DESIGNING FLEXIBLE AND MULTIFUNCTIONAL COLLECTIVE LIVING SPACES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS IN A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 4, 1249 - 1272, 01.10.2025

Fatma Kürüm Varolgüneş , İbrahim Halil Şeker , Gonca Özer

https://doi.org/10.7456/tojdac.1735880

https://izlik.org/JA38KB82LW

Öz

This study examines the spatial perceptions and expectations of students regarding collective living spaces on the campus of Bingöl University in Turkey. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach that integrates quantitative survey data with qualitative open-ended responses, the research investigates the relationship between flexible and multifunctional spatial designs and user experience. Statistical analyses reveal that students prioritize spaces that can adapt to both individual study and social interaction. Significant differences in spatial preferences were identified based on variables such as academic disciplines, year of study, and the amount of time spent on campus. Students emphasized design criteria such as sustainability, digital integration, comfort, and cultural identity. Based on these findings, eight conceptual spatial scenarios were developed to guide campus planning. This research not only contributes to the literature on campus planning within a specific context but also offers applicable recommendations for inclusive and student-centered designs in alignment with contemporary architectural principles.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Collective living spaces , campus design , flexible space , multifunctionality , sustainability , user-centered design.

ESNEK VE ÇOK İŞLEVLİ KOLEKTİF YAŞAM ALANLARININ TASARIMI: BİR ÜNİVERSİTE KAMPÜSÜNDE ÖĞRENCİ ALGILARINA DAYALI AMPİRİK BİR ÇALIŞMA

https://izlik.org/JA38KB82LW

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de Bingöl Üniversitesi kampüsünde öğrencilerin kolektif yaşam alanlarına ilişkin mekânsal algılarını ve beklentilerini incelemektedir. Nicel anket verileri ile nitel açık uçlu yanıtların entegre edildiği karma yöntem yaklaşımı kullanılarak, esnek ve çok işlevli mekân tasarımlarının kullanıcı deneyimiyle olan ilişkisi araştırılmıştır. İstatistiksel analizler, öğrencilerin bireysel çalışma ve sosyal etkileşim için uyum sağlayabilen mekânlara öncelik verdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Akademik disiplinler, sınıf düzeyleri ve kampüste geçirilen süre gibi değişkenlere bağlı olarak mekânsal tercihlerde anlamlı farklılıklar saptanmıştır. Öğrenciler, sürdürülebilirlik, dijital entegrasyon, konfor ve kültürel kimlik gibi tasarım kriterlerini öne çıkarmıştır. Bu bulgular doğrultusunda, kampüs planlamasına yön verebilecek sekiz kavramsal mekânsal senaryo geliştirilmiştir. Araştırma, yalnızca özel bir bağlamda kampüs planlaması ile literatüre katkı sağlamakla kalmayıp; aynı zamanda çağdaş mimari ilkelerle uyumlu, kapsayıcı ve öğrenci odaklı tasarımlar için uygulanabilir öneriler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kolektif yaşam alanları , kampüs tasarımı , esnek mekân , çok işlevlilik , sürdürülebilirlik , kullanıcı odaklı tasarım.

