User-Centered Design for Skill Acquisition in Nigerian Automobile Training Institutes: Case Study Insights

User-Centered Design for Skill Acquisition in Nigerian Automobile Training Institutes: Case Study Insights | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article User-Centered Design for Skill Acquisition in Nigerian Automobile Training Institutes: Case Study Insights Oluwasegun Akinrata, Olushola Adaramola This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8708242/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Nigerian road transport relies heavily on automobiles, yet the technical skills for maintaining modern vehicles lag due to suboptimal training environments. This article examines how user-centered design of educational facilities can enhance learning in automobile training institutes. Drawing on case studies of Peugeot Automobile Nigeria (PAN) Learning Centre in Kaduna, Industrial Skills Training Centre (ISTC) in Kano, and the Automotive Engineering Department at Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) Zaria, we identify key facilities and design factors that facilitate effective skill acquisition. A qualitative case study approach was adopted, using structured questionnaires and checklists to gather data from students and instructors on the learning environment. Findings reveal that while basic infrastructure for physical comfort (ventilation, lighting, safety) is generally adequate, critical gaps exist in social learning spaces, spatial flexibility, and technology integration. Technology-enhanced learning tools, flexible multi-purpose workshops, and collaborative spaces were minimal in the institutes studied, reflected in low user satisfaction scores for those factors. In contrast, well-ventilated, well-lit classrooms and workshops were present, supporting learners’ physical well-being. The study underscores that 21st-century automotive training requires not only modern equipment but also adaptive learning spaces that encourage interaction and hands-on practice. We conclude that incorporating user-centered design principles, ranging from ergonomic environmental features to spaces that support collaboration and emerging technologies, can substantially improve students’ learning experience and skill proficiency. Recommendations are provided to guide the design of future automobile training centers in Nigeria, emphasizing an integrated approach to facility planning that aligns the physical environment with pedagogical needs. User-centered design learning environments vocational architecture automobile training institutes architectural performance 1. Introduction Nigeria’s dependence on automobiles for transportation has grown enormously, with road transport carrying well over 90% of the nation’s passenger traffic (Effiong et al., 2023). The decline of rail and limited air travel options have led to mass importation of vehicles, including sophisticated mechatronic models that require advanced maintenance skills (Aliyu et al., 2024). However, a gap in technical know-how has emerged: many youth learn auto-mechanics in environments lacking basic infrastructure for effective training (Bello & Ibrahim, 2022; Goyol & Sunday, 2020). This skills deficit contributes to poorly maintained vehicles and frequent breakdowns or accidents, incurring social and economic costs (Frank et al., 2023). Bridging the automotive skills gap is vital for Nigeria’s sustainable economic development (Ejikpese & Effiom, 2024). In response, the government and industry stakeholders have initiated plans to establish modern automobile training centers. For example, the National Automotive Design and Development Council (NADDC) proposed an automotive training school in Kano, a state with over 5 million youth and high unemployment, to empower young people with vehicle production and maintenance skills (Akinrata, 2021). Such efforts underscore the need to design training institutes that effectively support skill acquisition. Designing an effective learning environment goes beyond providing classrooms and equipment; it requires a user-centered design (UCD) approach that places the needs of students and instructors at the forefront of the design process (Altay, 2014). In architectural education, UCD emphasizes creating spaces that support users’ activities and enhance their experience. Vischer (2008) noted that buildings exist to support the activities of their users, and the user–environment relationship is dynamic and interactive. When training facilities are designed without considering users’ requirements, such as comfort, safety, social interaction, and technology, a mismatch arises between the built environment and the learning needs of students (Cheryan et al., 2014). This mismatch can hinder skill mastery and motivation. Research has shown that the way a learning environment is designed and occupied directly affects how people feel and their ability to learn (Barrett et al., 2015). Satisfied occupants who find their classrooms comfortable and functional tend to have higher productivity and better learning outcomes (Cleveland & Fisher, 2014; Geister et al., 2025). Conversely, poor learning spaces can diminish concentration and skill development. For instance, well-designed, adequately maintained facilities can measurably improve learners’ performance and productivity (Knight & Haslam, 2010; Barrett et al., 