VOlUME 05 ISSUE 12 DECEMBER 2022
1Chih Siong Wong,2Allen Chin Wei Jie
1,2School of Built Environment, University of Technology Sarawak, Malaysia
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v5-i12-94Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
The university hostel is an essential accommodation provision for students throughout their time at university. In recent decades, there has been a shift toward the university hostel as a central location for student development and support. It is a place where students live, study, entertain and socialise with other students during their university life. Therefore, consideration of relevant students’ needs should not be overlooked in providing a conducive university hostel environment. It becomes a critical agenda to gain insights into new generation students’ points of view to ensure that the design of the university hostel remains relevant to them. Therefore, this research aims to explore university students’ preference for on-campus hostel attributes. The main objectives are to identify Generation Z (Gen Z) students’ preferred attributes of university hostels and examine the values that influence their preferences. This qualitative research is based on the Means-End Chain (MEC) research model. Fifty-two Gen Z students residing in on-campus hostels provided by University Technology Sarawak, Malaysia were interviewed using the laddering interview technique. The result of this approach reveals fifteen preferred hostel attributes driven by six students’ values. The finding shed new light on the interrelationship between hostel attributes and students’ values. It provides a valuable reference for architects and university hostel management in establishing a conducive hostel environment congruent with the student’s needs.
KEYWORDS:Generation Z, Hostel Attributes, Means-End Chain, Student Values, University Hostel.
REFERENCES
1) Kocaman, G.Y., F.S. Sezer, and T. Cetinkol, User satisfaction of indoor environmental quality in student dormitories. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 2017. 6(1): p. 11-11.
2) Johari, N., et al. Evaluating off-campus student housing preferences: A pilot survey. in AIP Conference Proceedings. 2017. AIP Publishing.
3) Lim, F.K. and A. Aminuddin, Perception of Students Housing Complex in Malaysian Public University. Case Study: University of Malaya. MAJ-Malaysia Architectural Journal, 2019. 1(1): p. 41-48.
4) Cleave, S.L., Residence retention: Reasons students choose to return or not to return. 1996. 30: p. 187-199.
5) La Roche, C.R., M.A. Flanigan, and P.K. Copeland Jr, Student housing: Trends, preferences and needs. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 2010. 3(10): p. 45-50.
6) Krasić, S., et al., Architectonic analysis of common space organization in contemporary student dormitories around the world. 2018. 15(3): p. 507-526.
7) Khozaei, F., et al., Examination of student housing preferences, their similarities and differences. Facilities, 2014. 32(11/12): p. 709-722.
8) Koch, D., D. Wesse, and R. Stickney, New trends in campus housing. Facilities Manager Mag, 1999. 15: p. 39-42.
9) Olujimi, J. and M. Bello, Effects of infrastructural facilities on the rental values of residential property. Journal of social sciences, 2009. 5(4): p. 332-341.
10) Mutiara, L.A., B.I. Harsritanto, and M.I. Hasan, Comparative Study of Student Apartment’s Facilities: Louvin and Pacific Garden Apartment. 2020.
11) Torres-Antonini, M. and N. Park, Sustainable student campus housing in the US. International Journal of Spatial Design and Research, 2009. 8(10): p. 29-38.
12) Schenke, J., Purdue students prefer to go solo. College Plann. Manage., 11: 62-64. 2008.
13) Abramson, P., Downsizing residence halls: space and costs. Living on campus, 2009: p. 20-27.
14) Najib, N.U.M., N.A. Yusof, and Z. Osman, Measuring Satisfaction with Student Housing Facilities. Am. J. Engg. & Applied Sci, 2011. 4(1): p. 52-60.
15) Khozaei, F., A. Hassan, and Z. Khozaei, Undergraduate students' satisfaction with hostel and sense of attachment to place: Case study of university sains Malaysia. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2010. 3(3): p. 516-520.
16) Najib, N. and N. Yusof. A review of student housing facilities in higher learning institution. in Proceeding of the 3rd International Conference on Built Environment in Developing Countries (ICBEDC 2009), Dec. 2009.
17) Hassanain, M.A., On the performance evaluation of sustainable student housing facilities. Journal of Facilities Management, 2008. 6(3): p. 212-225.
18) Khozaei, F., et al., Sense of attachment to place and fulfilled preferences, the mediating role of housing satisfaction. Property Management, 2012. 30(3): p. 292-310.
19) Miller, H., Room and Board Redefined: Trends in Residence Halls. 2015, Herman Miller, Inc.
20) Seemiller, C. and M.J.A.C. Grace, Generation Z: Educating and engaging the next generation of students. 2017. 22(3): p. 21-26.
21) Cilliers, E.J., The challenge of teaching generation Z. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 2017. 3(1): p. 188-198.
22) Geck, C., The generation Z connection: Teaching information literacy to the newest net generation. Toward a 21st-century school library media program, 2007. 235(2007): p. 807-828.
