable factors related to other types of variables that are modified by “dynamic processes” associated with a given place [16].

The ability to make choices, including place selection stands out among the recognized relations. Places close to the teacher-lecturer are correlated with the sense of learner’s satisfaction of being in school; close contact with the teacher helps one focus on content, invest in cognition; the hypothesis of visual contact and social integration plays an important role here [17]. From this point of view, the important factors supporting engagement in learning include: the size of school and the arrangement of space, the variables that are largely dependent on the architectural design. Not only does the right design allow a choice of place, but it also enables a pro-social arrangement, adjusts the level of control and privacy, and ensures an appropriate level of the environment’s openness to adaptation and creative interpretation. For example, Janowska and Atlay (2008) explored the influence of a specifically designed “creative learning space” on students engagement with the learning process. On the basis of the analysis of participant students’ responses to working in the designed spaces (described as “creative, positive, interactive, enjoyable, exciting, flexible, productive, engaging, involving, encouraging, inspiring, stimulating, fresh, functional, comfortable, relaxing, informal, [and] personal”), they concluded that the creative learning space had a positive influence on students’ experience and their engagement with the learning process [14:23].