2015). Considering this, there is a clear impetus to research and identify the facilities and design factors that most impact learning in automobile training institutes, and to apply user-centered principles in their design. This article aims to analyze the facilities and user-centered design factors that facilitate skill acquisition in Nigerian automobile training institutes, using three case studies in northern Nigeria as the basis. These cases, the PAN Learning Centre (Kaduna), ISTC (Kano), and ABU’s Automotive Engineering Department (Zaria), provide a cross-section of an industry-run center, a government technical training center, and a university program. By examining how each facility’s design supports or constrains learning, we derive insights into effective architectural strategies for technical/vocational education spaces. The findings will inform architects, educators, and policymakers on improving existing institutes and guiding future projects. The next sections review relevant literature on learning space design, outline the methodology of the case study research, present results from the three institutes (with comparative discussion), and conclude with recommendations for integrating user-centered design in automotive training facilities. 2. Learning Environments and User-Centered Design The concept of user-centered design (UCD) originates from the idea that the end-users’ needs should guide every stage of the design process (Altay, 2014). In educational architecture, UCD means creating spaces that actively support teaching and learning activities, aligning with how learners behave and what they need. Altay (2014) defines UCD as a design process giving extensive attention to end-users’ needs at each stage, ensuring outcomes beyond mere utility to encourage users’ engagement and motivation. This approach leads to environments that users find meaningful, bringing their own experiences and interpretations to the space (Burçak, 2014). In the context of learning institutions, a user-centered environment is one that adapts to how students learn best, thus potentially enhancing skill acquisition. 2.1 Theoretical Foundations; Environment and Social Constructivism UCD theory in building design bridges two key perspectives: environmental determinism and social constructivism (Kalvelage & Dorneich, 2014). Environmental determinism posits that the physical environment influences human behavior and outcomes. According to Vischer (2008), a fundamental principle is that a built environment exists to support its users’ activities. Extensive research in environmental psychology underpins this, demonstrating that features like space layout, lighting, and acoustics can shape users’ feelings and actions (Vischer, 2008). In educational settings, environmental comfort factors, ventilation, lighting, noise control, and air quality, have predictable effects on learning (Cheryan et al., 2014; Chi & Wylie, 2014). If these factors are poor (e.g., stuffy air, dim or glaring light, loud noise), learning is adversely affected, as students may experience fatigue, distraction or discomfort. Conversely, proper ventilation, adequate illumination, acoustic control, and clean air contribute to a healthy, focused learning experience (Cheryan et al., 2014; Barrett et al., 2015). For example, good ventilation ensures fresh air and thermal comfort, which supports students’ concentration, while natural lighting has been linked to improved mood and academic performance (Barrett et al., 2015). Social constructivism, on the other hand, emphasizes that learning is fundamentally a social process. Vygotsky’s (1978) theory describes knowledge construction as occurring first between people (interpersonally) and then within the individual (intrapersonally). In practical terms, students learn effectively through active discourse, collaboration, and shared experiences with peers and instructors (Chi & Wylie, 2014). A social constructivist view of learning spaces thus prioritizes design elements that facilitate interaction, group work, and community. Oldenburg’s concept of the third place , informal or semi-formal areas where students can meet, discuss, and engage outside of structured class time, has influenced the notion of social learning spaces (Matthews et al., 2011; Geister et al., 2025). These could be lounges, study pods, outdoor courtyards, or cafes on campus, which blend social and academic life. Research indicates that providing such spaces strengthens peer networks and enables mentorship, which in turn enhances learning outcomes (Matthews et al., 2011; Geister et al., 2025). 