AFFORDING STUDENTS’ WORK-ABILITY IN CAMPUS PUBLIC SPACES

Rasyid Fauzan Akbar, Murni Rachmawati, Didit Novianto

Abstract


This study addresses the increasing prevalence of informal learning activities and the corresponding demand for public places within academic environments that effectively afford the work-ability function. The research specifically investigates how students at Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, utilize various public places—originally not intended as workspaces—to support their academic tasks. Focusing on six locations (Canteen, Mosque, Plaza, Library (office), and Dormitory Hall), the study explores the phenomenon of students affording work-related activities in unconventional settings. The research employs qualitative observation methods, dismantling the theory of affordance through three analytical lenses: Architectural Structure, User Interpretation, and Behavior Response. These components allow for an in-depth understanding of how spatial conditions contribute to user adaptability. Data collected from on-site observations were further analyzed using the Sorensen Similarity Coefficient, generating a similarity index within the range of >0 to ≤1. An index value above 0.500 is considered indicative of a significant link between specific architectural elements and affording work-ability. Findings reveal that students afford work-ability through: (1) the adaptation of multipurpose architectural structures, (2) the effective use of expansive floor areas with open layouts, (3) engagement with accessible and user-friendly environments that enable flexible use, and (4) reliance on adequate shading systems as part of the enclosure elements. These insights contribute to the evolving discourse on responsive campus design, emphasizing the need for spatial adaptability that reflects actual user behavior beyond predefined functional intentions.

Keywords


Affordance; Behavior; Public-Spaces

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adityawirawan, S.S.K. and Kusuma, H.E. (2021) ‘Café as student’s informal learning space: A case study in Bandung, Indonesia’, DIMENSI: Journal of Architecture and Built Environment, 48(2), pp. 109–120. doi: 10.9744/dimensi.48.2.109-120.

Al-Alwan, H. and Mahmood, Y.B. (2020) ‘The connotation of tectonics in architectural theory’, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 745(1), p. 012161. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/745/1/012161.

Amal, C.A., Amalia, A.A. and Amin, S.F.A. (2019) ‘Intensitas penggunaan ruang terbuka komunal di lingkungan kampus Kota Makassar’, Jurnal Linears, 2(2), pp. 55–65. doi: 10.26618/j-linears.v2i2.3122.

Attoe, W. (1978) Architecture and critical imagination. Chichester: Wiley.

Aydin, D. and Ter, U. (2008) ‘Outdoor space quality: Case study of a university campus plaza’, ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(3), pp. 189–203. doi: 10.26687/archnet-ijar.v2i3.294

Capon, D.S. (1999) Architectural theory volume two: Le Corbusier’s legacy. Chichester and New York: John Wiley.

Chemero, A. (2003) ‘An outline of a theory of affordances’, Ecological Psychology, 15(2), pp. 181–195. doi: 10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_5.

Ching, F.D.K. (2014) Architecture: Form, space and order. 4th edn. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Cunningham, M. and Walton, G. (2016) ‘Informal learning spaces (ILS) in university libraries and their campuses: A Loughborough University case study’, New Library World, 117, pp. 49–62. doi: 10.1108/NLW-04-2015-0031.

Dewayani Perbawanti, N. and Dwi Pratiwi, W. (2025) ‘Community participation in physical transformation of tourism kampung: The case of Kampung Lawas Maspati’, Journal of Architecture & Environment, 24(1). doi: 10.12962/j2355262x.v24i1.a22760.

Dewi, P.S.T., Susanti, A. and Putra, I.W.Y.A. (2022) ‘The transformation of coffee shops into coworking spaces during the pandemic’, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Innovation in Engineering and Vocational Education (ICIEVE 2021). Atlantis Press SARL, pp. 272–278. doi: 10.2991/assehr.k.220305.055.

Etikan, I. (2016) ‘Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling’, American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), p. 1. doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.

Gibson, J.J. (2014) The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. 1st edn. New York: Psychology Press. doi: 10.4324/9781315740218.

Gibson, J.J. (2015) The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.

Groat, L.M. and Wang, D. (2013) Architectural research methods. 2nd edn. Hoboken: Wiley.

Hammond, M.E. and Pokorný, R. (2020) ‘Diversity of tree species in gap regeneration under tropical moist semi-deciduous forest: An example from Bia Tano Forest Reserve’, Diversity, 12(8), p. 301. doi: 10.3390/d12080301.

Harris, T., Birdwell, T. and Basdogan, M. (2024) ‘Exploring efficiencies of informal learning space: A case study’, Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(5), pp. 1986–1998. doi: 10.1108/JARHE-06-2023-0267.

Iwaro, J. et al. (2014) ‘An integrated approach for sustainable design and assessment of residential building envelope: Part II’, International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 11(1), p. ctu021. doi: 10.1093/ijlct/ctu021.

