Compilation ArchiGroup QuantiResearch (FINAL)

ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCES BASED ON STUDENT’S AGE i
HOLY ANGEL UNIVERSITY
APPROVAL SHEET
This research entitled, “A COMPARATIVE STUDY: TRADITIONAL AND
MODERN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PREFERENCES OF HAU STUDENTS VIS-A-
VIS THEIR AGE,” prepared and submitted by Aaron Tristan D. Ambas, Lianne Reigne S.
Endiape, Jaymee Anne M. Limpin, Adyza Jean B. Mateo, and Sofia Joy D. Yunun in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Senior High School program, has been examined and is
recommended for acceptance and approval for examination.
__________________________________________
MR. KEVIN H. GOMEZ
Research Adviser
APPROVAL
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for Senior High School program.
___________________________________
MS. GLORIA A. MIRANDA
Coordinator
SHS Humanities and Social Sciences
___________________________________
MS. ALBERTA Z. SUPAN
Assistant Principal
Senior High School
ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCES BASED ON STUDENT’S AGE ii
Acknowledgment
The completion of this study could not have been possible without the contribution and
abidance of so many people whose names may not be counted. Their participation is genuinely
valued and gratefully acknowledged. However, the researchers would like to express their
profound gratitude and indebtedness particularly to the following:
To their research teacher, Mr. Kevin Gomez, with his expertise and encouragement
throughout the study that helped the researchers to have hope and determination to finish the
conducted study.
To the researchers’ family, as they give them perpetual support and motivation to
accomplish the study.
To the participants, that voluntarily engaged themselves in the study through answering
the questionnaires given by the researchers and to help them formulate a preferable conclusion
from their responds.
And above all, to the Great Almighty, giving the researchers guidance as they carry out
the study and the people involved as they provide the researchers information related to the
study.
The researchers once again humbly appreciated the people’s partaking and really
grateful for the opportunity to give a deep recognition for them.

ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCES BASED ON STUDENT’S AGE iii
Table of Contents
TurnItIn Certification ………………………………………………………………… i
Approval Sheet ………………………………………………………………………. ii
Acknowledgment ……………………………………………………………………. iii
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………. iv
List of Tables and Figures …………………………………………………………… vi
Title Page …………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………. 2
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………. 3
Background of the Study
Review of literature and studies
Theoretical framework
Statement of the Problem
Scope and Delimitation
Significance of the Study
Method ………………………………………………………………………………. 18
Sample
Instrument
Design
Procedure
Data Analysis
Results and Discussion ………………………………………………………………. 35

ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCES BASED ON STUDENT’S AGE iv
Summary of Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
References ……………………………………………………………………….... 58
Appendices ………………………………………………………………………... 62
ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCES BASED ON STUDENT’S AGE v
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1 – Summary of Data …………………………………………………… 23
Table 2 – Students’ Preferences Data each Age Bracket ………………………24
Table 3 – Mean (Average) Values of the Students’ Preferences Data each
Age Bracket ………………………………………………………….24
Table 4 – Formulas of the Factorial Analysis ………………………………….24
Table 5 – Sum of squares 1st Factor (Architectural Design) …………………...26
Table 6 – Sum of Squares 2nd Factor (Age) …………………………………....27
Table 7 – Sum of Squares Within ……………………………………………...27
Table 8 – Sum of Squares Total ……………………………………………...28
Table 9 – Degree of Freedom Values …………………………………………...29
Table 10 – Mean Square ……………………………………………………...30
Table 11 – F – Ratio ……………………………………………………...30
Table 12 – Summary of Squares ……………………………………………...31
Table 13 – F – Test Table Value Alpha Level = 0.05 (1,8) …………………......32
Table 14 – Profile of the students in terms of their age ………………………....35
Table 15 – Average Architectural Design Preferences of HAU Students
vis-a-vis their Age ……………………………………………….......44
Figure 1 – Research Paradigm for the research entitled A Comparative Study:
Traditional and Modern Architectural Design Preferences of HAU
Students vis-a-vis their Age ………………………………………......14

ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCES BASED ON STUDENT’S AGE vi
Figure 2 – Graph of F – Ratios from the Table …………………………………….33
Figure 3 – Architectural Design Preferences of 13-15 years old age bracket ….......36
Figure 4 – Architectural Structure Preferences of 13-15 years old age
bracket ………………………………………………………………......37
Figure 5 – Living Environment Preferences of 13-15 years old age bracket ……...38
Figure 6 – Architectural Design Preferences of 16-18 years old age bracket ……..40
Figure 7 – Architectural Structure Preferences of 16-18 years old age
bracket ………………………………………………………………….41
Figure 8 – Living Environment Preferences of 16-18 years old age bracket ……...42
Figure 9 – Overall Architectural Design Preference of 13-15 years old age
bracket …………………………………………………………...…….46
Figure 10 – Overall Architectural Design Preference of 16-18 years old age
bracket ……………………………………………………….………...47
ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCES BASED ON STUDENT’S AGE 1
A Comparative Study: Traditional and Modern Architectural Design Preferences of
HAU Students vis-a-vis their Age
Ambas, Aaron Tristan D.
Endiape, Lianne Reigne S.
Limpin, Jaymee Anne M.
Mateo, Adyza Jean B.
Yunun, Sofia Joy D.
Holy Angel University
Practical Research 2
Mr. Kevin H. Gomez
April 26, 2020

Abstract
Architecture has always been growing over the decades to improve and adapt with
people’s necessities. This paper explained the comparison between Traditional and Modern
Architecture in terms of their design, structure, and living environment. The purpose of this
study is to evaluate the preferences of Holy Angel University students under the age bracket
of 13-15 years old and 16-18 years old in selecting architectural designs.
This study is a comparative quantitative study that gathered data by means of online
questionnaire to know their perception about the topic. The researchers utilized 95 respondents
for the first age bracket and 97 respondents for the second age bracket to participate in the
study with the use of Google Form to collect data.
Two-Way Anova Analysis was utilized to know the statistics of the data gathered. With
this, the researchers discovered that age does not have an effect in choosing the preferred
architectural design. The researchers also interpreted that both age brackets were inclined with
modern architecture than traditional architecture. This proved that the future trend of
architecture will be dealing with modern design and structure.
Keywords: Architecture, Traditional, Modern, Preference, Age Bracket

A Comparative Study: Traditional and Modern Architectural Design Preferences of
HAU Students vis-a-vis their Age
In a fast-changing world, each country has developed its structural buildings and
houses over the past years. Architectural design plays an important role here as it could either
maintain a traditional look and feel the connection to the past or embrace modern designs and
styles of structures. Nonetheless, architecture in a general manner fulfills the essentials of the
people it serves. It is not just about the aesthetics of a structure. As stated by PDH Academy
(2016), architects do not just design buildings that are sturdy and strong. They also consider
the type of environment they will make for people to be able to benefit in a lot of different
ways now and into the future.
In the Philippines, the history of architecture is well witnessed as it evolved through
different eras. Nowadays, infrastructures are either built with traditional or modern designs.
Some people would still prefer having a traditional style of a house or building while others
welcome the concept of minimalism. For this reason, understanding the preferences of people
will be a great advantage especially for architects. This could help them in conceptualizing
ideas that will match the preferable type of architectural design of the current population
based on their age. This study also aims to determine how traditional or modern architecture
be compared in different factors. Lastly, it also aims to identify what will be the future trend
on architectural designs in infrastructures.
Preferences of people may vary due to a lot of factors. For this study, the researchers
will primarily focus on two age brackets, specifically 13 to 15 years old and 16 to 18 years
old, from Holy Angel University (HAU) students for the school year 2020-2021. The
researchers will focus on their age to see how different the preferences of students in
choosing between traditional and modern design of infrastructures.
According to S3DA Design (2019), traditional architecture shows different ways of
building a house that utilizes locally available resources and materials such as bricks, stones,
and woods to address the needs of the people. It also reflects a particular culture where
people live and maintains a link to the past. On the other hand, modern architecture replaces
the use of traditional building materials into glass and steel. It started in the late 19th century
following revolutions in technology, as well as the desire to abandon the traditional
architectural styles to invent something new and functional in this modern era. Generally,
modern architectural design is simple, serious, and has minimalist while traditional
architecture features many character and culture embedded in order to give them a unique
appearance. In terms of durability, Foyr (2019) stated that modern architectural buildings are
more durable to withstand extreme weather conditions like landslides, earthquakes, and
storms. However, the materials needed in building a modern structure could be more
expensive than a traditional structure. This is because the materials for traditional
architecture are mostly local, easily available, and requires relatively little labor.
Consequently, modern architectural designs may utilize unconventional energy sources such
as solar power, making it energy efficient.
Architecture have gone through series of modification and changes. In this case,
different styles and design are arousing each period making it more difficult to choose from.
It is said that more than 98% of design controls are on visual properties of buildings.
According to Ghomeishi (2020), one (1) out of five (5) architects right now preferred a
combination of traditional and modern architectural structure in buildings. There are multiple
factors in terms of designing in each type such as placement of windows, base structure of
the building, and also materials being used (Chantal, 2018). According to different studies,
almost 60% of students in certain area is still more interested in traditional designs and 40%
are into modern designs which is the cause of restrictive factors within historical
environments (Uzunoglu & Ozden, 2017).
In these changes made by many architects, people have also acquired different
preferences in terms of designs, structure, and living environment. Thus, the researchers want
to determine the traditional and modern architectural design preferences of Holy Angel
University (HAU) students for the school year 2020-2021 vis-à-vis the age bracket of 13 to
15 years old and 16 to 18 years old.
The researchers aim to pursue this study to know the opinion of different age brackets
about two different designs mainly between traditional and modern structures, as well as
knowing their preferred style in terms of living environment, structure, materials, and design.
Its purpose is also to give architects in various fields to be aware of what ages are now
interested in old fashioned design or technological structure of a given model. Therefore,
conducting a study to figure out which type of design is more dominant in these times.
Through the years, architecture has changed in terms of designs, materials, structures,
and even living environment. It has made remarkable period that drastically produces unique
features in different households or buildings. They have been constructing architectural
pattern based on each period’s culture, tradition religion and trends at the certain period in
time. With this, literatures about different styles, specifically modern architecture versus
traditional architecture, will be thoroughly discussed. It will deliberately tell us the evolution
of different period and what influences the preferences of people regarding this matter.
As time passed by, various architectural designs became possible because of the
development of building materials and designs. Subsequently, buildings and structures are
not just built for pure functionality. Changes in how buildings were constructed and designed
have also shown how one can achieve unique architectural structures (Brandy, 2017).
Architectural styles and housing designs have changed over the years that builds four
key factors that influence and evolve its architectural design. According to Insurance Choice
(2019), the first factor is the environment where the structure will be built. This is important
to consider for it affects the amount and type of materials to be used as well as this will
impact the forms of the building. Second, the identity and imagination of the architect when
designing. Inspirations of architects such as his or her hobbies, experiences, and events could
critically affect the architectural structure and design of the building. Third, the previous
architectural styles are still being modified by architects even in the advent of technological
advancements. Particularly, the evolution of architectural styles has helped them to be
creative and innovative in designing structures. Lastly, constructive criticisms also play an
important role in how architectural style changes. These have helped the architects to
establish better results to improve their designs.
As a matter of fact, architecture exists at its core to establish the physical environment
in which people survive, but it is also part of our community that architecture is more than
just the built environment. It stands as a reflection of both how we see ourselves and how we
see the world. Traditional architecture is significant to every architect because it keeps the
resemblance and relation of our life to the past that were dominant in a certain region, area or
culture that is being preserved. It is this link to the past that keeps us bound to the existing
structures and models that can be integrated into other designs of buildings. Originally, the
style of buildings was influenced by the environment of a given area, what materials were
readily available, and the ideals of the culture that constructed them (Vangelatos, 2019).
The features of traditional architecture used by architects and builders include a
dedication to preserving a connection with the past, reusing materials, or constructing homes
and structures in order to remain compatible with the area's overall construction style. They
are utilizing materials that can be easily found such as clay, sand, woods, and rocks as their
main elements in making buildings. They used raw earth materials that are processed into
compressed earth blocks, created using a mechanized hydraulically compressed block
machine and made of a semi-dry mixture of clay and sand. These blocks have stronger
compressive strength and resistance to water, and allow for the construction of thinner,
higher walls (CTCN, n.d.).
On the other hand, modern architecture emerged in the 1920s wherein the style
embraced minimalism and principle-based design, as stated from the article of Spacey
(2019). To which it adopted the future, where influences from history and traditions are all
rejected in its architectural design, and in contrast, favors the new forms based on the
principles of modernism. Consequently, modernism is said to call for logic, the rational
expression and application of universal principles, as well as the different principles that
abides architecture. It is stated that designs are driven by functionality and not artistic
expression that coincides with the common characteristic of modern architecture that rejects
ornamentation that causes buildings and exteriors to quickly “go out of style”. Additionally,
there is also a principle of architectural designs that talks about the expression of the natural
appearances of the building materials, rather than be hidden with decorations.

