ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
Student personality and preferred learning
environmentsThe Design & Management of Learning Environments
– Integrated approaches for influencing value and change16 May 2019, The Royal College of Physicians, Regent’s Park,
LondonDr. Hannah Wilson
www.linkedin.com/in/hannahwilsonphd@hannahkira13
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
àB=f(P,E) à(Lewin, 1936)
Background
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
à Steele's 6 functions (1973)
• Security and shelter
• Pleasure
• Symbolic identification
• Task instrumentality
• Social contact
• Growth
Background
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
School climate model
Background
(School climate model adapted from Owens and Valesky, 2007 cited by Gislason, 2010)
Ecology
Student Milieu
OrganisationStaff culture
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
Background
Higher education‘Whole campus’ (Radcliffe, 2008)
Learning environment
Student satisfaction(de Oliveira Santini, 2017)
Quality(Uline et al., 2009; Riley, 2013)
Community(Grellier, 2013; Bickford & Wright, 2006)
Individual differences-Personality
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
àPersonality Environment
àEnvironment Personality
Background
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
Methodology
à Sample
• Business, Engineering, Built
Environment and Art and Design
• 221 students (males n=138 and
females n=83). Level 4 (n=72), 5
(n= 44), 6 (n=50) and 7 (n= 55)
à Questionnaire
• Big Five personality traits IPIP–
Openness,
Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness
and Neuroticism (Goldberg,
2006)
• HE student preference learning
environment questionnaire
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
FindingsIntegration
of space‘Work and
social space’‘Common
room’
Movement around space
‘Spacious’‘Wayfinding’
Aesthetics‘Indoor/ outdoor
aesthetics’‘Fit and finish’
Workspaces‘Access to
workspaces’‘Technology’
Access to resources
‘Resources’‘Facilities’
Identity‘Identity
Uni/school’‘Students
Union’
Sense of place
‘Community’‘Stimulating
space’
Environmental quality‘Daylight’‘Nature’
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
Personality trait Business Built Environment Engineering Art and Design Extraversion 32.88 33.00 31.14 31.87Agreeableness 39.25 37.81 38.24 40.20Conscientiousness 36.45 33.99 35.51 35.93Neuroticism 26.03 31.44 30.96 29.00Openness 36.00 36.15 35.46 37.20
FindingsPersonality
• Business students à emotional stability (score lower on Neuroticism)
• Compared to Engineering and Built Environment students
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
Personality - Vedel, 2016
Findings
NeuroticismArts and Humanities
higher than Engineering and Sciences
Economics and business lower than other groups
ExtraversionEconomics, Law, Political Sc. and Medicine higher than Arts, Humanities
and Sciences
OpennessHumanities, Art,
Psychology and Political Sc. higher than other
majors
AgreeablenessLaw, Business and
Economics lower than Medicine, Psychology,
Sciences, Arts and Humanities
ConscientiousnessArts and Humanities
lower than Sciences, Law, Economics, Engineering, Medicine and Psychology
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
Bivariate correlations
• Opportunities for contact with university (-.14*)Extraversion
• Comfort of seating (.14*)• General maintenance and up keep (.21**)Agreeableness
• Work/social space integrated into campus (.14*)• Access to private work areas (.17*)Conscientiousness
• Emotional stability - Control of EQ (-.14)• Emotional stability - wayfinding (-.14*)Neuroticism
• Group workspace (.15*)• Access to resources (.16*)Openness
(*P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** p<0.001.)
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
Personality trait Component
Conscientiousness Convenient workspaces .19*
Access to resources .16*
Movement around space .24**
Openness Aesthetics .21**
Convenient workspaces .18*
Access to resources .21*
Sense of place .25***
Agreeableness Access to resources .21**
Convenient workspaces .23**
Aesthetics .20***
Movement around space .28***
Sense of place .40***
Environmental quality .26***
Integration of space .26***
Findings
β (*P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** p<0.001.)
Regression
- SEM
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
Personality trait Component
Conscientiousness Convenient workspaces .19*
Access to resources .16*
Movement around space .24**
Openness Aesthetics .21**
Convenient workspaces .18*
Access to resources .21*
Sense of place .25***
Agreeableness Access to resources .21**
Convenient workspaces .23**
Aesthetics .20***
Movement around space .28***
Sense of place .40***
Environmental quality .26***
Integration of space .26***
Findings
β (*P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** p<0.001.)
Regression
- SEM
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
Personality trait Component
Conscientiousness Convenient workspaces .19*
Access to resources .16*
Movement around space .24**
Openness Aesthetics .21**
Convenient workspaces .18*
Access to resources .21*
Sense of place .25***
Agreeableness Access to resources .21**
Convenient workspaces .23**
Aesthetics .20***
Movement around space .28***
Sense of place .40***
Environmental quality .26***
Integration of space .26***
Findings
β (*P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** p<0.001.)
Regression
- SEM
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
àWho are our students?
à Recommendations
• Home buildings
• Flexible/ agile spaces
• Learning hallways
• Sustainable environment
• Technology
Conclusions
https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/copperashill
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
• Individual differences in students preferences for
spaces
• B=f(P,E)
• Further research to identify personality profiles and
space preferences
Conclusions
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
Thank you for listening.
Any questions?
ljmu.ac.uk
ljmu.ac.uk
• Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American psychologist, 21(1), 1-10.
• Bickford, D. J., & Wright, D. J. (2006). Community: The hidden context of learning. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Boulder: CO:EDUCAUSE.
• de Oliveira Santini, F., Ladeira, W Jnr., Sampaio, C.H. & da Silva Costa., G. (2017) Student satisfaction in higher education: a meta-analytic study, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27(1), 1-18.
• Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environ Research, 13(2), 127.
• Grellier, J. (2013). Rhizomatic mapping: spaces for learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(1), 83-95.
• Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
• Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., & Hussain, K. (2009). Students' perceptions of service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management, 20(5), 523-35.
• Radcliffe, D. (2008). A pedagogy-space-technology (PST) framework for designing and evaluating learning places. In D. Radcliffe, W. Wilson, D. Powell, & B. Tibbetts (Eds.), Learning spaces in higher education: Positive outcomes by design. St Lucia, QLD: The University of Queensland.
• Riley, M. (2013). Developing a Model for the Application of Post-occupancy Evaluation (POE) as a Facilities Performance Enhancement Tool in the Higher Education Sector. (PhD), Liverpool John Moores Univeristy.
• Steele, F. I. (1973). Physical settings and organizational development. Reading , MA: Addison-Wesley
• Vedel, A. (2016). Big Five personality group difference across acadmic majors: A systematic review. Personality and Individual Difference, 92, 1-10.
Gislason, N. Learning Environ Res (2010) 13: 127