Jin, S. and Peng, L. (2022) ‘Classroom perception in higher education: The impact of spatial factors on student satisfaction in lecture versus active learning classrooms’, Frontiers in Psychology, 13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.941285.

Kalay Yüzen, R. and Ökem, S. (2025) ‘Krisarion as a conceptual tool for the tectonic inquiry of crisis in architectural epistemology’, Buildings, 15(7), p. 1070. doi: 10.3390/buildings15071070.

Kim, Y.S. et al. (2011) ‘Personal cognitive characteristics in affordance perception: Case study in a lobby’, in Emotional Engineering. pp. 179–206. doi: 10.1007/978-1-84996-423-4_10.

Kumar, G. and Raheja, G. (2016) ‘Design determinants of building envelope for sustainable built environment: A review’, International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 3(2). doi: 10.11113/ijbes.v3.n2.127.

Lorenzo, M. et al. (2023) ‘Quality analysis and categorisation of public space’, Heliyon, 9(3), p. e13861. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13861.

Maier, J.R.A. and Fadel, G.M. (2009) ‘Affordance based design: A relational theory for design’, Research in Engineering Design, 20(1), pp. 13–27. doi: 10.1007/s00163-008-0060-3.

Maier, J.R.A., Fadel, G.M. and Battisto, D.G. (2009) ‘An affordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice’, Design Studies, 30(4), pp. 393–414. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2009.01.002.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (2014) Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 3rd edn. Edited by H. Salmon et al. London: SAGE Publications.

Norman, D.A. (2013) The design of everyday things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Oldenburg, R. (1999) The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. 3rd edn. Cambridge, MA: Marlowe & Company.

Podani, J., Pavoine, S. and Ricotta, C. (2018) ‘A generalized framework for analyzing taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional community structure based on presence–absence data’, Mathematics, 6(11), p. 250. doi: 10.3390/math6110250.

Pu, Y. and Yang, X. (2024) ‘A study of informal learning spaces in university student residences based on ergonomics’, Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(6), p. 2024. doi: 10.54691/2txzk667.

Ramu, V., Taib, N. and Massoomeh, H.M. (2022) ‘Informal academic learning space preferences of tertiary education learners’, Journal of Facilities Management, 20(5), pp. 679–695. doi: 10.1108/JFM-05-2021-0047.

Rapoport, A. (2005) Culture, architecture, and design. Chicago: Locke Science Publishing Co., Inc.

Reinius, H., Korhonen, T. and Hakkarainen, K. (2021) ‘The design of learning spaces matters: Perceived impact of the deskless school on learning and teaching’, Learning Environments Research, 24(3), pp. 339–354. doi: 10.1007/s10984-020-09345-8.

Salih, S.A. et al. (2024) ‘Typology of informal learning spaces (ILS) in sustainable academic education: A systematic literature review in architecture and urban planning’, Sustainability, 16(13), p. 5623. doi: 10.3390/su16135623.

Sun, R. and Abdul Aziz, M.F. (2024) ‘A systematic literature review of design considerations, challenges and guidelines in primary school physical learning space design’, Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 32(3), pp. 971–998. doi: 10.47836/pjssh.32.3.09.

Sushanti, I.R., Setijanti, P. and Septanti, D. (2022) ‘Economic activities in urban settlement public spaces: Behavior as an identity’, Journal of Architecture & Environment, 21(2). doi: 10.12962/j2355262x.v21i2.a13582.

Suud Sarim Karimullah (2023) ‘The role of mosques as centers for education and social engagement in Islamic communities’, Jurnal Bina Ummat: Membina dan Membentengi Ummat, 6(2), pp. 151–166. doi: 10.38214/jurnalbinaummatstidnatsir.v6i2.184.

Valtonen, T. et al. (2021) ‘Learning environments preferred by university students: A shift toward informal and flexible learning environments’, Learning Environments Research, 24(3), pp. 371–388. doi: 10.1007/s10984-020-09339-6.

Wang, J. (2020) ‘A study on the construction of informal learning spaces (ILSs) on university campuses in China’, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 960(2), p. 022022. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/960/2/022022.

Wilkinson, M.K., Dickerson, C.E. and Ji, S. (2018) ‘Concepts of architecture, structure and system’, ISO/IEC WG 42 [Preprint]. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1810.12265.

Woodman, K. (2016) ‘Re-placing flexibility’, in Fisher, K. (ed.) The translational design of schools: An evidence-based approach to aligning pedagogy and learning environments. Rotterdam: SensePublishers, pp. 51–79. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6300-364-3_3.

Zhang, X. and He, Y. (2020) ‘What makes public space public? The chaos of public space definitions and a new epistemological approach’, Administration & Society, 52(5), pp. 749–770. doi: 10.1177/0095399719852897.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12962%2Fj2355262x.v25i1.a22213

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

Indexing and Abstracting :

           

 


Journal of Architecture & Environment is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

 

View JoAE Stats