Although they are both in the ends of the spectrum, Little (2020) explains that
traditional and modern architectural design can be combined in a project. The elements of
each style can work in harmony as long as it is done properly and not overdoing it. This is a
good way to preserve a style that is fading without affecting the emerging architectural
designs. A building with modern and traditional fusion, in which, modern style elements are
combined with cedar shingles, producing a very distinct and good-looking structure.
Therefore, both traditional and modern will emerge to create a better society with the help of
skilled design architects.
With that, preferences of people will eventually become evident. In the research by
Bogicevic et. al (2018), fulfillment of people in arrangements and designs is correlated with
his/her age and gender. Young guests like modern styles while adult guests displayed equal
appeasement with traditional and modern styles. To be more specific, women prefer both
color schemes such as masculine and feminine, but men are only contented with masculine
gist in terms of room designs. In addition, age-based demographic shifts about architectural
design also takes place. Teenagers and adults tend to like architectural trend and market-
driven designs that causes impact on both structures and facilities. Architects then adapt the
opinion of the preferred type and combination materials do people appreciate the most in the
said field.
Architecture may have been a huge factor to our lives not just because of our
buildings but because of how it is being used and built. Overall, architecture may evolve in
several ways, but people still see things in different perspective and different preferences. It
is said that traditional architecture may be discreetly abandoned, but the remains and
materials of it are still being utilized by many architects in creating a building. Modern
designs in architecture are now at its peak in being the most popular style in this generation
but is still being modified to continually improve the structures of establishments. These
reviews of related literatures have proven that people’s preferences are changing because of
influences in a certain period and how it become the sole element in availing a definite style
in their necessity.
Architecture have been through different period that generates different styles. The
researchers desired to seek studies and information about what are the preferences of
different age brackets and how are they being influenced by the designs and structures of
architectural buildings. The related studies gathered by the researchers revolved around
immersing and choosing what generation prefer between different styles of architecture
present until now. Various factors and elements that affect one’s decision to choose in given
style are also being exploited in this section. These studies were accumulated for their
content that will help the researchers to fill the gaps and make the study to be more factual
and informative.
In a study entitled Contemporary versus traditional styles in architecture and public
space: A virtual reality study with 360-degree videos by Mouratidis and Hassan (2020),
they conducted an experiment with an immersive virtual reality and 360-degree videos. This
was studied to determine what the students, as participants, most likely prefer between
contemporary and traditional architectural style. The examined places were public squares
and streetscapes. Based on findings, traditional styles are evaluated more positively by the
students. This traditional style is characterized by ornamentation and symmetry while the
contemporary style is characterized by industrial appearance, asymmetry, and lack of
ornamentation. This shows that in environmental perception, traditional architecture scores

