The Role of Sense of Belonging to the Architectural Symbolic Elements on Promoting Social Participation in Students within Educational Settings

الموضوعات : Space Ontology International Journal

Reza Askarizad ¹ (The Center for Modern Chinese City Studies, Institute of Urban Development, East China Normal University, 200062, China.)
Sindokht Rezaei Liapee ² (Department of Architecture, Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research (ACECR), Rasht, Iran.)
Mohammad Mohajer ³ (Department of Architecture, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran.)

تاريخ الإرسال : 27 الأحد , رمضان, 1442 تاريخ التأكيد : 04 الأحد , ربيع الأول, 1443 تاريخ الإصدار : 26 الأربعاء , ربيع الثاني, 1443

الکلمات المفتاحية: Space Syntax, Place attachment, sense of belonging, Social Participation, Educational setting,

ملخص المقالة :

Nowadays, due to the ever growing number of universities and institutions for higher education in recent years, the social requirements of students have not been adequately addressed; and in many cases, residential buildings, have been converted into higher education institutions regardless of the social demands of students. Therefore, social participation, as one of the fundamental principles of solidarity and social interactions, has largely been neglected, which will have negative consequences such as decreased efficiency and learning among students. This study attempts to investigate the role of sense of belonging to the symbolic architectural elements on promoting the social participation of architecture students within educational settings. Accordingly, it was intended to utilize a combination of syntactical analysis, the empirical observation of student activities on campus, and semi-structured interview to estimate the role of intervening variables such as sense of belonging to the symbolic architectural elements in promoting students' social participation. The findings of this study indicate that in most of the studied cases, the students' sociability level for social participation is in accordance with the integration value of their spatial configuration. However, the conducted field observations revealed that some spaces, despite having a low degree of integration due to the presence of specific symbolic architectural elements, encouraged the formation of attractive crowded student communities. Also, such symbolic architectural elements can have an indirect influence on the students’ social participation within the campus through stimulating their sense of belonging. The implication of this study highlights the importance of on-campus teaching systems.

المصادر:

1. Abu-Ghazzeh, T. M. (1999). Communicating Behavioral Research to Campus Design: Factors Affecting the Perception and Use of Outdoor Spaces at the University of Jordan. Environment and Behavior, 31(6), 764–804. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972344


2. Agirbas, A. (2020). Characteristics of social formations and space syntax application to quantify spatial configurations of urban regeneration in Levent, Istanbul. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 35, 171–189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019-09671-1


3. Al_Sayed, K., Turner, A., Hillier, B., Lida, S., & Penn, A. (2014). Space Syntax Methodology. London: Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL.


4. Algarín, E., Vázquez-Fernández, M., & Fernández, A. (2020). Analysis of the Sociability of Older People in Urban Environments. In Qualitative and Quantitative Models in Socio Economic Systems and Social Work (Vol. 208, pp. 305-313). Cham: Springer.


5. AmjadMohammadi, A., Asefi, M., & NejadEbrahimi, A. (2018). The Geometrical Regularization for Covering Irregular Bases with Karbandi. Nexus Network Journal, 20 (2), 331-352. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00004-018-0373-0


6. Anton, C., & Lawrence, C. (2014). Home is where the heart is: The effect of place of residence on place attachment and community participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 541-461. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.10.007


7. Askarizad, R. (2020). Evaluation of the Effective Factors on Social Interactions in the Design of Public Libraries. Tehnički glasnik, 14(4), 403-410. doi:https://doi.org/10.31803/tg-20190525220939


8. Askarizad, R., & Safari, H. (2020a). The influence of social interactions on the behavioral patterns of the people in urban spaces (case study: The pedestrian zone of Rasht Municipality Square, Iran). Cities, 101, 102687. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102687


9. Askarizad, R., & Safari, H. (2020b). Investigating the role of semi-open spaces on the sociability of public libraries using space syntax (Case Studies: Sunrise Mountain and Desert Broom Libraries, Arizona, USA). Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 11(1), 253-264. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.09.007


10. Askarizad, R., Dadashpour, A., Faghirnavaz, J., Jinliao, H. & Safari, H. (2021). Organizing worn-out neighborhoods with the new-urbanism approach using mixed methods in Rudsar, northern Iran. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 1-28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-03-2021-0055


11. Askarizad, R., Jinliao, H., & Jafari, S. (2021). The influence of COVID-19 on the societal mobility of urban spaces. Cities, 103388. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103388


12. Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


13. Badiee, B. (2018). A Traditional Narrative on the Origin, Design and Climatic Imperative of Coloured Glass Lattice Panels and Orsi Windows in Persia. (Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)). University of Kent, Kent.


