Students’ Assesment of Environmental Conditions in University Buildings – The Research Report

The main aim of the research – in terms of both theoretical studies and practical applications – is an attempt to search for regularities and explanation of the relations that occur between the shape of the spatial structure and the patterns of behaviour in that space and the ways of its conceptualization (descriptions). The subjects of interest are the issues related to the active perception of architectural space, which takes place under real conditions in a built environment. In order to fill this need – the research focused on the problem of participants’ engagement with places of the study. The study based on the theoretical model of engagement composed of three subtypes (affective/emotional; behavioural and cognitive) [2]. And thus, the method of research was designed to test different forms of students’ engagement with learning environment treated also as the indicators of the active perception. The research deals with affective descriptions and assessment of places, behavioural engagement (such as “hang-out” places) and recognized meaning (conceptualization) of the places.

The subject of the study consisted in 5 didactic buildings belonging to 4 different universities (Cracow University of Technology, Academy of Fine Arts in Cracow, Lublin University of Technology, Warsaw University) in 3 cities (Cracow, Lublin, Warsaw). The selected facilities included: two buildings of the Faculty of Architecture at Cracow University of Technology (B1 – on Warszawska Street and B2 – on Podchorążych Street); the headquarters of the Academy of Fine Arts on Matejko Square in Krakow (B3); the building of the Eastern Innovative Centre for Architecture in Lublin (new part of the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture at Lublin University of Technology – B4) and the seat of the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Warsaw (B5). Only two out of the five selected buildings were designed for the universities which are located there; one of them is the nineteenth-century building of the Academy of Fine Arts in Cracow; the other is the building belonging to Lublin University of Technology. The remaining three buildings have been adapted to their current functions [1].

Building 1 (B1) is the former headquarters of the Faculty of Architecture at Cracow University of Technology located in the “campus” on Warszawska Street amidst several other university buildings (other departments’ facilities, library, canteen, little café, kiosk, photocopy services, etc.). The building was constructed in the nineteenth century as one of the elements of the military barracks of Archduke Rudolf. It stands in the centre of a symmetrical composition of similar brick buildings; the whole complex (despite the introduction of a number of newer architectural interventions) have preserved a historic and quite monumental character. The interior of the campus is filled with high greenery and organised lanes with park benches as well as car and bicycle parks. Nowadays, the building is only partially used by the Faculty of Architecture; some of the rooms are occupied by other CUT units.

Other building belonging to the Faculty of Architecture at Cracow University of Technology being a subject of survey (B2) is located on Podchorążych Street. Currently it is the main building of the Faculty; there are its headquarters likewise most of the teaching units here. This place boasts an interesting history – there was a royal residence here as early as in the Middle Ages, then it was rebuilt during the Renaissance as Palace in Łobzów and then in the nineteenth century the building was rebuilt for the Officer Cadets School [3]. In the 1980s, the building was entered in the register of monuments, and in 1993 the renovation work was carried out (arch. Andrzej Kadłuczka) to protect the building, expose its historical traces and to adapt it to the needs of the Faculty of Architecture. The building is surrounded by a bit run down high park greenery and separated from the city by a high mesh fence. The area is also occupied by spacious car park in front of the building and a partly undeveloped courtyard at the back. The open entrance to the area is located only at one point at the front, on the axis of the building. In the functional sense, the building is roughly divided in the middle of the symmetrical plan between two faculties: Architecture and Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science. The last floor – an adapted attic of the building – belongs entirely to the Faculty of Architecture housing large design rooms, drawing and sculpture rooms.

The building of the Academy of Fine Arts (B3) is a monumental nineteenth-century Academy building located in the core of the city centre of Cracow on Matejko Square; it overlooks the Grunwaldzki Monument and the Barbican. The original building was designed by Maciej Moraczewski between 1878 and 1879, then it was extended and redesigned several times. In the interwar years the 3rd floor was built (arch.: Józef Gałęzowski and Adolf Szyszko-Bohusz) and in recent years a new wing was added facing Paderewski Street (arch: Jacek Budyn, Andrzej Getter, 1989–2001), a courtyard was built over to form a lecture hall together with the accompanying spaces in the interior (arch.: Jacek Budyn, Andrzej Getter, 2014; interior design: Janusz Kuchejda 2012–14). The building houses the headquarters of the Academy of Fine Arts in Cracow, as well as the Departments of Sculpture, Painting and Stage Design (in the neighbouring tenement). It constitutes an impressive and somewhat complex spatial layout in which the teaching rooms (unfound in any other building under study) are also located in the basement and on the converted attics. It is also the oldest and most “noble” – in both historical and artistic terms – building of higher education institution in this group of buildings.