Kaynakça

• Anaukwu, CP, Chukwudi, CD, David, DC, et al. (2023). The Concept of Flexible Spaces in Architecture: The Case of a Multi-Purpose Auditorium. African Journal of Educational Management, Teaching and Entrepreneurship Studies 9: 101-109.
• Arafat, MY, Faggal, AA, Khodeir, L, et al. (2024). Harmonizing design and desire: Unveiling user-centered requirements for university buildings. Results in Engineering 22: 102181.
• Birdwell, T, Basdogan, M and Harris, T. (2024). Developing outdoor campus space for teaching and learning: a scoping review of the literature. Learning Environments Research: 1-17.
• Bordac, S and Rainwater, J. (2008). User-centered design in practice: the Brown University experience. Journal of Web Librarianship 2: 109-138.
• Cort, C, Cort, G and Williams, R. (2017). The challenge of making buildings flexible: How to create campuses that adapt to changing needs. Planning for Higher Education 45: 96-104.
• Coulson, J, Roberts, P and Taylor, I. (2014). University trends: Contemporary campus design: Routledge.
• Creswell, JW and Creswell, JD. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: Sage publications.
• Çapak, E. (2019). Bingöl Üniversitesi öğretim elemanlarının ve öğrencilerinin rekreasyonel faaliyetlere katılımlarını engelleyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi. Bartin University (Turkey).
• Doğan, SŞ and Vural, H. (2021). Bingöl Üniversitesi öğrencilerinin rekreasyonel eğilim ve taleplerinin değerlendirilmesi. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi 8: 154-164.
• Eigenbrodt, O. (2017). Learning Space and Campus Planning. Essay. In Exploring Informal Learning Space in the University. Routledge.
• Eminağaoğlu, Z and Muhacir, ESA. (2018). Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi kampüs alanlarının planlama ve tasarım ilkeleri kapsamında değerlendirilmesi. Artium 6: 38-43.
• Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: Sage publications limited.
• García-Pérez, MA. (2012). Statistical conclusion validity: Some common threats and simple remedies. Frontiers in Psychology 3: 325.
• Ghasemi, A and Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism 10: 486.
• Gliem, JA and Gliem, RR. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education.
• Hazim Agha, R. (2024). The impact of flexibility in the design of educational interior spaces (University of Baghdad Studio as a model). Association of Arab Universities Journal of Engineering Sciences 31: 40-48.
• Hou, H. (2025). Investigating the impact of spaces design on user satisfaction in university libraries: a case study. FACILITIES 43: 571-593.
• Jamieson, P, Dane, J and Lippman, P. (2005). Moving beyond the classroom: Accommodating the changing pedagogy of higher education. Refereed forum proceedings of the Australian Association for Institutional Research. 17-23.
• Jamieson, P. (2003). Designing more effective on‐campus teaching and learning spaces: a role for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development 8: 119-133.
• Varolgüneş, F. K., İpek, S., & Aras, S. (2025). Enhancing student learning in architectural design studios: A pentagon and DEMATEL-based study on new learning components and interaction dynamics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 35(4), 1619–1647.
• Lesko, C. (2018). Enabling cybersecurity scholarship: Realizing the requirements for a collaborative multi-functional learning space. eLearn: World Conference on EdTech. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 657-665.
• Lin, H, Juan, Y-K and Castro-Lacouture, D. (2025). Guiding campus building design and renovation through design quality indicators and Post-Occupancy evaluations. AIN SHAMS ENGINEERING JOURNAL 16: 103457.
• Lundström, A, Savolainen, J and Kostiainen, E. (2016). Case study: developing campus spaces through co-creation. Architectural Engineering and Design Management 12: 409-426.
• Malakhatka, E, Bellis, S, Stenberg, R, et al. (2025). Virtual spaces, real changes: VR as a tool for sustainable and inclusive campus co-design. International Journal of Architectural Computing: 14780771251352938.
• McFarland, A, Waliczek, T and Zajicek, JM. (2008). The relationship between student use of campus green spaces and perceptions of quality of life. HortTechnology 18: 232-238.
• McHugh, ML. (2013). The chi-square test of independence. Biochemia medica 23: 143-149.
• McLaughlin, P and Faulkner, J. (2012). Flexible spaces… what students expect from university facilities. Journal of Facilities Management 10: 140-149.
• Mirpadyab, SK, Kanani, S, Rezaeinezhad, S, et al. (2020). The Study of the Characteristics of Flexibility in the Design of Educational Spaces. American Journal of Art and Design 5: 71-77.
• Mohammed, AM, Ukai, T and Hall, MW. (2022). University campuses’ role in accelerating the natural urban transformation process. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series: 75-96.
• Ngowi, AB and Awuzie, BO. (2020). A user-led approach to smart campus design at a university of technology. Smart and Sustainable Cities and Buildings: 431-441.
• Norazah, MS and Norbayah, MS. (2016). Campus Sustainability: Does Student Engagement with Eco-Campus Environmental Activities and Green Initiatives Really Matter? Engaging Stakeholders in Education for Sustainable Development at University Level: 45-59.
• Özer, G. (2025). Enhancing summer thermal comfort and energy performance in university office spaces using DesignBuilder’s parametric optimization: The role of window openings, solar shading, and HVAC systems. International Journal of Energy Studies 10: 461-510.
• Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS: Routledge.
• Patil, MP, Salama, AM, Arnfield, J, et al. (2024). YouWalk-YouReclaim: a co-assessment approach for active university campus environments. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment.
• Razali, NM and Wah, YB. (2011). Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and anderson-darling tests. Journal of statistical modeling and analytics 2: 21-33.
• Salingaros, NA. (2020). 18. Planning, complexity, and welcoming spaces: the case of campus design. Handbook on Planning and Complexity: 353.
• Samura, M. (2018). Understanding campus spaces to improve student belonging. About Campus 23: 19-23.
• Scholl, KG and Gulwadi, GB. (2015). Recognizing campus landscapes as learning spaces. Journal of Learning Spaces 4: 53-60.
• Shivers-McNair, A, Phillips, J, Campbell, A, et al. (2018). User-centered design in and beyond the classroom: Toward an accountable practice. Computers and Composition 49: 36-47.
• Somerville, MM and Collins, L. (2008). Collaborative design: a learner‐centered library planning approach. The Electronic Library 26: 803-820.
• Strange, CC and Banning, JH. (2015). Designing for learning: Creating campus environments for student success: John Wiley & Sons.
• URL-1. (2025) The location of on the map. Available at: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8996074,40.5018756,2276041m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYyMy4yIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D (Access date 12.06.2025).
• URL-2. (2025) Open street map. Available at: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/38.900038/40.490413 (Access Date: 12.06.2025).
• URL-3. (2025) Bingöl University Campus. Available at: https://international.bingol.edu.tr (Access date 20.04.2025).
• Wang, L, Liu, R and Yu, L. (2024). Research on Sustainable Design Strategy of University Campus Public Space from the Perspective of Health Promotion. ICCREM 2024. 1689-1700.
• Yaman, GÖ, Varolgüneş, FK and Çulun, P. (2021). Investigation of thermal comfort in university offices: The case of the Bingöl University. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 9 (7): 2441-2451.
• Yan, S, Wai, CY, Zhang, J, et al. (2025). Designing for Inclusion: A Comparative Analysis of Inclusive Campus Planning Across Australian Universities. Architecture 5: 43.