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