The building of the Eastern Innovative Centre for Architecture in Lublin forms the new part of the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture at Lublin University of Technology (B4). It was constructed between 2011 and 2013 (arch. Jan Wrana et al.), thanks to EU funds. The building is an extension of the existing building housing the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, but it clearly breaks away from the existing context of the campus at Lublin University of Technology (whose buildings date from the 1970s) with its modern cubic form (“form of a spatial sculpture” [4:150]). The building was designed as “a modern school of architecture, but also as an «innovative centre of architecture» – a place for meetings and scientific conferences, as well as for continuous research cooperation with centres from Poland, Ukraine and Belarus” [1]. For these ambitious purposes, the building was equipped with a 200-seat hall located on two upper floors and quiet work rooms which can accommodate scientist and visitors coming from outside. The most striking feature of the building is an internal patio – an open space connecting individual storeys and covered with a large skylight. As declared by the authors of the design the building was intended to create a “friendly place not only for learning” but also for “«keeping» students” [5:105].

The building of the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Warsaw (B5) is located in Stawki Street in Muranów district in Warsaw. This building was built just prior to the outbreak of World War II (arch.: Tadeusz Ćwierdziński, Roman Sołtyński, 1938) [6] for elementary school, which – however – was never opened because of the outbreak of war. During the war (the building was located in the ghetto area) it housed the seat of the SS in its walls and overlooked the so-called the Umschlagplatz. It witnessed the tragedy of the Holocaust, and later after the demolition of the ghetto it remained one of only a few undamaged buildings in Muranów. Also today, the urban context of this place is deeply connected with history; the Monument-Wall commemorating the Umschlagplatz is well visible from the windows of the Faculty of Psychology building. After the war the building was used by a pedagogical school, and in the 1980s it was adapted for the purposes of the Faculty of Psychology. Today the building is almost entirely occupied by the Faculty of Psychology, constituting its only building. After the war, a sports hall complex was added to the building of the former school which is now used as a university gym; in the last few years the original pre-war sports hall of the school was rebuilt as a modern lecture hall. The building is adjacent to a large garden with a small fountain and benches arranged around it; there is also an internal courtyard and car park for employees. The building houses the headquarters of the Faculty, teaching spaces and staff rooms; there is also a library, a reading room, a cafeteria and a photocopy service.

All subjects were students in the buildings under study. A total of 184 completed questionnaires (N = 184) were collected (after the rejection of a few incomplete ones); including 52 concerning the building of CUT in the campus on Warszawska Street (B1), 44 – the building of CUT on Podchorążych Street (B2), 41 – the building of the Academy of Fine Arts in Cracow (B3), 31 – the building of the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture of Lublin University of Technology (B4) and 16 – the building of the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Warsaw (B5). In the group of respondents there were students of: architecture – 111 (80 people from CUT + 31 people from LUT), sculpture – 30 (AFA), landscape architecture – 16 (CUT), psychology – 16 (UW), painting – 11 (AFA). Most of the subjects were women – 132 people (71.7%), while men comprised 52 (28.3%); the sex distribution was similar in each group of subjects (related to each study site). In terms of the year of study – the most numerous group consisted of the fifth year students (uniform master’s degree programme or second semester of secondcycle study programme) – 80 people (43.5%); followed by the third year students – 49 people (26.6%), the second – 28 people (15.2%), the fourth – 25 (13.6%); and two first year students [1].