significantly higher than contemporary architecture. Hence, this challenges the current
trends of architectural style and the factors concerning the community's quality of life,
including the newly built and natural environments.
However, from the quantitative study conducted by Kim (2020), there are very few
information that had highlighted on the housing preferences of young adults even though
there are numerous studies related to this subject. The study examined the housing
preferences of young adults considering factors such as price, environment, location, and
interiors, with the research subjects ranging from 18-30 years old in the large cities of
Sweden with comparison to older age groups. In addition, it is said that young adults tend to
suffer in the housing market due to issues regarding financials and housing shortages, to
which they end up in an inferior position in the competition for housing. The findings of the
research indicated that young adults showed foremost interest with the housing selections
that have low price, proximity to public transportation, balcony, safety as well as proximity
to shops and services. In contrast, young adults have low preference for a neighborhood
environment of housing, and shows less interests regarding cleanliness, green space, and
separate kitchen. Although previous studies have indicated that young people tend to put
higher value when it comes to mobility from a dwelling, their housing preferences can
hardly be generalized for it varies depending on the location.
Taking that into account, Ricci (2018) research entitled as “The Psychological
Impact of Architectural Design”, an artistic appearance of structure is beneficial for both
psychological and physiological state of a person claimed that a good architectural design
has a positive influence. Because of that, the connection between poor architectural design
and psychological issues may result a negative impact to a well-being as she comprehends
their connection. Eventually, she has acquired an insight about psychological and
physiological answers from a person’s standpoint in terms of design. Exploiting that
information with the use of advance technologies will help the architecture to produce
aesthetically pleasing structure but most of all intellectually promising. In fact, applying
architectural designs that gives a pessimistic effect in modern society is not a choice, it
indicates that an architectural design should automatically lessen the different kinds of
health problems such as heart attacks, obesity, high blood pressure, depression, anxiety, etc.
Thereby, materials and resources required to build and enhance a structure are insufficient
for creating a better world. In summary, psychological impact in architectural designs is
needed to be addressed, support and be a public issue which is significant not only for the
individuals but also for the society.
As a result, the study conducted by Susanti and Natalia (2018), stated that it seems
like the architects are adapting to the preferences and way of life of the people, which are
constantly changing, to provide designs that will fit to their standards. The factors affecting
architecture includes politics, economy, security, technology development and most of all
the generation Z (refer to a person born after 1995). These generation is exposed to
technological related and have been a big help to the society till the next decade.
Consequently, this study is an explorative research and focusses on identifying generation
Z’s needs and preferences from some public space facilities as a basis for public space
architecture strategic planning and design. The outcome of the research shows that often
preferred by generation Z includes specialty, security, pliable and contemplative.
Furthermore, the study ‘Evaluation of style preferences in architectural design
among the undergraduate students from different nationalities in North Cyprus’, explored
the style preferences of architectural students, further stressing the value of preserving
cultural heritage. In this regard, it was emphasized that the inclusion of heritage protection
within the context of architectural education is very significant. The study has evaluated that
their students seem to be more interested in traditional designs by 60% of the surveyed
students are into it. While 40% majority were interested in modern design for it is known to
be a common style of architectural building. They also noted that within historical contexts,
there are restrictive variables. Some stressed the argument that with regards to architectural
values, modern architecture is more versatile. 50 percent of students accepted that today,
new designs are more prevalent. 40 percent choose modern designs because they feel that
modern style gives them a higher chance of being innovative and new ideas and concepts
can be created. Lastly, 40 percent of the population think that when designing, there are
limiting variables such as historical settings (Uzunoglu & Ozden, 2017).
Indeed, there are various factors that influences the styles and preferences of an
individual. It can be about popularity, behavior, or the structure and design itself. Some
people choose modern and technological designs in houses because they believe that it
gives more comfortability. Meanwhile, some have been meaning to have traditionally
inspired houses for it gives deeper connection in a certain culture or tradition. Others know
that both architectural styles can be utilized in a definite building creating a stronger and
better household or building that we can use in the future. Additionally, several elements
that affects one’s preferences is about the generation where the individual belong and how
he/she is going to adapt in its living environment.
Preference is an act of liking one alternative over another, it takes in many forms. For
instance, having a “strict preference” would mean that an individual would only prefer and
be satisfied with the first choice over an alternative. While having a “weak preference”
would mean that an individual would at least prefer some minimal outcome, in other words,
would be satisfied with both first choice and the alternative, but would like the first more.
Lastly, “indifferent” where an individual may not care what option they would take, as long
as the given option is readily available.
In fact, the preferences of students are known to vary and change according to their
age, prior knowledge, and information, as well as personal goals. These different external
factors help individuals to evaluate their choices regarding what architectural designs would
greatly benefit them, and also would be in coordination to their personal preferences. Thus,
these factors are vital, especially in this study which aims to compare how the difference in
age may affect the preferences of students.
Thereby, Rational Choice Theory formulated by Adam Smith (1776) is adapted as the
foundation of the paper. The Rational Choice Theory proposed by Adam Smith (1776) states
that individuals calculate their decisions to make rational choices that leads them to achieve
outcomes, which are aligned with their own personal objectives and preferences. This theory
assumes that people will make use of information in order to maximize their advantage in
any situation, which would in return, minimize their losses.
The preferences of individual are known to be ever-changing and affected by external
factors such as new perspective and knowledge gained from experiences as time goes on.
Since this study aims to compare the traditional and modern architectural design preferences
of students in Holy Angel University, which in turn changes their perspective, personal
objectives and preferences in architectural designs. Therefore, Rational Choice theory is
correlated to the study, in terms of how the choices of students regarding modern and
traditional architecture are affected, due to their knowledge, personal objectives, and their
personal preferences.
Research Paradigm Figure 1.
Research Paradigm for the research entitled A Comparative Study: Traditional
and Modern Architectural Design Preferences of HAU Students vis-a-vis their Age
Preferences of Students Prominent Architectural
in Architectural Designs Designs:
between: • Traditional
• 13-15 years old • Modern
• 16-18 years old
This diagram shows the relationship regarding the preferences of the age brackets in
architectural designs between 13 to 15 years old and 16 to 18 years old students at Holy
Angel University and the prominent architectural designs such as traditional and modern. To
put it simply, the preferences of each age brackets can either be the cause of influence or to
affect the trend of architectural designs and vice versa, wherein both variables are dependent
to each other in order to formulate a conclusion of this study.
The general objective of this comparative study is to determine the traditional and
modern architectural design preferences of Holy Angel University (HAU) students for the
school year 2020-2021 vis-à-vis the age bracket of 13 to 15 years old and 16 to 18 years old.
Specifically, the researchers seek to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the students in terms of their age?
2. How can the traditional and modern architecture be compared in terms of the
following :
2.1. Design
2.2. Structure
2.3. Living Environment
3. What age bracket preferred traditional and modern architectural designs?
4. Based on the findings, what will be the future trend on architectural designs in
infrastructures?
The study focuses on determining the preferences of students at Holy Angel
University (HAU) on architectural design based on their age. The target participants of the
researchers are the students under the age group of 13 to 15 years old, and 16 to 18 years old,
covering Junior High School and Senior High School. The data gathering will be conducted
during second semester of school year 2020-2021. Furthermore, HAU was chosen to be the
setting as the institution's population for it is adequate in gathering data for the fact that it has
a great number of students enrolling every year. The availability of the target population and
researchers were also put into consideration in choosing the setting for data collection. This
will help the researchers to collect data conveniently from the students in their own school.
This study does not cover the age groups lower than 13 years old and above 18 years
old. The participants also should only be studying at Holy Angel University. The sampling
technique used in identifying respondents is the stratified random sampling wherein they are
grouped according to the age bracket where they belong. The process of data collection will
be done through online survey as it is prohibited by the government to conduct face-to-face
surveys, considering that the COVID- 19 pandemic is still affecting the country up to this
day. Moreover, the main source of the data are questionnaires prepared by the researchers.
Each of the participants was given the same questionnaires to answer.
The study seeks to know the correlation between the age of the students at Holy
Angel University and their preference in architectural design. This will generate new
knowledge on how the students view the beauty of traditional and modern architecture.
Specifically, this will give benefit to the following:
To the students, the study will help them know what other age brackets still think of
different styles especially to buildings. This will provide clarification and awareness to rising
of old and new types of design that we can use today and in the future. This will also help
students, especially architecture students, to incorporate these trends in creating their plates
to enhance their knowledge and creativity on providing designs based on the preferences of
their future clients.
To the architects, the results of the study can guide them to make an exceptional idea
that is safe, environment-friendly and fitting to the preferences of their future clients that falls
under the age brackets set by the researchers as they provide the desired living environment
of one individual. This will also help them on knowing how they can preserve a dying type of
architectural design and combine it to the emerging trend.
To the school, this study will serve as their basis in adapting the Architecture
course’ instructional materials, innovating their templates, and recognizing the new trend in
architectural design that is preferred based on the person’s age as they promote living in
satisfactory.
To the community, this research can help them in terms of decision making in
choosing architectural designs which are appropriate or in favor for their age and
satisfaction. It will also inform the people if the traditional architecture is slowly fading and
needs to be preserved or technology may help pave the way in the future.
Lastly, to the future researchers, they can benefit from the study as it provides
insights and discoveries wherein it can be related to their studies. It can also be a basis for
improvement of their works.

Method
Participants
In this study, the population came from Holy Angel University (HAU) students,
specifically from Junior High School (JHS) and Senior High School (SHS) students with the
age bracket of 13 to 15 years old and 16 to 18 years old, for the school year 2020-2021. The
researchers chose this institution because it has a large population of students with varying
ages, meaning there are sufficient respondents that could be classified to get the targeted
sample of the study. Using the Slovin’s formula, the researchers solved for the sample size
from the mentioned students (population size) and 10% margin of error. The formula used
𝑁
was 𝑛 = 1+𝑁𝑒 2 , where n is the number of samples, N is the total population, and e is the
margin of error. The researchers have determined that the population of 13 to 15 years old
age bracket covers 1, 974 students. Meanwhile, the population of 16 to 18 years old age
bracket covers 3, 622 students. Utilizing the Slovin’s formula, the researchers were able to
get the sample size for each age bracket. A total of ninety-five (95) participants represented
the age bracket 13 to 15 years old and a total of ninety-seven (97) participants for 16 to 18
years old students from HAU.
The study made use of the stratified random sampling, under the probability sampling
method. Stratified random sampling is a method used by the researchers to divide a
population into smaller groups, also known as strata. The strata are classified based on the
shared characteristics of the respondents in the group and in this study; they were group
based on their age. The researchers used this method to compare the two architectural design
preferences, traditional and modern architecture, in relation to the respondents' age bracket.
Thus, the researcher had to divide the population of HAU students covering JHS and SHS
students into two age brackets: 13 to 15 years old and 16 to 18 years old. Moreover, Murphy
(2020) stated that stratified random sampling accurately reflects the population that is being
studied. This method ensures that each subgroup within the population would receive a
proper representation within the sample. Therefore, stratified random sampling provides
more reliable coverage of the population since the researchers have control over the
subgroups to guarantee that all of them are represented in the sampling.
To obtain the sample of the study, the researchers first took the population size of
HAU students from JHS and SHS because their age range from 13 to 18 years old, which is a
must for this study. Afterwards, the researchers used the stratified random sampling
technique to group the respondents into two age brackets: 13 to 15 years old and 16 to 18
years old.
In the selection for the study’s respondents, the researchers had set criteria and
participant’s specifications. The respondents must acquire all the needed specifications in
order to be legible for the participation in the study. The qualifying criteria for the selection
of the respondents include: First, the respondents must be from Holy Angel University
(HAU). Second, the respondents must fit the age bracket of 13 to 15 years old or 16 to 18
years old.
Instrument
The research had conducted an online survey questionnaire through the use of Google
forms in gathering the needed information regarding the architectural design preferences of
the HAU students. According to Preston (2009), questionnaire survey is a strategy for
gathering statistical information regarding attributes, attitudes, or actions of a given
population through a set of structured questions. Moreover, the instrument is said to enable
the researchers to obtain information that is suitable for statistical analysis. Hence, the
instrument would be appropriate in gathering statistical data regarding the subject matter with
fewer limitations for the participants in order to heighten the accuracy of the results of the
study.
The utilized research instrument of this study is derived from an existing research
conducted by Kim (2020), regarding the housing preferences of young adults in comparison
to older generations. The referenced quantitative study made use of the combination of a
survey form and questionnaire as an instrument appropriate with the objectives of the
research. As there is no well-known prevalent trend regarding the preferences of young
adults, the instrument is used with the purpose of discovering and identifying the general
trend on this matter.
The researchers had modified and edited the sample questionnaire based on the
objectives of the current study. Questions included in the research instrument would be close
ended, provided with rating scale choices for the respondents. In this case, the researchers
would provide descriptions and pictures that would help them determine what the
respondents prefer between the two architectural designs with the use of Likert scale. It is a
five-point scale used to allow an individual to express how much they agree or disagree with
a particular statement (McLeod, 2019). This allows the researcher to gather easy to quantify
and compare insights about the subject matter as well as increases the consistency of data by
providing concrete answers. Specifically, the research instrument would be containing close-
ended questions regarding the general preferences in architectural design, namely modern or
tradition. The questions would further expand to the preferences of students regarding other
details of the designs, such as their preferences on exterior designs, namely, minimalism in
comparison to ornamentation, geometric appearances of structures in comparison to
Victorian styles. It would also include the interior design regarding structures of the floor
plans and features such as balconies, open spaces, and terraces. Lastly, the researchers also
considered the preferences of the students between two architectural structures, despite
having different living environment conditions.
Design
This study is categorized as quantitative research which refers to the method that is
used to explain phenomena, trends, and patterns through collecting numerical data. In the
process of analysis, it is statistical in nature as this type of study involves a large number of
participants as the sample size. A quantitative research can be conducted with various
research designs. In the case of this study, which is non-experimental, the researchers applied
comparative quantitative research design. This method is the most applicable for the study as
it corresponds to the main objective of the researchers. Richardson (2018) explained that this
research design is an essential in comparing two groups to draw a conclusion about them.
The aim of this research is to compare the preferences on architectural designs of the students
which are categorized into age brackets, at Holy Angel University. The participants are
divided into age groups of 13 to 15 years old, and 16 to 18 years old. To be specific, the
involved architectural designs are only limited to traditional, which is ought to fade, and
modern, an emerging design. The researchers focused on determining which of the two
architectural designs is preferred by each age bracket in terms of the design elements,
structure, and desired living environment. Furthermore, the use of comparative research
design helped the researchers in gathering the numerical data through the utilization of
Google forms to conduct an online survey. It guided the researchers in forming questions that
are needed to be included in the survey forms. Lastly, the chosen research design also helped
in data analysis, leading to a conclusion that answers the research question.
Procedure
In conducting the study, the data needed were sourced from JHS and SHS students
from Holy Angel University. The respondents were selected through stratified random
sampling. Using the Slovin’s formula with 10% margin of error set by the researchers, 95
respondents were selected from 13 to 15 years old age bracket and 97 respondents from 16 to
18 years old age bracket to participate in the study. In preparatory to data gathering, the
researchers had prepared a set of questions beforehand. The researchers used Likert-scale to
gather information to support the claims of the study. The questions were mainly circulating
on the traditional and modern architecture to determine their preferences. These questions
were examined by the instructor for the data gathering to proceed. After the set of questions
were validated, the researchers used Google Form as the medium in distributing the online
questionnaire to the respondents.
The researchers strictly followed the procedure accordingly and gave importance to
the ethical concerns that are needed to be met. Data gathered from the respondent would be
processed to analyze and interpret by the researchers that would contribute to support the
conclusion.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study is to know the difference between the two architectural
design preferences namely, modern architecture and traditional architecture, in relation to the
age bracket of students they belong to. With this, the researchers made use of a statistical tool
to know its comparison and relation with each other. Specifically, the researchers conducted
a kind of inferential statistics called Two-Way Anova or known as Factorial Analysis in
order to explicitly implied the results of the study. According to Hayes (2020), Anova
statistics are for analysis of variance and tests to know the relation and differences in an
independent or dependent variable. A Two-Way Anova test is a statistical test used to
determine the effect of two nominal predictor variables on a continuous outcome variable.
The primary purpose of a Two-Way Anova is to understand if there is an interaction
between the two independent variables on the dependent variable. For example, you could
also use a Two-Way Anova to see whether there is an association between gender and
educational level on test anxiety among university students, where the independent variables
are gender (males/females) and education level (undergraduate/postgraduate), and test
anxiety is the dependent variable (Laerd Statistics, 2020). In this case, the two main variables
are utilized to be compared and analyzed, particularly architectural designs in accordance
with their age bracket. Now, these two variables are used in order to carry out the Two-Way
Anova treatment in knowing the differences of various age brackets, as well as if they have a
significant effect on their preferences.
Two Way Anova (Factorial Analysis)
Table 1.
Summary of Data
Architectural Design Structure Environment Age Group
Design
Traditional 49.2 46.8 48.8 13-15

