Evaluating the Effects of Architectural Aspects on Student Sociability (Case Study: Tehran University)
الموضوعات :Sayed Ali sharifiyan 1 , Hossein Moradi Nasab 2 , Maryam Ghalambor Dezfuly 3 , Vadihe Molasalehi 4
1 - Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Architecture, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran
2 - Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran.
3 - Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Development, Pardis Branch, Islamic Azad University, Pardis, Iran.
4 - Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran.
الکلمات المفتاحية: Student Sociability, Tehran University, Environmental Affordance, social interaction, Architectural Aspects,
ملخص المقالة :
The sociability and quality of behavior settings, according to general psychology data, are the most significant environmental values, measuring which helps to assess the success of environmental and architectural aspects. The present study was aimed at investigating the efficient environmental characteristics for the achievement of sociability in educational space. This issue has been addressed by examining the type and manner of interactions of students at the University of Tehran as well as qualified environmental factors facilitating, or restricting these interactions. In this study, data were collected as a combination of three methods of interview, observation, and questionnaire; with a population of students at the University of Tehran. With regards to statistical investigations, the sample size was 386 taken with a simple random sampling, and the data were analyzed using SPSS22 software. The one-sample t-test was also used for data analysis in order to find a logical relationship between variables. The results have shown that all environmental indicators are of significant importance for students in the formation of social interactions between students.
Alitajer, S., Zareihajiabadi, F. (2016). The Effect of Built Environment on Students` Interactions in Informal Spaces of Architecture Schools, Two Case Studies in Iran*. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba: Memary Va Shahrsazi, 21(1), 79-90. doi: 10.22059/jfaup.2016.59691
Asadpour. B., & Moslemi Haghighi, M. (2017). Effects of Architectural Factors on Social Interactions in Poetics Centers. Iranian Online Journal of Urban Researc, 2( 1), 1-4; DOI: 10.21859/iojur-02011
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology; concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford University Press.
Bazrafkan, K., & Gachkoob, M. (2016). Study of the role of public spaces in the formation of social interactions in order to create social susceptibility in cities. National Conference on Civil Engineering, Architecture, Urban Planning and Energy Management. October 21, Ardestan: Ardestan university.
Behzadfar, M., Tahmasebi, A. (2013). Recognition and assessment of influential elements on social interaction (strengthening and improving citizen communication in urban open spaces, model city of Sanandaj). The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh- E Nazar, 10(25), 17-28.
Carr, S., Frances, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M.. (1992). Public Spac. New York: Cambridge University press.
Daneshgarmoghaddam, G., Bahrainy, S., Einifar, A. (2011). An Investigation on sociability of the spaces based on perception of nature in the built environment. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba: Memary Va Shahrsazi, 3(45), 27-38.
daneshpour, A., charkhchyan, M. (2007). Public Spaces and Factors Affecting Collective Life. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh- E Nazar, 4(7), 19-28.
Edwards, B. (2014). University architecture. Taylor & Francis.
Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of urban health, 80(4), 536-555.
Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings: using public space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Ghalambor Dezfuly, M., Naghizadeh, M. (2014). Urban Design in the Context of Social Interaction Enhancement (Case Study: Street between Neighborhoods). Hoviatshahr, 8(17), 15-24.
Ghavami, S., Pourzargar, M.R., (2016). Study of the components of human realms in the collective body from the perspective of Edward Hall. 2nd International Conference on Research in Science and Technology, February 8th,Turkey-Istanbul. From https://www.civilica.com/Paper-CRSTCONF02-CRSTCONF02_180.html
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension .Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hamzenejad, M., Ghelichy, P. (2019). Investigating the Social Acceptance and Quality of Behavioral Settings in University Parks, Case Study: Iran University of Science and Technology Park. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 11(25), 45-55.
Lang, J. (2002). Creation of Architectural Theory: The Role of Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. (Translated by Alireza Einifar). Tehran: University of Tehran Press. In Persian
Lansdale, M., Parkin, J., Austin, S., & Baguley, T. (2011). Designing for interaction in research environments: A case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 407-420.
Lennard, S., & Lenard, H. G. (1993). Urban space design and social life in Companion to Contemporary Architectural Thouth. (Translated by Rasoul Mojtabapour). Tehran: Teheran University. In Persian.
Masoumi, A., Azar, P. A., & Jourshari, S. R. (2015). Architectural design features with the approach of social interactions in the tourist complex. Fen Bilimleri Dergisi (cfd), 36(4).
Mohammadi, M., & Ayatollahi, M.H., (2015). Effective factors in promoting the sociability of cultural buildings; Case study: Farshchian Cultural Center of Isfahan. Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning. 15, 79-96.
Moleski, W. H., & Lang, J. T. (1986). Organizational goals and human needs in office planning. Behavioral issues in office design, 3-21.
Motalebi, G. (1998). A Theory of Meaning in Architecture and Urban Design: An Ecological Approach, Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Faculty of the Built Environment, The University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Nasrollahzadeh, S., Ghasemi, F., & Kashef, M. H. (2016). Characteristics of Environmental Psychology on Architectural and Educational Space. 3rd International Conference on Research in Science and Technology, July 10, Berlin-Germany.
Osmond, H. (1957). Function as the basis of psychiatric ward design. Psychiatric Services, 8(4), 23-27.
Pasalar, C. (2003). The effects of spatial layouts on students' interactions in middle schools: Multiple case analysis. Unpublished dissertation North Carolina State University
Peters, K., Elands, B., & Buijs, A. (2010). Social interactions in urban parks: stimulating social cohesion?. Urban forestry & urban greening, 9(2), 93-100.
Potapchuk, W. R., Crocker, J. P., & Schechter Jr, W. H. (1997). Building community with social capital: Chits and chums or chats with change. National Civic Review, 86(2), 129-139.
PPS. (2019). Retrieved October 2019 from https://www.pps.org/article/grplacefeat
Rapaport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment. A nonverbal communication Approach. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Russell, J. A., Snodgras, J., 1987. Emotion and the Environment. In D. Stokolos & I.Altman (Eds), Handbook of environmental Psychology. Toronto: John wiley & sons.
Salehinia, M., (2009). Sociopetaloid of Architecture Space. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba: Memary Va Shahrsazi, 1(40), 5-17. doi: 10.22059/jfaup.2009.68355
Sharifian, S. A., & Shirin Jani, S. (2015). Reflection on the meaning of balance concept in human perception of the environment to the need to promote social interactions in people-oriented urban spaces, International Conference on New Research Achievements in Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Planning, (6 July). Tehran: City Tehran. From https://www.civilica.com/Paper-RCEAUD01-RCEAUD01_219.html
Skjaeveland, O., & Garling, T. (1997). Effects of interactional space on neighbouring. Journal of environmental psychology, 17(3), 181-198.
Whyte, W, H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Tuxedo, Maryland: Printers II Inc.