The study was conducted using a questionnaire technique. The questionnaire was composed of questions specifically aimed at people attending classes in the buildings under study and included verified building plans. The questionnaires consisted of the same items and a set of specific plans elborated for each of the five analysed buildings. The questions were divided into three groups including: general information (1) such as the year and field of study, the years spent in the analysed building and sex; mark on the plan and comment/describe type of instructions (2) and a short set of questions (3). The second part (2) contained the plans of the building which was the subject of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked here to mark various types of places important for them (such as “hang-out places”, “favourite places”, “disliked places” and “important spots” not included in the plan). The drawings included showed all rooms of the buildings (except for cellar and some technical rooms), doors, windows, and the most important equipment; some of the more complicated building plans were supplemented with selected descriptions to facilitate students’ orientation on the plan. This section also asked for a short description of one “favourite place” marked on the plan and one “disliked place”. The third part (3) of the questionnaire consisted of 8 questions one of which was closedended question concerning the assessment of the building’s functional performance (9); where the possible answers ranged from “very good” through “good”, “quite good”, “rather bad”, “bad” to “very bad”. The other items were focused on the “strengths” (10) and “weaknesses” (11) of the building, as well as the suggestions on how to improve the functioning of the building (12). The following three questions were constructed on the basis of the unfinished sentences method, encouraging students to make any associations and express their emotions: “When I think of this building…” (13); “I associate this building with…”(14); “What I like most here…” (15). The last task in the questionnaire was: “List 5 adjectives that best describe the building” [1].

The data (N = 184) were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. SOFA Statistics software was used for quantitative data analysis; qualitative data were analysed using various types of content analysis methods and space syntax methods. The students’ responses to the second set of questions (marked on the plan) were summarized in the form of behavioural maps where aggregate responses for “hang-out places”, “favourite places” and “disliked places” for individual building plans as well as the aggregate maps of all marked places for individual plans were created. These data – developed on the basis of the information declared in the questionnaire forms – generated the image of the frequency of hanging out in certain places, the popularity and attractiveness of certain places, as well as the map of the most unpopular places in the buildings. Spatial analysis of selected buildings using space syntax technique was also performed. Three buildings (B1, B2, B4) which share the same type of study (faculty of architecture) were selected for this purpose. Analyses of individual plans were performed for all three sites; as a result, maps of the distribution of the most and least “integrated spaces” (the concept informed by the theory of space syntax [7]) in the system were created. These maps were then superimposed on previously created behavioural maps summarizing the results of students’ responses within the scope of the declared “places”. Collating the results of the space analysis and behavioural mapping resulted from questionnaire data (qualitative methods), was to verify the actual impact of the shape of the architectural space on the (declared) behaviour and emotional attitude to the analysed environment.

The measure of behavioural engagement in places was denoted by the number of marked points, in particular, the number of “hang-out places” (Fig. 1) and the number of “favourite places” (Fig. 2). These two variables, as shown by the results of the study, indicate statistically significant correlation (p <0.001, Spearman’s R = 0.245). Detailed results for the number of marked places (“hang-out”, “favourite”, “disliked” and “important” spots), counted as the sum of selections on each plan (floor) for each building is shown in Table 1. The diversity of respondents on the basis of sex – in terms of number of marked places – did not show any significant differences. Women in comparison to men indicated slightly fewer “hangout” places (5.47/5.52), “favourite” places (2.82/ 3.02) and “disliked” places (2.03/2.56); however, they marked more “important spots” (1.01/0.69).

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Based on the selected places, “behavioural” maps for individual buildings were developed. The maps present the specific location of these places (“hang-out”, “favourite” and “disliked” respectively) on the building plan. An analysis of the maps created in this way shows the distribution of the places of activity and preferences (also the emotional relation to places) with reference to “favourite” and “disliked” ones. There are places more likely to be occupied by students in each of the analysed buildings. Excluding the places where classes are conducted, the most common areas of activity are semi-public spaces such as halls and corridors. These locations occur in individual buildings in a more focused (B1, B2) or distributed (B3) layout, and are located on different floors and in different parts of the plan – more (B4) or less (B2, B5) centrally. Among all the marked places, the ones that stand out are “favourite” places which are usually located far from the main entrance, at the edge of the communication space, usually on the upper floors of the building (the last and the penultimate one). The phenomenon is illustrated by compiling “behavioural” maps for two plans (floors 2 and 3) of building B1 (Fig. 3); there is a noticeable increase in the number of marks on the upper level (+3), which is the penultimate and most populated floor of the analysed building.