14. Bentinck, S., van Oel, C., & van Dorst, M. (2020). Perception of privacy in a university building: The transparency paradox. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(3), 579-587. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2020.03.004


15. Beyraghi, S., & Balilan Asl, L. (2018). Semiotics of behavioral settings in educational spaces, emphasizing the social value of spaces Case study of Islamic Art faculty and architecture and Art faculty of Azad university of Tabriz. International Journal of Architecture & Urban Planning, 28 (2), 117-133. doi:10.22068/ijaup.28.2.117


16. Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.


17. Can, I., & Heath, T. (2016). In-between spaces and social interaction: a morphological analysis of Izmir using space syntax. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31, 31–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9442-9


18. Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K., & Beyth-Marom, R. (2006). The influence of personality on social participation in learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 129-144. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.003


19. Cicognani, E., Pirini, C., Keyes, C., Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2008). Social Participation, Sense of Community and Social Well Being: A Study on American, Italian and Iranian University Students. Social Indicators Research, 89, 97-112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9222-3


20. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


21. Curtin, N., Stewart, A., & Ostrive, J. (2013). Fostering Academic Self-Concept: Advisor Support and Sense of Belonging Among International and Domestic Graduate Students. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 108-137. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0002831212446662


22. Davenport, M., & Anderson, D. (2005). Getting from sense of place to place-based management: An Interpretive Investigation of Place Meanings and Perceptions of Landscape Change. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 625-641. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590959613


23. Feli, S., Habib, F., Shahcheraghi, A. (2020). Identification of Components Affecting Synomorphy and Utilization of it in Planning Educational Spaces (Case: Faculties of Art and Architecture of Tehran). Space Ontology International Journal, 9(4), 43-56.


24. Hong, H., Kubik, J., Stein, J. (2004). Social Interaction and Stock‐Market Participation. The Journal of Finance, 59(1), 137-163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2004.00629.x


25. Gilavand, A., & Jamshidnezhad, A. (2016). The Effect of Noise in Educational Institutions on Learning and Academic Achievement of Elementary Students in Ahvaz, South-West of Iran. International Journal of Pediatrics, 4(3), 1453-1463. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.22038/ijp.2016.6500


26. Gokce, D., & Chen, F. (2017). Sense of place in the changing process of house form: Case studies from Ankara, Turkey. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(4), 772-796. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265813516686970


27. Hillier, B. (1993). Specifically architectural theory: a partial account of the ascent from building as cultural transmission to architecture as theoretical concretion. The Harvard Architectural Review, 9, 9-27. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1027/


28. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


29. Hillier, B., Hanson, J., Burdett, R., Peponis, J., Penn, A. (1987). Creating life: Or, does architecture determine anything?. Architecture et Comportement/Architecture and Behaviour, 3(3), 233-250.


30. Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T., & Xu, J. (1993). Natural Movement: Or, Configuration and Attraction in Urban Pedestrian Movement. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 20(1), 29-66. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fb200029


31. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture. London: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.


32. Hillier, B. (2007). Space and spatiality: What the built environment needs from social theory, Building Research & Information, 36 (3), 216-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210801928073


33. Hogan, D., & Tudge, J. (1999). Implications of Vygotsky's theory for peer learning. In The Rutgers Invitational Symposium On Education Series. Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 39-65): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.