Modern 53.6 47.2 55.2
Traditional 35.6 42 37.9 16-18
Modern 52.5 45.1 59.9
Table 2.
Students’ Preferences Data each Age Bracket
Traditional Modern
13 – 15 16 – 18 13 – 15 16 – 18
49.2 35.6 53.6 52.5
46.8 42 47.2 45.1
48.8 37.9 55.2 59.9
Table 3.
Mean (Average) Values of the Students’ Preferences Data each Age Bracket
13-15 16-18 Average
Traditional 48.27 38.5 43.39
Modern 52 52.5 52.25
Average 50.14 45.5 47.82
Table 4.
Formulas of the Factorial Analysis
*Take note for the tables below, SPD will be used as an acronym that stands for Students’
Preference Data*
Method Abbreviation Equation
Grand Mean GM A/B
Average Total Mean ATM a/b
Average Mean (each data) AM a/b
Sum of Squares SSn ATM – GM = n2 or
AM – GM = n2
Means Square MS SSn/ D.f
F – Ratio F – Ratio SSF1/ SSW;
SSF2/ SSW;
SSB/ SSW
Sum of Squares 1st Factor SSF1 ATM1 – GM1 = n12
Sum of Squares 2nd Factor SSF2 ATM2 – GM2 = n22
Sum of Squares of Both SSB SST – SSF1 – SSF2 – SSW
Factors
Sum of Squares Within/Error SSW/SSE SPD – AM (each data) –
GM = n2
Sum of Squares Total SST AM (both data) – GM = n2
Degree of Freedom of 1st D.f1 1st Factor (rows) – 1
Factor *base in mean table*
Degree of Freedom of 2nd D.f2 2nd Factor (columns) – 1
Factor *base in mean table*

Degree of Freedom Within D.f (W) n (amount of data in each
column of different
variables) – 1 = a(answer) x
C (number of variables)
Degree of Freedom of Both D.f (BF) D.f1 x D. f2
Factors
Degree of Freedom of Total D.f (T) D.f1 + D.f2 + D.f (W) + D.f
(BF)
Table 5.
Sum of squares 1st Factor (Architectural Design)
Traditional Modern
SPD Solution: ATM1 – GM1 = n12 = SPD Solution: ATM1 – GM1 = n12 =
SSF1 SSF1
49.2 43.39 – 47.82 = (-4.43)2 = 19.62 53.6 52.25 – 47.82 = (4.43)2 = 19.62
46.8 43.39 – 47.82 = (-4.43)2= 19.62 47.2 52.25 – 47.82 = (4.43)2 = 19.62
48.8 43.39 – 47.82 = (-4.43)2 = 19.62 55.2 52.25 – 47.82 = (4.43)2 = 19.62
35.6 43.39 – 47.82 = (-4.43)2 = 19.62 52.5 52.25 – 47.82 = (4.43)2 = 19.62
42 43.39 – 47.82 = (-4.43)2 = 19.62 45.1 52.25 – 47.82 = (4.43)2 = 19.62
37.9 43.39 – 47.82 = (-4.43)2 = 19.62 59.9 52.25 – 47.82 = (4.43)2 = 19.62
Total 117.72 Total 117.72
Sum of Squares 1st Factor (Architectural Design) = 117.72 + 117.72 = 235.44

Table 6.
Sum of Squares 2nd Factor (Age)
13-15 16-18
SPD Solution: ATM2 – GM2 = n22 = SPD Solution: ATM2 – GM2 = n22 =
SSF2 SSF2
49.2 50.14 – 47.82 = (2.32)2 = 5.38 53.6 45.5 – 47.82 = (-2.32)2 = 5.38
46.8 50.14 – 47.82 = (2.32)2 = 5.38 47.2 45.5 – 47.82 = (-2.32)2 = 5.38
48.8 50.14 – 47.82 = (2.32)2 = 5.38 55.2 45.5 – 47.82 = (-2.32)2 = 5.38
35.6 50.14 – 47.82 = (2.32)2 = 5.38 52.5 45.5 – 47.82 = (-2.32)2 = 5.38
42 50.14 – 47.82 = (2.32)2 = 5.38 45.1 45.5 – 47.82 = (-2.32)2 = 5.38
37.9 50.14 – 47.82 = (2.32)2 = 5.38 59.9 45.5 – 47.82 = (-2.32)2 = 5.38
Sum of Squares 2nd Factor (Age) = 32.28 + 32.28 = 64.56
Table 7.
Sum of Squares Within
Traditional Modern
Age SPD Solution: SPD – AM (each Age SPD Solution: SPD – AM
data) – GM = n2= SSW (each data) – GM = n2=
SSW
13-15 49.2 49.2 – 48.27 = (0.93)2= 13-15 53.6 53.6 – 52 = (1.1)2 = 1.21
0.86
46.8 46.8 – 48.27 = (-1.47)2 = 2.16 47.2 47.2 – 52 = (-5.3)2 = 28.09
48.8 48.8 – 48.27 = (0.53)2 = 0.28 55.2 55.2 – 52 = (2.7)2 = 7.29
16-18 35.6 35.6 – 38.5 = (-2.9)2= 8.41 16-18 52.5 52.5 – 52.5 = (0)2 = 0
42 42 – 38.5 = (3.5)2 = 12.25 45.1 45.1 – 52.5 = (-7.4)2 =54.76
37.9 37.9 – 38.5 = (-0.6)2 = 0.36 59.9 59.9 – 52.5 = (7.4)2 = 54.76
Sum of Squares of Within = 24.32 +146.11=170.43
Table 8.
Sum of Squares Total
Students’ Preference
SPD Solution: AM (both data) – GM = n2
49.2 49.2 – 47.82 = (1.38)2 = 1.90
46.8 46.8 – 47.82 = (-1.05)2 = 1.04
48.8 48.8 – 47.82 = (0.98)2= 0.96
35.6 35.6 – 47.82 = (-12.22)2 = 149.33
42 42 – 47.82 = (-5.82)2 = 33.87
37.9 37.9 – 47.82 = (-9.92)2 = 98.41
53.6 53.6 – 47.82 = (5.78)2 = 33.41
47.2 47.2 – 47.82 = (-0.62)2 = 0.38