Figure 3.

The students’ general assessment of functional performance of the buildings were illustrated by their answers to the question: “how do you assess the functional performance of the building?”. The results have shown a clear, statistically significant (p <0.01) dependence on the assessed building. They remained at an average level close to 4.00 (B1 – 4.00; B2 – 4.07; B3 – 3.66; B5 – 3.56), denoting the response “rather well”; the only building that was assessed differently was B4 rated “well” (4.94). The most common (modal) value for this variable in the case of buildings B1, B2, B3 and B5 proved to be “quite well”, whereas in the evaluation of the new building of the Eastern Innovative Centre for Architecture (B4) the modal value was equally “quite well” (4.00 [N = 11] and “very well” (6.00 [N = 11]). For this building, the range of variation was from “rather poorly” (3.00) to “very well” (6.00), whereas the ratings for most of the assessed buildings B1, B2, B3) start with “poorly” (2.00). In the whole study sample only one person rated the functional performance of the building (B5) as “very poor” (1.00); in the case of two buildings: B1 (building of the Faculty of Architecture at CUT on Warszawska Street) and B5 (building of the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Warsaw), no one in the study sample evaluated these buildings “very well” [1].

Location holds a strong position among the wellappreciated elements of the building in almost all cases (except B4); it is the most commonly mentioned strong point of the building. The strength is also green – either inside the building (B4), in the closest environment (B1, B2) or the garden (B5); its lack becomes the weak point of the building (B3). The important factors of building functionality assessment were also natural light, lighting (also artificial), the size of the rooms and the building layout’s clarity. An important element of the building’s strength is the external appearance (B1, B2 and above all B3). Among the weak points of the buildings, the respondents often mentioned the technical infrastructure (elevators, not enough outlets, Wi-Fi, air conditioning, heating, ventilation) and sanitary (toilets, washbasins, sewage), bad furnishings (uncomfortable furniture, no tables) and no places offering food. However, most often the element of the building assessed badly (also referred to as “elements for improvement”) is the lack or shortage of places designed for rest and individual or group work – spaces apart from didactic classes. These issues – titled frequently as “work areas” and “places for rest” – occupy the first place on the list of students expectations of how to improve the learning environment. This problem is also noticed by the respondents studying in the newly erected building (B4); in their opinion (20/31) there is a lack of individual work areas for students in the building.

The number of favourite places (also associated with behavioural engagement), as well as the unrestrained statements that completed the sentences: “When I think of this building…” (13) and “I associate this building with…” (14) were recognised as the measure of emotional engagement with places (Tab. 2). The outcomes are similar for buildings B2 (0.54), B3 (0.54) and B4 (0.55), and more discriminated for B1 (the least positive – 0.375) and B5 (the most positive – 0.72). Answers to the question: “What I like most here…” pictured the qualitative and emotional map of analysed buildings as phenomenologically understood places. As far as the last question is concerned, responses – especially those from students of architecture – often coincide with the marked “favourite places”; art students (B3) often wrote about the atmosphere and specific experiences related to the perception of the building, while building-related social experiences were recorded in the questionnaires of psychology students (B5) more often than in other groups. Some of the statements that completed the sentence “When I think of this building…” were very emotional and related to positive feelings (e.g. “I am proud/ I am happy to study here”), nostalgia (because of the elapse of time and the end of study), good experiences (e.g. “I think of people I met here who influenced my personal development”); in some other statements a strong negative attitude has been revealed (e.g. “when I think of this building, I want to escape from here”/ “I feel ashamed of this building”).