23) Carter, T., Preparing Generation Z for the teaching profession. Srate Journal, 2018. 27(1): p. 1-8.
24) Hampton, D.C. and Y. Keys, Generation Z students: Will they change our nursing classrooms. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 2017. 7(4): p. 111-115.
25) Dolot, A., The characteristics of Generation Z. e-mentor, 2018: p. 44-50.
26) Mohr, K.A. and E.S. Mohr, Understanding Generation Z students to promote a contemporary learning environment. 2017. 1(1): p. 9.
27) Allison, C.M., et al. An Analysis of Student Internet Usage and its Impact on the Infrastructure of a School’s Information Technology Services. in Student-Faculty Research Day, CSIS. 2016. Pace University.
28) Olson, J.C. and T.J. Reynolds, Understanding consumers’ cognitive structures: implications for advertising strategy. Advertising and consumer psychology, 1983. 1: p. 77-90.
29) Jusan, M.B.M., Identification of User's Expectations in Mass Housing using Means-End Chain Research Model. Journal Alam Bina, 2007. 9(4): p. 1-19.
30) Zinas, B.Z. and M.B.M. Jusan, Housing Choice and Preference: Theory and Measurement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. 49: p. 282-292.
31) Zachariah, Z.B. and M.B.M. Jusan, Means-End Chain Model Framework for Measuring Housing Environment Choice Behavior. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 2011. 5(6): p. 535-547.
32) Chafjiri, R.P., A Study on The Satisfaction Factors in Designing the Students House: A Case Study of Boys Dormitory Campus of The University of Guilan. IIOAB Journal, 2016. 7: p. 105-115.
33) Kıvanç, D., Relationships between density, crowding, privacy and dormitory satisfaction: the case of Bilkent University dormitories, in Interior Architecture and Environmental Design. 2016, Bilkent Universitesi (Turkey): Ankara.
34) Debek, M., Architects and non-architects assess architecture. 2013.
35) Gifford, R., Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice. 5th ed. 2014: Optimal Books.
36) Sanoff, H., Integrating Programming, Evaluation and Participation in Design (Routledge Revivals): A Theory Z Approach. 2018, New York: Routledge.
37) Zeisel, J., Inquiry by Design: Environment Behaviour Neuroscience In Architecture Interiors. 2006, New York W.W. Norton.
38) Howley, P., M. Scott, and D. Redmond, An examination of residential preferences for less sustainable housing: Exploring future mobility among Dublin central city residents. Cities, 2009. 26(1): p. 1-8.
39) Gutman, J., A Means-End Chain model based on Consumer Organization Processes. Journal of Marketing, 1982. 46: p. 60-72.
40) Reynolds, T.J. and J. Gutman, Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 1998. 28(1): p. 11-31.
41) Veludo-de-Oliveira, T.M., A.A. Ikeda, and M.C. Campomar, Discussing laddering application by the means-end chain theory. The Qualitative Report, 2006. 11(4): p. 626-642.
42) Jiang, S., N. Scott, and P. Ding, Using means-end chain theory to explore travel motivation: An examination of Chinese outbound tourists. Journal of vacation marketing, 2015. 21(1): p. 87-100.
43) Coolen, H. and J. Hoekstra, Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 2001. 16(285-306).
44) Gluszak, M. and M. Zięba. Using the Means-Ends Approach to Understand the Value of Sustainability on the Property Market. in Smart City 360°. 2016. Springer.
45) Jusan, M.B.M., Means end chain, person environment congruence and mass housing design. Open House International, 2010. 35(3): p. 76-86.
46) Sohaimi, N.S., et al., Young Professionals’ Housing Affordability Through Housing Preferences In Kuala Lumpur And A Review On The Means-End Chain Model. Planning Malaysia Journal, 2017. 15(1).
47) Wong, C.S., M.B.M. Jusan, and L.S. Wong, The Relationship between Students’ Personality Traits and Privacy Preferences in Architecture Studio. Man In India, 2017. 97(20): p. 215-230.
48) Coolen, H.C.C.H., The Meaning Structure Method, in The Measurement and Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice, S.J.T. Jansen, H.C.C.H. Coolen, and R.W. Goetgeluk, Editors. 2014, Springer: Netherlands. p. 75-99.
49) Schwartz, S.H., An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online readings in Psychology and Culture, 2012. 2(1): p. 11.
50) Wong, C.S. and M.B.M. Jusan, Application of Means-End Chain Research Model to Explore Attributes of Architecture Studio. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 2017. 12(4): p. 498-508.
51) Krasić, S., et al., Architectonic Analysis of Common Space Organization in Contemporary Student Dormitories Around the World. Facta Universitatis, Series: Architecture and Civil Engineering, 2018. 15(3): p. 507-526.