55.2 55.2 – 47.82 = (7.38)2 = 54.46
52.5 52.5 – 47.82 = (4.68)2 = 21.90
45.1 45.1 – 47.82 = (-2.72)2 = 7.40
59.9 59.9 – 47.82 = (12.08)2 = 145.93
Total 548.99
Sum of Squares of Both Factors
Equation: SST – SSF1 – SSF2 – SSW = SSB
Solution: 548.99 – 235.44 – 64.56 – 170.43 = 78.56
Sum of Squares of Both Factors = 78.56
Table 9.
Degree of Freedom Values
Degree of Freedom Equation Solution Answer
D.f1 1st Factor (rows) – 2(rows) – 1 1
*base in mean
table*
D.f2 2nd Factor 2(columns) – 1 1
(columns) – 1
*base in mean
table*
D.f (W) n (amount of data 3–1=2x 8
in each column of 4(Variables:
different variables) Traditional 13 – 15,
– 1 = a(answer) x C Modern 13 – 15,
(number of Traditional 16 – 18
variables) & Modern 16 – 18 )
D.f (BF) D.f1 x D. f2 1x1 1
D.f (T) D.f1 + D.f2 + D.f 1+1+8+1 11
(W) + D.f (BF)
Table 10.
Mean Square
SSn D.f Solution: SSn MS
– D.f
SSF1 235.44 1 235.44/1 235.44
SSF2 64.56 1 64.56/ 1 64.56
SSB 78.56 1 78.56/1 78.56
SSW 170.43 8 170.43/8 21.30
SST 548.99 11 - -
Table 11.
F – Ratio
*SSW is always the denominator of the SSn for F – Ratio*

SSn D.f MS Solution: F Ratio
SSF1/ SSW;
SSF2/ SSW;
SSB/ SSW
SSF1 235.44 1 235.44 235.44/21.30 11.05
SSF2 64.56 1 64.56 64.56/21.30 3.03
SSB 78.56 1 78.56 78.56/21.30 3.69
SSW 170.43 8 21.30 - -
SST 548.99 11 - - -
Table 12.
Summary of Squares
Sum of Degree of Mean Square F Ratio
Squares Freedom
Sum of Squares 235.44 1 235.44 11.05
of 1st Factor F(1,8)
(Architectural p-value=0.010475
Designs) significant at
p<.05
Sum of Squares 64.56 1 64.56 3.03
of 2nd Factor F(1,8)
(Age) p-value=0.119919
not significant at
p<.05
Sum of Squares 78.56 1 78.56 3.69
of Both Factors F(1,8)
p-value=.090984
not significant at
p<.05
Sum of Squares 170.43 8 21.30 -
Within/ Error
Sum of Squares 548.99 11 - -
of Total
Null Hypothesis
Ho: Architectural designs will have no significant effect on students’ preference.
Ho: Age will have no significant effect on students’ preference.
Ho: Age and Architectural Designs will have no significant effect on students’ preference.
Table 13.
F – Test Table Value Alpha Level = 0.05 (1,8)
Degree of Freedom Numerator
1 161.5
2 18.51
3 10.13
Degree of Freedom Denominator 4 7.71
5 6.61
6 5.99
7 5.59
8 5.32
Figure 2.
Graph of F – Ratios from the Table
3.69
11.05 5.32 3.03
Results:
Greater than 5.32 rejects
Ho: Architectural design will have no significant effect on students’ preference.
Less than 5.32 accept
Ho: Age will have no significant effect on students’ preference.

Ho: Age and Architectural Designs interaction will have no significant effect on students’
preference.
Alternative Hypothesis
Hi: Architectural Designs does have significant effect on students’ preference.
Taking all that into account, data analysis shows the significant variable that would
affect the preference of the students. The two variables which are mentioned earlier,
specifically architectural designs and age, are compared and being interpreted using factorial
analysis wherein the results display architectural designs does have a significant effect on
students’ preference. With that, age, and the relationship of age with architectural design
does not have significant effect on students’ preference, meaning they do not depend on one
another. Therefore, the preference of students varied only on modern and traditional designs
and will not take age as an essential basis for choosing an architectural design.
Results
Table 14.
Profile of the students in terms of their age
13-15 years old 95
16-18 years old 97
In this study, the researchers desire to compare the architectural design preferences of
students from Holy Angel University based on their age. This research involves participants
that falls under the age brackets of 13 to 15 years old, and 16 to 18 years old. The population
of the younger age group covers 1, 974 students. On the other hand, the population of the
older age group covers 3, 622 students. The researchers were able to identify the sample size
for each age group with the use of Slovin’s formula, considering 10% margin of error. With
that, 95 students will be representing the 13 to 15 years old age group, while 97 students will
be participating as the 16 to 18 years old age group in this study.

Figure 3.
Architectural Design Preferences of 13-15 years old age bracket
Interior Materials 58.95%

46.32%
Influence 56.84%
53.68%
Exterior 49.47%
47.37%
Color 57.89%
53.68%
Design 48.42%
57.89%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%
Modern Traditional
This graph shows the architectural design preference of students in the 13 to 15 years
old age group. For the interior materials, 58.95% of the 95 students prefer more glass
materials, which is categorized as a modern architectural design. But the 46.32% of the 95
students also prefer to incorporate traditional materials in their houses. In the next category, it
is shown that 56.84% of this age group prefer to embrace the influence of new technology
and modern designs in their houses, while the 53.68% of the age group still show
appreciation to the influence of history, culture, and heritage designs in their houses.
Focusing on the exterior, 49.47% of the 95 students desire to have smoother designs with
geometric and polished look and yet, the 47.37% of the participants in this age bracket prefer
exteriors with ornamentations such as the use of columns, wall carvings, and texture too. It is
also shown in this graph that the 57.89% of the students want to incorporate neutral colors in
their house, while 53.68% of the 95 students prefer warmer colors in their house as well. In
the last category, 57.89% of the participants prefer antique designs. However, the 48.42% of
the participants also prefer abstract and minimalist geometrical design.
Figure 4.
Architectural Structure Preferences of 13-15 years old age bracket
Furnitures 50.53%
49.47%
Windows 54.74%
56.84%
Roofs 38.95%
46.32%
Spaces 47.37%
48.42%
Styles 56.84%
45.26%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
Modern Traditional
In this graph, the architectural structure preferences of 13 to 15 years old are being
exhibited. When it comes to furniture, the 50.53% of the 95 students in this age group prefer
sleek and minimalist furniture along with glass interiors and new technology, while the
49.47% also like wood-carved and intricate furniture along with stained glass interiors. For
the window structure, smaller and symmetrically – placed windows, which is a feature of
traditional structures, are fit to the preference of 56.84% of the students, and yet the 54.74%
of the students also prefer bigger windows for natural lighting. The graph also shows the
preference of students on the structure of roofs wherein open porches and pointed roof with
overhanging beams are fit to the liking of 46.32% of the 95 students. Even so, the 38.95% of
the students want their roof to be flat or low slanted too, similar to houses with modern
design. For the spacing, 48.42% in this age group prefer the traditional way wherein the
spaces and different rooms in their houses are divided by walls, although there are some of
them, which is the 47.37% of the 95 students, love open spaces also. However, in the
category of styles, the 56.84% of the participants prefer the use of concretes with new
modern styles in the structure of their house. In contrast to the majority in the age group,
45.26% of the participants want to incorporate culture and tradition in the house structure as
well.
Figure 5.
Living Environment Preferences of 13-15 years old age bracket
Comfortability 53.68%
55.79%
Environment 65.26%
58.95%
Ornamentations 73.68%
82.11%
Landscape 94.73%
51.58%
Location 50.53%
45.26%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%
Modern Traditional
As the title suggests, this graph represents the living environment preferences of 13 to
15 years old age bracket. Comfortability is a great factor in choosing a living environment.
For the 55.79% of the students in this age bracket, they feel comfortable when their house
has a vintage and antique approach in its interior. But for the 53.68% of the students, a house
will be also a place of comfort when its interior incorporates the use of technology with a
modern and futuristic aesthetic. It is also shown in this graph that 65.26% of the students
prefer the environment surrounding their houses have nature, yet a number of them,
specifically 58.95% of the students, also have a preference influenced by modern design
wherein simple environment is appreciated. For the ornamentations, 82.11% in this age
bracket love to antique decorations in their houses. However, the 73.68% in this age bracket
prefer spacious scenery as well. Students in this age bracket also showed their preference on
landscapes. 94.73% of the students prefer their garden to be designed with geometric shapes
and pattern but the 51.58% of the students equally prefer their garden to be incorporated with
small huts and plants that have natural forms. Lastly, 50.53% of the students in this group
want their houses to be more adaptable to cities while the 45.16% of the students also want to
live in natured environment areas.