The results on the number of favourite places vary, among others, according to sex distribution; thus, the people studying in a given building are not on unanimous group. However, in all the buildings the most favourite places are those positively associated with learning and work or relax. An example of the first type of places is the drawing (Fig.4) and sculpture room and design studios in the adapted attic of the FA CUT building on Podchorążych Street (B2), the lecture hall at the Faculty of Psychology (B5), some studios at the AFA building (B3), the model house and the library in the EICA building in Lublin (B4) or the only renovated hall (N) in the FA CUT building on Warszawska Street (B1). The second type of places are places to relax or individual study. In building B1, there is the “expo” café in the basement, student government’s office called the “base” or a place separated from the mainstream of movement by display boxes with dried plants on the third floor. In building B2 these are definitely the corridors (in the part of the building belonging to the Faculty of Architecture) arranged with tables and chairs and the drawing room in the top floor (Fig.4). The favourite places in building B4 are situated in open spaces of the upper floors attached to the atrium, the places usually offer nice external views. The most liked places in the building of the Faculty of Psychology (B5) are both in the corridor on the top floor where colourful sofas were set (Fig.5) and in the faculty garden in front of the building. And thus, the other significant factor of choosing “favourite places” especially those dedicated to relax seems to be the nearness of nature. It may be a place within a building with just a view of nature (B1, B4) or a place outside the building adjacent to green surroundings (B1, B2, B5).

Figure 4-5.

The set of data describing the significance given to a place was developed by analysing the content of unrestrained statements that completed the sentence: “I associate this building with…” and a list of adjectives developed from the responses to the last question in the survey. What is clear from the statements that completed the above sentence is that almost a half of all respondents associates the buildings with didactic classes and studying in general (B1 – 31/52; B2 – 24/44; AFA – 10/41; EICA – 11/31; FP UW – 2/16). What might be less expected, every building under survey has been described with a certain group of adjectives revealing its special meaning for the users. For example, the building of the Faculty of Psychology (B5) has been frequently associated with “history”, World War II (7/16) and with a sense of antiquity in general (5/16); on contrary, the new building in Lublin (B4) – has been associated with modern architecture and “the future” (10/31). The AFA building (B3) has signified to its users primarily “history” and “historical art” (10/31) but also a “labyrinth” and a “hive (5/31). The B2 (FA CUT on Podchorążych Street) has been associated with “history” – a “palace” and the “Officer Cadets School” (10/44) while the B1 (the same Faculty building on Warszawska Street) has signified basically a “school” (6/52) associated “with a rigid educational system” or “classrooms” that “resemble primary school classrooms” [1].

While analysing the results, all the adjectives were introduced in a two-variable model designed for this purpose: (1) “positivity” (positive, negative, and neutral) and (2) “thematic content” (“shape and size”, “form”, “functionality” and “general impression”). This is how the exemplary adjectives appearing in the questionnaires (such as “monumental”, “gloomy” or “neglected”) were classified and count. This classification has revealed different profiles of positivity: building B2 received the most positive adjectives in relation to all terms used to describe the building (pos: 1.59/ neu: 0.46/ neg: 0.65); building B5 received the most negative adjectives (pos:0,75/ neu: 0.69/ neg: 2.44); in turn, building B4 was described with the greatest number of neutral expressions (pos: 1.77/ neu: 2.16/ neg: 0.39) (Tab. 3).

Based on the record of part of the content declared in the questionnaires on building plans such as “hang-out”, “favourite” and “disliked” an additional database describing the environment was created in form of “behavioural maps” for every analysed buildings. Additionally, for 3 out of the 5 analysed buildings (B1, B2 and B5) maps of the least and most “integrated” space were created – i.e. sociofugal and sociopetal space which is estimated along with a measure of space configuration in the system based on the space syntax analysis method (originally inspired by Hillier & Hanson [7]; [8]). These maps (Fig. 6) were then superimposed on the created behavioural maps in search of perceptible correlations.

Figure 6.

When the behavioural maps and maps of integrated spaces are superimposed, one can notice a clear relation between “spaces of integration” with a distribution of patterns of behaviour (“hanging out”) and – what seems even more interesting – with the distribution of “favourite” places in the building. As shown by the comparative analysis of these two types of maps, the “favourite” places are usually those parts of “hang-out” areas that are located in the niches (in the periphery) of the most “integrated” spaces, which are usually open passageways in practice. This suggests that students like especially those places that are close to the core of students’ life in the building – in a sense open to the biggest number of possible connections – but at the same time constituting an semi-island enclave within this space, providing a minimum of privacy, such where one can stop by and behave in a more unrestricted way. (Fig 7–8, 9–11).

Figure 7–8.

Figure 9–11.