• Mami Kanzaki Ritsumaikan University
  • Mustika Wardhani Ritsumeikan University




Common Space in university, students' perspective, physical and psychological factors, active leaning


Although common spaces in a university can serve an important role for adolescents in learning with colleagues and developing their ideas, common spaces have received insufficient research attention. Therefore, this study identified the characteristics of physical environments that promote active leaning among university students and the psychological aspects of students’ modes of being in common spaces. We conducted an online questionnaire and analyzed the data (N = 144; 86 men and 58 women; mean age = 23.5 ± 5.8 years) using cluster analysis and text-mining. We revealed three types of physical characteristics that promote students’ active learning and five groups of students’ modes of being in common spaces. The physical and psychological characteristics of the common spaces that promote active learning are discussed.


Download data is not yet available.


Alapieti, T., Mikkola, R., Pasanen, P., & Salonen, H. (2020). The influence of wooden interior materi-als on indoor environment: a review. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products, 78(4), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-020-01532-x

Bonnand, S., & Donahue, T. (2010). What's in a Name? The Evolving Library Commons Con-cept. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 17, 225-233, DOI:10.1080/10691316.2010.487443

Carnell, B. (2017). Connecting Physical University Spaces with Research-Based Education Strategy. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(2), 1–12.

Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). An Expandede Typology for Classifying Mixed Methods Research Into Designs. In Advanced mixed methods research designs (In A. Tash, 159–196). Sage.

Davarpanah, S. (2017). Emphasis on Environment psychology principles. 8(6), 1038–1049.

Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education-A systematic litera¬ture review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004

Douglas, D., & Gifford, R. (2001). Evaluation of the physical classroom by students and professors: A lens model approach. Educational Research, 43(3), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188 0110081053

Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2014). Color psychology: Effects of perceiving color on psychological functioning in humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 95–120. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115035

Halsband, F. (2005). Campuses in place. Places, 17(1). https://placesjournal.org/assets/legacy/pdfs/campuses-in-place.pdf

Hami, A., & Abdi, B. (2021). Students’ landscaping preferences for open spaces for their campus environment. Indoor and Built Environment, 30(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326 X19887207

Harvey, E., & Kenyon, M. (2013). Classroom Seating Considerations for 21st Century Students and Faculty. Journal of Learning Spaces, 2(1).

Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: a literature review.

Ishiguro, F., Uno, T., Nomura, T., Nanba, Y., & Kuwa¬hara, K. (2018). Shujitsu daigaku Shujitu tankidaigaku niokeru kyoudougakushuu supesu no riyoujoukyou ni kansuru tyousahoukoku. (A report on the use situation of collaborative learning spaces of Shujitsu University and Shujitsu Junior College). 205–223.

Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural Lessons From Environ-mental Psychology: The Case of Biophilic Archi-tecture. Review of General Psychology, 11(4), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.11. 4.305

Lau, S. S. Y., Gou, Z., & Liu, Y. (2014). Healthy campus by open space design: Approaches and guidelines. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3(4), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2014.06.006

Manca, S., Cerina, V., Tobia, V., Sacchi, S., & Fornara, F. (2020). The effect of school design on users’ responses: A systematic review (2008-2017). Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(8), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12083453

Okuda, Y. (2012). Shinrigaku karamita wagakunino raningu komonzu niokeru manabino doukouto kongono kadai. The Trend and Future Subject of the Learning Commons: From Psychological Perspective. Academic Knowledge Archives of Gunma Institutes, 12, 91–103.

Peker, E., & Ataöv, A. (2020). Exploring the ways in which campus open space design influences students’ learning experiences. Landscape Research, 45(3), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1622661

Qualtrics. (2021). What is cluster analysis? When should you use it for your survey results?

Rands, M., & Gansemer-Topf, A. (2017). The Room Itself is Active: How Classroom Design Impacts Student Engagement. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1), 26–33.

Shi, S., Gou, Z., & Chen, L.H.C. (2014) How does enclosure influence environmental preferences? A cognitive study on urban public open spaces in Hong Kong. Sustainable Cities and Society, 13,148-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2014. 04.011

Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society and Natu-ral Resources, 16(8), 671–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309189

Sun, M., Nakashima, T., Yoshimura, Y., Honden, A., Nakagawa, T., Saijo, H., Watanabe, Y., Ajimi, T., Yasunari, S., Yamada, Y., Nagano, J., Okamoto, T., Ishikawa, H., Ohnuki, K., Fujimoto, N., & Shimizu, K. (2020). Effects and interaction of different interior material treatment and personal preference on psychological and physiological responses in living environment. Journal of Wood Science, 66(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-020-01910-2

Suzuki, T. (1993). Hito no Ikata karano Kankyo dezain: Toshi no opunsupesu no ikata. Kenchiku Gijutsu, 204–207.

Teston, L. (2020). On the nature of public interiority. Interiority, 3(1), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.7454/ in.v3i1.72




How to Cite

Kanzaki, M., & Wardhani, M. (2022). UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES OF COMMON SPACES FROM A PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. Dimensi: Journal of Architecture and Built Environment, 49(2), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.9744/dimensi.49.2.99-104