Figure 6.
Interior Materials 50.53%

43.16%
Influence 100.00%
36.84%
Exterior 84.21%
69.47%
Color 75.79%
40.00%
Design 57.89%
42.11%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00%
Modern Traditional
The architectural design preferences of students in the 16 to 18 years old age bracket
are featured in this graph. In interior materials, 50.53% of the 97 students prefer their houses
to have more glass in the design, while the 43.16% of them still love traditional materials to
be incorporated in the interior design of their houses. The next category in this graph focuses
on influence wherein it is shown that 100% of the students want their house to be influenced
with new technology and modern design. But there are still some of them, 36.84% to be
specific, who like their houses to be influenced with history, culture, and heritage designs.
Now when it comes to the exterior, 84.21% of the students prefer smoother exterior designs
that has a geometric and polished look, but 69.47% of the 97 students prefer the use of
columns, wall carvings, and texture as well. The color preferences of the students in this age
bracket are also shown in this graph. 75.79% of the students wants neutral colors for their
houses. However, the warmer colors are also preferred by the 40% of them. For the design
category, abstract and minimalist geometrical designs are preferred by the 57.89% of the
students and 42.11% in this age bracket love antique designs too.
Figure 7.
Furnitures 51.55%
45.36%
Windows 59.79%
41.24%
Roofs 34.20%
72.16%
Spaces 36.80%
59.79%
Styles 100.00%
34.20%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00%
Modern Traditional
The following graph illustrates the average preferences of the 16 to 18 age bracket
participants in the category of modern or traditional architectural structure. The overview
shows that the participants show more interests to modern architecture in the categories of
furniture, windows and styles but indicating that traditional exceeds in terms of roof design
and the spaces category. To be more specific, when it comes to furniture, the participants had
shown more interest in minimalistic and glass designs, surpassing traditional and intricate
furnishing by 6.19%. Additionally, this category also shows lack of 3.09% of the original
participants, which indicates that these participants are neutral or did not prefer both of the
options. On the other hand, incorporation of more and larger windows surpassed traditional
windows by 18.55%, while the exceeding 1.03% from the 100% shows equal interest in both
options. When it comes to roof, traditional pointed design surpassed modern slanted roofs by
37.96%, while the excess 6.36% preferred both. Moreover, traditionally divided spaces
surpassed modern open spaces by over 22.99%, while the remaining 3.41% shows neutrality
or did not prefer both of the designs. Lastly, the final category shows that 100% of the
participants are interested in the modern architectural style although 34.20% still showed
interest traditional designs.
Figure 8.
Comfortability 91.75%
57.73%
Environment 81.44%
59.79%
Ornamentations 89.69%
40.21%
Landscape 52.58%
54.64%
Location 82.47%
44.33%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%
Modern Traditional
The following graph shows the overview regarding the preferences of the age bracket
of 16 to 18 years old in the category of modern or traditional living environment. It is evident
that the given modern living environment surpassed almost all categories except traditional
surpassed modern in the category landscape. For instance, modern comfortability surpassed
traditional by 34.02%, while the 49.98% excess from the total 100% of the participants had
both preferred modern and traditional comfortability. When it comes to the environment,
modern is greater by 21.65%, while the 41.23% over the total prefers both. In terms of the
ornamentations, people prefer a sleek and more geometrical look to their houses rather than
the use of traditional ornamentations by 49.48%. On the other hand, 29.9% show interest in
both ornamentations. Next is the modern and traditional landscape, where the participants
prefer natural looking plants than geometric shaped garden by only a difference of 2.06%,
while the 7.22% liked both ideas. Lastly, people preferred their homes to be adaptable in
cities rather than natured environment areas, exceeding by 38.14%, given that the remaining
26.8% excess from the total preferred both.

Table 15.
Average Architectural Design Preferences of HAU Students vis-a-vis their Age
Age Bracket Terms Traditional Modern
Architectural Design 51.79% 54.31%
13-15 years old Architectural Structure 49.26% 49.69%
Living Environment 58.74% 66.98%
Architectural Design 46.32% 73.68%
16-18 years old Architectural Structure 50.51% 56.70%
Living Environment 51.34% 79.59%
While referring to the results of the survey, the following table provides an overview
and a comparison of the calculated average of the responses of both age brackets regarding
their architectural preferences. For the first age bracket which includes 13 to 15 years old, it
is noticeable that modern surpassed traditional architecture in all categories by only a small
difference in percentage, ranging only from 0.43% to 8.24%. To be more specific, the
preferences of the age bracket regarding “Architectural Design” shows that modern
surpassed traditional only by 2.52%. Moreover, the smallest gap between modern surpassing
the preferences of both age brackets is only 0.43%, which is referring to the category of
“Architectural Structure”. While the largest gap has a value of 8.24%, which is between their
preferences in “Living Environment”.
Additionally, the statistics also show that per category, the percentage exceeds 100%
of the original participants, which indicates that these percentage of people show interest in
both modern and traditional architecture. For instance, in the “Architectural Design”
category, there is 6.1% of people in the first age bracket who prefer both concepts, while
there are 25.72% in “Living Environment”. It is also noticeable that in the category of
“Architectural Structure”, the data did not reach 100%, where it only had a total of 98.95%,
therefore indicating that 1.05% of the participants did not show interest or are neutral in
terms of modern and traditional architecture in that category. To conclude the given
comparison of the two statistics regarding the first age bracket, the researchers had identified
that the sample population almost equally preferred both traditional and modern architectural
designs, but the sample are leaning more on modern architecture.
In contrast, the second age bracket which includes 16 to 18 years old, show a
significant difference when it comes to their preferences, where all the categories under
modern architecture had surpassed traditional by a large margin. Based on the table, the data
shows the difference ranging from 6.19% to 28.25%. To further discuss in detail, the
category of “Architectural Design” shows that modern architecture surpassed traditional with
a difference of 27.39%. In addition, the smallest gap of modern surpassing traditional is
shown in the “Architectural Structure”, where it has a difference of only 6.19%, while the
largest gap shows a value of 28.25% is in the category of “Living Environment”.
Similar to the first age bracket, there are participants in the second age bracket that
had exceed 100% per category of the total participants for they both prefer modern and
traditional architecture. For instance, in the “Architectural Design” category there is an
excess of 20%, meaning that they prefer both modern and traditional, while 7.21% in
“Architectural Structure” and 30.93% in the “Living Environment” that prefer both modern
and traditional. All in all, the given results lead to the conclusion that majority of the sample
size of the 16 to 18 age bracket would prefer a modern architectural design than traditional.
Figure 9.
Overall Architectural Design Preference of 13-15 years old age bracket
53.26%
56.99%
Traditional Modern
The following graph provides a summarization of the overall preferences regarding
modern or traditional architecture of the 13 to 15 years old age bracket. Initially, it is
observable that the pie chart shows only a small difference in the given data therefore
suggesting a small gap between the two categories. According to the data acquired from the
conducted survey with the participants belonging to the 13 to 15 years old age bracket, the
researchers were able to identify that 56.99% out of the 95 of the sample preferred modern
architectural design, while the remaining 53.26% of participants preferred traditional.
Moreover, the data gives a summation of 110.25%, where the excess 10.25% from the total
of the participants show an equal interest in modern and traditional architecture, which is
why the data exceeded the initial 100%. Considering the given statistics, the said participants
preferred modern over traditional, with only a small difference of 3.73%. With this in mind,
it is evident that there is only a small gap when it comes to the preference of the age bracket,
therefore indicating that the participants have an equal preference when it comes to modern
and traditional architectural design. Although, it is also important to take note that the
preferences of the participants are leaning more on the modern architecture even with only a
small difference.
Figure 10.
49.39%
69.99%
Traditional Modern
This graph shows the overall preferences of the participants which belong to 16-18
years old age bracket, regarding modern and traditional architecture. Based on the visual
representation of the data, the pie chart shows a noticeable and larger gap, which is in
contrast to small gap from the preferences of the first age bracket. This indicates that the
participants that belong to the 16 to 18 years old show a significantly larger difference with
their preferences. With the data gathered, the 16 to 18 years old age bracket preferred modern
over traditional with a difference of 20.69%. To be more specific, 69.99% of the 97
participants show a preference in modern architecture, while the remaining 49.39% preferred
traditional. All in all, the preferences of the age bracket result to 119.38%, indicating that the
19.38% of the participants prefer both traditional and modern, resulting a number that
exceeds 100%. Considering the given statistics, the researchers had concluded that the
second age bracket shows a larger gap in their preferences in modern architecture over
traditional architecture, therefore concluding that the majority of the 16 to 18 years old age
brackets prefers modern architecture over the traditional.

Discussion
The study had analyzed and compared the preferences of students in Holy Angel
University regarding architectural designs vis-à-vis their age. To give more detail, the
participants included from the said university currently belong to the 13 to 15 years old
age bracket and 16 to 18 years old age bracket. Regarding the architectural designs, the
researchers assessed their preferences based on two architectural design categories:
Traditional and Modern Architecture, along with three subcategories for each, which
pertains to the Architectural Design, Architectural Structure and Living Environment. In
order to effectively analyze the preferences of the students, the researchers had utilized a
survey questionnaire containing 10 questions per subcategory, where questions asked are
about the level of likeness on a certain concept, either pertaining to modern or traditional
designs. The instrument utilized the Likert scale in order to measure the preferences of
the students.
Based on the results and calculations of the data gathered by the researchers, the
following insights regarding the preferences of the two age brackets may be concluded:
A) Architectural Preferences of Holy Angel University Students Who Belong
to the 13-15 Years Old Age Bracket
In assessing the design preferences of the first age bracket, the overall calculated
data had shown only a small difference in percentage between modern and traditional
architectural designs. To be more specific, the participants had preferred modern
architecture over traditional architecture by only a small value of 3.73%, considering that
there were only 95 participants in total. Therefore, indicating that the sample participants
almost equally prefer both designs, but are leaning more on the modern architectural
designs. In addition, there were those students who had shown interest in both architectural
designs, which results to the data exceeding the total 100% of the participants. Specifically,
10.25% of the participants had shown neutrality between the two concepts.
To give a breakdown of the overall preferences of the sample, the researchers had
also analyzed and compared their preferences for each subcategories of modern and
traditional architecture, namely, Architectural Design, Architectural Structure and Living
Environment. With reference to the results and calculations, it is also evident that modern
surpassed traditional with only a small percentage of difference in all subcategories, which
corresponds to the calculation of their overall preferences. To be more specific, the
subcategory for Architectural Structure had shown the smallest difference, with modern
surpassing traditional by only 0.43%. While the largest gap is seen in the Living
Environment, which shows a value of 8.24%. On the other hand, the Architectural Design
shows modern surpassing traditional by 2.52%.
Additionally, with relation to the statistics surpassing 100% on the overall
calculations, two of the subcategories had also surpassed the total number of participants.
For instance, in the Architectural Design, 6.1% prefer both modern and traditional, while
there are 25.72% in the Living Environment. On the other hand, 1.05% from Architectural
Structure did not show interest in both categories of modern and traditional. In
consideration of the statistics per category, the following breakdown had further supported
the conclusion that the first age bracket leans more towards modern designs even with only
a small difference.
B) Architectural Preferences of Holy Angel University Students Who Belong to the 16-
18 Years Old Age Bracket

In comparison with the first age bracket, the 16 to 18 years old age bracket had shown
a significantly larger gap when it comes to their overall preferences between modern and
traditional architecture. With the given data, researchers had calculated and discovered that
the participants had overall preferred modern over traditional architectural design by a value
of 20.69%, therefore showing that the second age bracket significantly prefers modern over
traditional architectural designs. In terms of the percentage that surpassed the total number of
participants, the statistics had indicated that 19.38% shown preference in both modern and
traditional designs.
To discuss further in detail of the overall results of their preferences, the
subcategories for the traditional and modern architecture were also assessed for this age
bracket. In comparison to the preferences of the second age bracket, each of the
subcategories had also shown a significantly larger difference regarding all subcategories in
modern designs surpassing those of traditional. Specifically, the smallest gap was shown in
Architectural Structure, where modern surpassed traditional by only a 6.19%, while the
largest gap was shown in Living Environment by a value of 28.25%. Moreover, modern
surpassed traditional by 27.39% in the subcategory of Architectural Design. Additionally,
there are also participants in each subcategory which shows equal interest, which may also
be observable in their overall data. To elaborate further, there are 20% who express interest
in both concepts in the subcategory of Architectural Design, 7.21% in Architectural
Structure, and 30.93% in the Living Environment. With reference to the data shown, the
researchers can conclude that overall, the students who belong to the 16 to 18 age bracket
prefers modern over traditional, which is supported by each subcategory.

