Explaining factors affecting the formation of sociable spaces in educational environments using factor analysis method: (Case study of academic spaces)

Subject Areas : Architecture and urbanism

Sayed Ali  Sharifian ¹ (PhD Candidate, Department of Architecture, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran.)
Hossein  Moradi Nasab ² (Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran. *(Corresponding Author))
Maryam  GhalamborDezfuly ³ (Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, pardis Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.)
vadihe  Mulla Salehi ⁴ (Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran.)

Received: 2020-05-10 Accepted : 2020-08-15 Published : 2021-09-23

Keywords: sociability, Iran University of Science and Technology and Alzahra University, academic educational spaces, factor analysis of University of Tehran,

Abstract :

Background and Objective: As a scientific-cultural society, educational-academic space is one of the most important spaces which influences social interactions and possesses its own specific relations and norms. It is because the formation and dynamism of social interactions among students depend on many individual and environmental factors, with the current article aiming to find the most important environmental factors affecting the formation of social interactions in academic environments.Material and Methodology: Using factor analysis method, this research has tried to explain the factors affecting the formation of social interactions in educational environments. The scope of the study includes three randomly chosen spaces of the University of Tehran, Iran University of Science and Technology and Alzahra University. This study has used SPSS22 in order to analyze data for summarizing variables and independent factors with R and orthogonal factor analysis methods.Findings: The findings show that six factors have an effect on the formation of social interactions in academic environments, which include furniture, comfort and physiological comfort and convenience; security and territory; sports and entrance space; shared open and closed public space; architectural form and pattern; and possibility of face-to-face proximity.Discussion and Conclusion: The results indicate that the factor of furniture, comfort and physiological comfort and convenience is the most vital effective factor affecting the formation of social interactions among university students and the parameter of the kind of space coloring is the most important index with a factor loading of 0.745.  

References:

1. Sharifian S. A., 2014. People-oriented design approach of Bojnurd city hall. Master Thesis in Architecture. Islamic Azad University, Faculty of Architecture, pp 53-65


2. Hamze Nejad, M., et al., 2019. Investigating the socialization and quality of behavioral camps in intra-university parks (Case study: Iran University of Science and Technology Park). Quarterly Journal of Aramanshahr, Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning, vol 11(25), pp. 46-55. (In Persian)


3. Ghalambar dezfouli, M., et al., 2014. Urban Space Design to Promote Social Interactions, (Case study: Neighborhood Boulevard). City Identity Magazine, Vol 17, pp. 15-24. (In Persian)


4. Mannino CA. Expanding the boundaries of community: toward measuring a solely psychological sense of community; 2011.


5. Glynn TJ. Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application. Human Relations. 1981 Sep;34(9):789-818.


6. 6Salehinia, M., 2009. Sociability of architectural space. PhD Thesis in Architecture, Iran University of Science and Technology. Faculty of Architecture, pp. 106-113. (In Persian)


7. Kim J, Kaplan R. Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: New urbanist Kentlands and nearby Orchard Village. Environment and behavior. 2004 May;36(3):313-40.


8. Brocato ED. Place attachment: an investigation of environments and outcomes in a service context.


9. Lansdale M, Parkin J, Austin S, Baguley T. Designing for interaction in research environments: A case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2011 Dec 1;31(4):407-20.


10. Cuningham group, schools that fit: Aligning architecture and education, Unithed states of America pp. 50-55, (2002).


11. Cowan R, Rogers L. The dictionary of urbanism. Tisbury: Streetwise press; 2005.


12. Araste khou, M., 1991. Criticism and attitude towards the culture of socio-scientific terms. Tehran Gostareh, vol 2. (In Persian)


13. Abdolah Zadeh Tarf, A., et al., 2010. Expanding the concept of neighborhood with the anatomy of the concept of community. Journal of Comprehensive Studies, Vol 7(2). (In Persian)


14. Pasalar C. The effects of spatial layouts on students' interactions in middle schools: Multiple case analysis.


15. Moleski WH, Lang JT. Organizational goals and human needs in office planning. Behavioral issues in office design. 1986:3-21.


16. Charkhchian, M., 2009. Analytical study of the factors affecting the increase of attachment to urban spaces with emphasis on activity diversity. PhD Thesis, University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, pp. 77-105. (In Persian)


17. Argyle M, Dean J. Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry. 1965 Sep 1:289-304.


18. Eynifar, A., 2007. Creation of architectural theory. University of Tehran, pp. 110-119. (In Persian)


19. Salehinia M, Memarian G. Sociopetaloid of architecture space; Synthesis and synomorphy of humane-physical factors. International Journal of Architectural Engineering & Urban Planning. 2012 Jan 1;22(1):7-19.


20. Whyte WH. The social life of small urban spaces. 1980.


21. Barker RG. Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human


22. Hall, E, Hidden dimension. Translator: Tabibian, M. Tehran: University of Tehran.2008.


23. Pasalar C. The effects of spatial layouts on students' interactions in middle schools: Multiple case analysis; 2003.