34. Holton, M. (2015). Adapting relationships with place: Investigating the evolving place attachment and ‘sense of place’ of UK higher education students during a period of intense transition. Geoforum, 59, 21-29. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.017


35. Kaltenborn, B., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Association between landscape preferences and place attachment: A study in Roros, southern Norway. Landscape Research, 27(4), 381-396. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0142639022000023943


36. Karimi, K. (2012). A configurational approach to analytical urban design: ‘Space syntax’ methodology. Urban Design International, 17(4), 297–318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2012.19


37. Kerr, M., Zigmond, N., Schaeffer, A., & Brown, G. (1986). An observational follow-up study of successful and unsuccessful high school students. High School Journal, 70, 20-24. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40364967


38. Keys, D. (2000). Catastrophe: an investigation into the origins of the modern world. Ballantine Books.


39. Knapp, B. (1986). Archetype, architecture, and the writer. Indiana Indiana University Press.


40. Kozulin, A. (1999). Vygotsky's Psychology: A Biography of Ideas. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.


41. Krueger, R. A. (2002). Designing and conducting focus group interviews. University of Minnesota: Minnesota.


42. Kudryavtsev, A., Stedman, R. C., & Krasny, M, E. (2012). Sense of place in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 18(2), 229-250. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.609615


43. Kuliga, S. F., Nelligan, B., Dalton, R. C., Marchette, S., Shelton, A. L., Carlson, L., & Hölscher, C. (2019). Exploring Individual Differences and Building Complexity in Wayfinding: The Case of the Seattle Central Library. Environment and Behavior, 51(5), 622–665. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916519836149


44. Lectorsky, V. (1999). The activity theory in a new era. Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.


45. Lindstrom, M. (2005). Ethnic differences in social participation and social capital in Malmo, Sweden: a population-based study. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 1527-1546. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.015


46. Long, Y., & Baran, P. K. (2012). Does Intelligibility Affect Place Legibility? Understanding the Relationship Between Objective and Subjective Evaluations of the Urban Environment. Environment and Behavior, 44(5), 616–640. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402059


47. Longhurst, R. (2010). Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In Clifford, N., Cope, M., Gillespie, T., French, S. Key Methods in Geography (pp. 143–156). Third Edition. Sage: Los Angeles.


48. Mamas, C., Daly, A., Cohen, S., & Jones, G. (2021). Social participation of students with autism spectrum disorder in general education settings. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 28, 100467. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100467


49. Martin, N., Rice, J., & Lodhia, S. (2014). Sustainable Development Planning: A Case of Public Participation using Online Forums. Sustainable Development, 22(4), 265-275. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1541


50. Mcclurg, S. D. (2003). Social Networks and Political Participation: The Role of Social Interaction in Explaining Political Participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 449–464. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600407


51. McCunn, L., & Gifford, R. (2018). Spatial Navigation and Place Imageability in Sense of Place. Cities, 74, 208-218. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.12.006


52. Moghisi, R., Mokhtari, S., & Heidari, A. (2015). Place Attachment in University Students. Case study: Shiraz University. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Asian Conference on Environment Behavior Studies Chung-Ang University, Seoul, S. Korea. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.028


53. Mohammadian, B., Ghanbaran, A., & Sharghi, A. (2016). Semantic Factors: Students’ Sense of Belonging to Outdoor School Spaces. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 6(4), 43-50.


54. Mustafa, F. A., & Rafeeq, D. A. (2019). Assessment of elementary school buildings in Erbil city using space syntax analysis and school teachers′ feedback. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 58(3), 1039-1052. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.09.007


55. Nazer Safavi, F., Khastou, M. (2018). Investigating the Effective Factors on the Sense of Place in Relation to Urban Migrations (Case Study: City of Qazvin). Space Ontology International Journal, 7(2), 55-67.


56. Omer, I., & Kaplan, N. (2017). Using space syntax and agent-based approaches for modeling pedestrian volume at the urban scale. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 64, 57-67. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2017.01.007


57. Penn, A. (2003). Space Syntax And Spatial Cognition: Or Why the Axial Line? Environment and Behavior, 35(1), 30-65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502238864


58. Penn, A., & Turner, A. (2002). Space Syntax Based Agent Simulation. In M. a. S. In: Schreckenberg, Som Deo, (eds.) (Ed.), Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics (pp. 99-114). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.