Overall, the two age brackets preferred modern architecture over the traditional
counterpart. This finding can be further supported by the related study of Uzunoglu &
Ozden (2017), stating that more percent of students accepted that new designs are more
prevalent, with this they feel that modern style gives them a higher chance of being
innovative such that modern designs are versatile compared to traditional. By that, the
future trend in architectural designs can be predicted as it is proven in the study by Susanti
and Natalia (2018). According to the results of their study, new generation's preferences can
be a basis for public or private architecture strategic planning and design which includes
speciality, security, pliable and contemplativeness.
Architecture plays a significant role in the development of a country. Buildings and
infrastructures reflect the society as they were influenced by ideas, values, and even
preferences of people. As stated by Ghinita (2016), society produces buildings. Society
determines what will be the future trend on architectural designs of buildings.
For this reason, the researchers conducted this study with a comparative quantitative
research design focusing on two types of architecture, traditional and modern architecture.
The main objective of this study is to determine the preferences of two age brackets in
choosing a type of architectural design they want to incorporate with their house.
Specifically, age brackets 13 to 15 years old and 16 to 18 years old from Holy Angel
University were the chosen participants for this study. Moreover, the researchers were able to
conduct an online survey questionnaire through Google Forms to be able to gather the
required data. In analyzing the collected data, the researchers utilized a Two-Way ANOVA
test which is a type of parametric test for inferential statistics. This then helped the
researchers to present the data through tables and graphs for easier interpretation of data.
As the researchers desire to compare the architectural design preferences of students
from HAU based on their age, they involved participants that fall under the age bracket 13 to
15 years old and 16 to 18 years old. In determining "What is the profile of the students in
terms of their age?" the researchers applied a 10% margin of error and used Slovin's formula
to get the sample size for each age bracket. As a result, there were 95 students for the 13 to
15 years old age bracket and 97 students for the 16 to 18 years old age bracket who
participated in the study.
The researchers have been questioning the differences between modern architecture
and traditional architecture in terms of its own design, structure and living environment seen
in the second statement of the problem. The study chose to compare the two architectural
design as: incorporating antique designs, having warmer colors, with ornamentations such as
wall carvings, with materials such as woods and clay, and with the influence of history and
culture – for traditional designs; having abstract and minimalist designs, incorporating
neutral colors, having smoother exterior designs, more designs with glass, and embracing the
use of technology – for modern designs. These elements are prospered for architectural
design, whether modern or traditional, focuses on aesthetics that can create a coherent
functional structure (Patin, 2018). Moreover, the difference of architectural structures was
built with concrete and new model, open-concept rooms, flat or low-slanted roofs, bigger
windows, and minimalist furniture describing modern architectural structure. While,
incorporating culture and tradition, having more rooms, open porches and pointed roofs,
smaller windows, and word-carved intricate furniture characterized as traditional
architectural structure. According to Gehry (2020), a building’s style can also help it either
blend in with or stand out from its surroundings, such as the other buildings in the area and
the natural environment. Lastly, the correlation of the living environment in the two
architectural styles namely modern and traditional, varies according to different factors. Built
in a natured environment, owning small huts and plants, having more antique
ornamentations, surrounded by nature, and vintage approach – all points to traditional living
environment. On the other hand, a house that is more adaptable to cities, owns a garden with
geometric patterns, having spacious and clean scenery, simple yet relaxing, and with the use
of technology – all aims to describe the modern living environment that people may have
preferred these days.
In answering the third research question, "What age bracket preferred traditional and
modern architectural designs?" the researchers found out that both 13 to 15 years old age
bracket and 16 to 18 years old age bracket from students at HAU preferred modern
architecture rather than traditional architecture. This suggests that the aforementioned age
brackets have a preference for a house that is modernly designed, structured, and well-
adapted to cities. Modern designs, such as simple and minimalist interiors or exteriors, are
favored by the two age brackets instead of incorporating ornamentations and designs that
reflect history, culture, and heritage. This also indicates that they wanted to incorporate
something new and functional structures, such as embracing the new technology in their
houses. Lastly, in terms of the type of environment they preferred, they want an eye-relaxing
environment and a spacious house that is adaptable to cities. Furthermore, this finding
supports the related literature by Bogicevic et al. (2018) which stated that young guests
preferred modern styles and teenagers liked architectural trends.
With this, infrastructures are experiencing dramatic changes, preceding for a future
which traditional designs are slowly becoming rational and eventually, dissolve in time.
Now, buildings are becoming saleable as it focuses on the significance of green infrastructure
and energy efficiency. Thus, Architecture is not an exception when it comes to changes.
In connection with the accumulated and analyze results of this study, the 13 to 15 and
16 to 18 years old students preferred an architectural design that is modernized. The findings
show a percentage of 56.99% from the first age bracket, and 69.99% from the second age
bracket for modern design, that means majority of the students want an architecture that
embrace technology. Additionally, data analysis also shows that selecting an overall
architectural design is not based on the age of a person, instead it is based on the architectural
design itself. Meaning, it focuses primarily on the design, structures and living environment
of a building. And considering the society nowadays, people tend to choose what
architectural designs would greatly benefit them, and would be in coordination to their
personal preferences, which explains the used theory of this research, the Rational Choice
Theory. Hence, some people choose modern and technological designs because they believe
that it gives them comfortability. As a matter of fact, the participants of this conducted study
are all generation Z (refer to a person born after 1995), thus, exposure to technological
related is evident. Therefore, answering the research question, “Based on the findings, what
will be the future trend on architectural designs in infrastructures?” this exploration labels
modern design as the future trend architectural design of the society.
To sum up, both age brackets prefer modern architectural designs more than
traditional because they liked the unique features of modern and at the same time it is simple
and spacious to see. The desired architecture of the students will not be varied on their age
but instead on how they find comfortability and aesthetic of an architecture. Therefore,
modern architectural designs are most preferred by the students and trend architecture today,
as it embraces technology which implies innovation, future, and change of the architectural
styles.
Note that the researchers were set in a number of limitations in conducting this study.
With that in mind, the researchers formulated a set of recommendations for the future
researchers that perhaps be inspired in the objective of this study and desire to continue the
research. This study only covered students from Holy Angel University that falls under the
age groups of 13 to 15 years old and 16 to 18 years old. The researchers suggest involving
more age groups for this will make the sample size greater in number which often results to
more accurate and valid conclusion. With this, it is advisable to lower the margin of error to
gain a wider sample size. As this study only focused on the two types of architecture designs,
modern and tradition to be specific, the researchers also recommend tackling different types
of designs and be more in- depth when it comes to details. This is to help the public to
become more knowledgeable and be able to distinguish each of the designs that will help
them choose appropriate and fit to their preference type for their future living environment,
which is the sole purpose of this study. The researchers propose conducting the data
gathering through face-to-face surveys as well for the researchers, only if the pandemic has
ended even before the set time for the data collection of the study. This set of
recommendations will lead the study to have a different take on this study and to generate
more faultless knowledge.
As per the data gathered in this study, the researchers were also able to draw up the
following recommendations:
To the architects, the researchers suggest using the findings of this study as a guide in
making designs for their future clients for the following years. This will help them provide
designs that will be more accurate based on the preferences of the clients. As presented in the
data collected from the online survey, there are also students who prefer both designs. By
that, architects may incorporate the traditional and modern type into one design which will
also help in preserving culture, history, and tradition while embracing the new styles.
To the school, the researchers had thought of proposing inclusion of current trends in
the lesson plans to help the aspiring architects prepare in providing designs that will be
appropriate for their soon-to-be clients’ preferences that falls under the involved age groups
in the study. The researchers also recommend adapting their instructional materials and
activities to the identified changing preferences and trends without disregarding the roots and
influence of history, culture, and tradition. This will the help school to produce architects that
provide a safe and stable living environment which is aligned to the liking of the clients.
To the community, it is recommended to be more knowledgeable on the types of
architectural designs, such as modern and traditional. The public should not only focus on the
aesthetics but also the structure, living environment, and the purpose of the design. The
researchers also suggest the community to recognize the importance, essence, and beauty of
the other designs aside from the trendy designs.

References
Bogicevic, V., Bujisic, M., Cobanoglu, C. & Feinstein, A.H. (2018). Gender and age
preferences of hotel room design: International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 30 (2), 874-899.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-
0450/full/html
Brandy. (2017, November 5). How architecture has changed over time – Part 1. Arellano
Christofides. https://arellano-christofides.com/how-architecture-has-changed-over-
time-part-1/
Chantal, P. (2018, September 6). Examining users’ design preferences regarding the
architectural design features of the office-type workplace.
https://edepot.wur.nl/459498
CTCN. (n.d.). Traditional building materials and design. Climate Technology Centre &
Network. https://www.ctc-n.org/technology-library/built-environment/traditional-
building-materials-and-design
Foyr. (2019, March 29). Traditional architecture vs modern architecture.
https://foyr.com/learn/traditional-architecture-v-s-modern-architecture/
Ghomeishi, M. (2020, June 25). Aesthetic preferences of laypersons and its relationship with
the conceptual properties on building façade design. Journal of Asian Architecture
and Building Engineering, 20(1), 12-28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2020.1782209
Hayes, A. (2020, July 2). 2-Way ANOVA. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/two-way-
anova.asp#:~:text=A%20two%2Dway%20ANOVA%20tests,relationship%20to%20t
he%20outcome%20itself.
Insurance Choice. (2019, November 25). How has architecture evolved over the
generations? Insurance choice. https://www.Littlechoice.co.uk/blog/2019/11/how-
has-architecture-evolved-over-the-generations
Kim, M. (2020, May). Exploring housing preference of young adults. Diva-Portal.Org.
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1450281/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Laerd Statistics. (2020). Two-way ANOVA in SPSS Statistics. Laerd statistics.
https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/two-way-anova-using-spss-statistics.php
Little, S. (2020, November 13). Why people love modern architecture. MYMOVE.
https://www.mymove.com/home-inspiration/decoration-design-ideas/why-people-
love-modern-architecture/
McLeod, S. (2019, August 6). Likert scale definition, examples and analysis. Simply
Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html
Mouratidis, K., & Hassan, R. (2020, February). Contemporary versus traditional styles in
architecture and public space: A virtual reality study with 360-degree videos.
Science Direct.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275119311655
Murphy, C. B. (2020, November 2). Stratified random sampling: Advantages and
disadvantages. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041615/what-are-advantages-and-
disadvantages-stratified-random-sampling.asp
PDH Academy. (2016, March 28). Architecture reflects culture.

https://pdhacademy.com/2016/03/28/architecture-reflects-culture/
Preston, V. (2009). Questionnaire survey in international encyclopaedia of human
geography (2009th ed., pp. 46–52). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
008044910-4.00504- 6
Ricci, N. (2018). The psychological impact of architectural design. CMC Senior Theses.
https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2850&context=cmc_th
eses
Richardson, H. (2018, June 28). Characteristics of a comparative research design.
https://classroom.synonym.com/characteristics-comparative-research-
design8274567.htm
S3DA Design. (2019, June 10). Traditional architecture versus modern architecture.
https://s3da-design.com/traditional-architecture-versus-modern-architecture/
Spacey, J. (2019, August 13). 19 Characteristics of modern architecture. Simplicable.
https://simplicable.com/new/modern-architecture
Susanti, A., & Natalia, T.W. (2018 September). Public space strategic planning based on z
generation preferences. ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327901046_Public_space_strategic_plannin
g_based_on_Z_generation_preferences
Uzunoglu, S. & Ozden, O. (2017, November). Evaluation of style preferences in
architectural design among the undergraduate students from different nationalities in
North Cyprus. ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321478969_Evaluation_of_style_preference
s_in_architectural_design_among_the_undergraduate_students_from_different_natio
nalities_in_North_Cyprus
Vangelatos, G. (2019, October 18). How does architecture impact society? A high-level look.
HMC Architects. https://hmcarchitects.com/news/how-does-architecture-impact-
society-a-high-level-look-2019-10-18/
Appendices
A. Information Sheet
INFORMATION SHEET
Title of the Study: A Comparative Study: Traditional and Modern Architectural Design
Preferences of HAU Students vis-a-vis their Age
Researchers: Ambas, Aaron Tristan D.
Endiape, Lianne Reigne S.
Limpin, Jaymee Anne M.
Mateo, Adyza Jean B.
Yunun, Sofia Joy D.
Background: This study aims to determine the traditional and modern architectural
design preferences of Holy Angel University (HAU) students for the
school year 2020-2021 vis-à-vis the age bracket of 13-15 years old and
16-18 years old as well as their preferred style in terms of design,
structure, and living environment.
Study Procedure: You will be asked to answer an online questionnaire through Google
form that requires you to rate the statements with pictures based on your
preferences about traditional and modern architectural design.
Time Required: Participation in this study will take 10-15 minutes.
Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. Writing your name and
affixing your signature on the informed consent means you agree on
participating. On the other hand, your personal information and
responses will remain confidential and you are free to withdraw before
answering the questions.
Question about the study:
If you have questions or concerns during your participation in this study, or you would like to
receive a copy of the aggregate results, you may contact:
Researcher: Ambas, Aaron Tristan D.___
Contact Number: 09161757696_____________
Email Address: ambasaaron19@gmail.com__
Researcher: Endiape, Lianne Reigne S.___
Contact Number: 09065719822_____________
Email Address: lianne.reigne.02@gmail.com_
Researcher: Limpin, Jaymee Anne M.____
Contact Number: 09322931307_____________
Email Address: limpinjaymee06@gmail.com_
Researcher: Mateo, Adyza Jean B._______

Contact Number: 09263626783______________
Email Address: adyzajeanmateo@gmail.com__
Researcher: Yunun, Sofia Joy D._________

Contact Number: 09064843980_______________
Email Address: yununsofiajoy1521@gmail.com
B. Informed Consent
INFORMED CONSENT
Title of Research:
A Comparative Study: Traditional and Modern Architectural Design Preferences of HAU
Students vis-a-vis their Age
I hereby make a decision to participate in the research study. My signature below
indicates that I have voluntarily participate in the study after reading all the information
and understand the objective, purpose, procedures, duration, risks and benefits of the
research. I consent voluntarily to be a participant of this study.
Name of Participant: ______________________________
Signature of Participant: ____________________________
Date: ___________________________
(Day/month/year)
Researcher: Ambas, Aaron Tristan D.

Signature: ______________________
Date: 22, February 2021___________
Researcher: Endiape, Lianne Reigne S.

Signature: ______________________
Date: 22, February 2021___________
Researcher: Limpin, Jaymee Anne M.

Signature: ______________________
Date: 22, February 2021___________
Researcher: Mateo, Adyza Jean B.

Signature: ______________________
Date: 22, February 2021___________
Researcher: Yunun, Sofia Joy D.

Signature: ______________________
Date: 22, February 2021___________
Research Adviser: ___________________

Remarks: ______________________
Date: __________________________
C. Instrument
D. Sample Response

Compilation ArchiGroup QuantiResearch (FINAL)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Compilation ArchiGroup QuantiResearch (FINAL)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCES BASED ON STUDENT’S AGE i

HOLY ANGEL UNIVERSITY

This research entitled, “A COMPARATIVE STUDY: TRADITIONAL AND

MODERN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PREFERENCES OF HAU STUDENTS VIS-A-

recommended for acceptance and approval for examination.

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements

profound gratitude and indebtedness particularly to the following:

accomplish the study.

from their responds.

grateful for the opportunity to give a deep recognition for them.

TurnItIn Certification ………………………………………………………………… i

Approval Sheet ………………………………………………………………………. ii

Acknowledgment ……………………………………………………………………. iii

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………. iv

List of Tables and Figures …………………………………………………………… vi

Title Page …………………………………………………………………………….. 1

Background of the Study

Review of literature and studies

Statement of the Problem

Scope and Delimitation

Significance of the Study

Results and Discussion ………………………………………………………………. 35

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1 – Summary of Data …………………………………………………… 23

Table 2 – Students’ Preferences Data each Age Bracket ………………………24

Table 3 – Mean (Average) Values of the Students’ Preferences Data each

Age Bracket ………………………………………………………….24

Table 4 – Formulas of the Factorial Analysis ………………………………….24

Table 5 – Sum of squares 1st Factor (Architectural Design) …………………...26

Table 6 – Sum of Squares 2nd Factor (Age) …………………………………....27

Table 7 – Sum of Squares Within ……………………………………………...27

Table 8 – Sum of Squares Total ……………………………………………...28

Table 9 – Degree of Freedom Values …………………………………………...29

Table 10 – Mean Square ……………………………………………………...30

Table 11 – F – Ratio ……………………………………………………...30

Table 12 – Summary of Squares ……………………………………………...31

Table 13 – F – Test Table Value Alpha Level = 0.05 (1,8) …………………......32

Table 14 – Profile of the students in terms of their age ………………………....35

Table 15 – Average Architectural Design Preferences of HAU Students

vis-a-vis their Age ……………………………………………….......44

Figure 1 – Research Paradigm for the research entitled A Comparative Study:

Traditional and Modern Architectural Design Preferences of HAU

Students vis-a-vis their Age ………………………………………......14

Figure 2 – Graph of F – Ratios from the Table …………………………………….33

Figure 4 – Architectural Structure Preferences of 13-15 years old age

Figure 7 – Architectural Structure Preferences of 16-18 years old age

Figure 9 – Overall Architectural Design Preference of 13-15 years old age

Figure 10 – Overall Architectural Design Preference of 16-18 years old age

A Comparative Study: Traditional and Modern Architectural Design Preferences of

HAU Students vis-a-vis their Age

Ambas, Aaron Tristan D.

Endiape, Lianne Reigne S.

Limpin, Jaymee Anne M.

Mateo, Adyza Jean B.

Yunun, Sofia Joy D.

Holy Angel University

Mr. Kevin H. Gomez

April 26, 2020

Keywords: Architecture, Traditional, Modern, Preference, Age Bracket

A Comparative Study: Traditional and Modern Architectural Design Preferences of

HAU Students vis-a-vis their Age

ways now and into the future.

In the Philippines, the history of architecture is well witnessed as it evolved through

on architectural designs in infrastructures.