59. Peponis, J., Hajinikoloaou, E., Livieratos, C., & Fatouros, D. (1989). The Spatial Core of Urban Culture. Ekistics, 56(334), 43-55. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43622102seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


60. Quinn, R., Barrett Cox, A., & Steinbugler, A. (2020). Social Position or School Participation? Access and Mobilization of Social Capital in a School-Based Network. Educational Researcher, 49(1), 44-55. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X19898700


61. Rezaei Liapaee, S., Askarizad, R., Alborzi, F. (2020). Investigation of Physical Factors Affecting the Wayfinding of Educational Spaces Children aged 7-12 years old in Rasht, North of Iran. International Journal of Pediatrics, 8(1), 10689-10704. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.22038/ijp.2019.14063


62. Rioux, L., Scrima, F., & Werner, C. (2017). Space appropriation and place attachment: University students create places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 50, 60-68. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.02.003


63. Rocher, G. (1974). Talcott Parsons and American Sociology. New York: Nelson.


64. Rollings, K., & Evans, G. (2019). Design Moderators of Perceived Residential Crowding and Chronic Physiological Stress Among Children. Environment and Behavior, 51(5), 590–621. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518824631


65. Safari, H. & FakouriMoridani, F. (2020). Influence of geometry on the vitality of space; A case study: Lahijan's institute for the intellectual development of children and young adults. Proceedings of the 12^th Space Syntax Symposium, Beijing, China, 468.


66. Safari, H., Nazidizaji, S., & FakouriMoridani, F. (2018). Social Logic of Cities and Urban Tourism Accessibility; Space Syntax Analysis of Kuala Lumpur City Centre. Space Ontology International Journal, 7(3), 35-46.


67. Saghafi, M., & Mirzaei, B. (2020). The spatial configuration analysis of a high school through a participatory approach. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 17(1-2), 17-35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1744420


68. Samura, M. (2018). Understanding Campus Spaces to Improve Student Belonging. About Campus, 23(2), 19–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1086482218785887


69. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1-10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006


70. Schmidt, C. (2004). The analysis of semi-structured interviews. In U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, & Ines Steinke (Eds.). A companion to qualitative research (pp. 253–258). London: SAGE.


71. Tan, K., Tan, H., Kok, Y., & Choon, S. (2018). Sense of place and sustainability of intangible cultural heritage – The case of George Town and Melaka. Tourism Management, 67(8), 376-387. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.012


72. Thompson, A., & Prokopy, L. (2016). The Role of Sense of Place in Collaborative Planning. Journal of Sustainability Education, 11(2), 1-19.


73. Turner, A., & Penn, A. (1999). Making isovists syntatic: Isovist integration analysis. 2nd International Symposium on Space Syntax Proceedings, Universidad de Brasil, Brasilia, Brazil.


74. Turner, A. (2001). Depthmap: a program to perform visibility graph analysis. 3rd International Symposium on Space Syntax Proceedings, Atlanta, US.


75. Vaughan, L. (2007). The spatial syntax of urban segregation. Progress in Planning, 67(3), 205-294. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2007.03.001


76. Wandersman, A., & Florin, P. (2000). Citizen participation and community organizations. In I. J. R. E. Seidman (Ed.), Handbook of community psychology. Boston: Springer.


77. Waskita Hutama, I. (2016). Exploring the Sense of Place of an Urban Through the Daily Activities, Configuration of Space and Dweller's Perception: Case Study of Kampung Code, Yogyakarta. (Master Degree). University of Twente, Netherlands.


78. Weaver, R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom Organization and Participation: College Students' Perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570-601. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2005.11772299


79. Xuan, Z., & Zheng, L. (2013). The Interpretation of Place Phenomenology Based on Space Syntax Theory. Advanced Materials Research, 664, 422-428. doi:https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.664.422


80. Zerouati, W., & Bellal, T. (2020). Evaluating the impact of mass housings' in-between spaces' spatial configuration on users' social interaction. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(1), 34-53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.05.005


81. Zhu, Y., & Fu, Q. (2016). Deciphering the Civic Virtue of Communal Space: Neighborhood Attachment, Social Capital, and Neighborhood Participation in Urban China. Environment and Behavior, 49(2), 161-191. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013916515627308