2.2 Design Principles for 21st Century Learning Spaces Modern pedagogical research outlines several key design principles to create effective learning environments. An adaptation by McGill University (2004) identified four overarching principles, interaction, flexibility, environment, and technology, which align well with user-centered design goals (Finkelstein et al., 2016). These principles can be summarized as follows: Interaction : Spaces should promote communication and collaboration. This involves movable furniture that can be reconfigured for group work, ample room for people to move around and interact, and acoustics engineered to accommodate both whole-group discussions and multiple small-group conversations simultaneously (Altaee & Al-kazzaz, 2024). For instance, providing multiple writing surfaces (whiteboards, screens) and ensuring all participants can hear each other in a classroom supports interaction (Altaee & Al-kazzaz, 2024). Importantly, informal interaction areas (e.g. seating niches just outside classrooms) allow learning conversations to continue beyond the lesson (Matthews et al., 2011). Flexibility : Given the rapidly evolving nature of curricula and technology, learning spaces must be adaptable. A single space may need to support a lecture, a hands-on demonstration, and group project work at different times. Designing for flexibility means using modular furniture, movable partitions, and multi-purpose layouts that can be easily reconfigured (Altaee & Al-kazzaz, 2024; BRANZ, 2016). Building guidelines emphasize creating open and connected spaces that can host concurrent activities, while also ensuring acoustic separation when needed (BRANZ, 2016; Altaee & Al-kazzaz, 2024). A flexible design balances openness with the ability to section off quiet vs. noisy activities (e.g. through sliding walls or scheduling) (BRANZ, 2016; Altaee & Al-kazzaz, 2024). In technical training institutes, flexibility might mean a lab that can expand into a classroom or a workshop that can accommodate different group sizes. Environment (Comfort and Well-being) : Beyond spatial layout, the ambient environment must support learners’ physical well-being. This principle reiterates factors like thermal comfort, lighting quality, acoustics, and ergonomics. Comfortable seating, proper ventilation, access to daylight, and avoidance of noise distractions contribute to students feeling at ease and focused (Cheryan et al., 2014). Studies have found that good design boosts well-being by giving learners a sense of ownership and belonging in their space, which correlates with positive social interaction and academic attainment (Barrett et al., 2015; Geister et al., 2025). In vocational workshops, this also extends to safety considerations, clear layouts that prevent accidents, safety markings, and well-planned circulation routes are critical. Technology : With the rise of digital learning tools, technology integration is a cornerstone of contemporary educational design. Modern learning is increasingly facilitated through projectors, internet resources, and networked computers (Apagu & Wakili, 2015). An effective training space must have the infrastructure to support these tools: sufficient power outlets, high-speed internet connectivity, mounting points for audio-visual equipment, and lighting that can adjust for screen viewing (Apagu & Wakili, 2015; Finkelstein et al., 2016). Design guidelines recommend designing with viewing angles and sightlines in mind (so all students can see screens), providing multiple display surfaces, and ensuring consistent technological capabilities across all classrooms (Finkelstein et al., 2016). Moreover, futureproofing is important, the space should allow new technologies to be added later with minimal disruption (Finkelstein et al., 2016). In automotive training institutes, this could include simulation labs, diagnostic computer stations, or smart boards for interactive teaching. These principles reflect a shift from traditional teacher-centered classrooms to learner-centered environments. Instead of rows of fixed seats and a singular focus on the blackboard, the trend is toward active learning spaces where students can collaborate, problem-solve, and engage directly with learning materials (obviously crucial in hands-on fields like automotive technology). The concept of built pedagogy encapsulates this idea: the design of space itself can shape how teaching and learning occur (Monahan, 2002). If a workshop is cramped and poorly lit, instructors might stick to theory instead of demonstrations; if a classroom has no provision for group work, students miss out on peer learning opportunities. Thus, aligning facility design with pedagogical goals is paramount. As Oblinger (2006) argues, space can be an agent for change in education, reinforcing or hindering new teaching methods. For vocational institutes aiming to produce industry-ready graduates, spaces must be designed to support practical, project-based learning and teamwork. 2.3 Facilities for Automotive Skill Training Automotive training institutes typically require a mix of specialized and general facilities. Based on industry and educational standards (NADDC; Nigeria’s technical education curricula), key facilities include: classrooms for theoretical instruction, workshops/laboratories for practical training (e.g. engine repair bays, electrical/electronics labs, bodywork and spray painting booths), ICT rooms for computer-based learning (such as automotive diagnostics software), and supportive amenities like libraries/resource centers and conference rooms. Ezeama et al. (2016) found that capacity building for motor vehicle mechanics now demands familiarity with auto diagnostic (scan tool) technology, implying that training centers must provide modern tools and ICT facilities to remain relevant. Moreover, Apagu and Wakili (2015) highlighted that many technical colleges in Nigeria lack adequate ICT infrastructure for teaching, which can hamper the instruction of mechatronics and modern automotive electronics. This gap reinforces the need for design that intentionally includes technology-rich spaces. Another consideration is zoning and adjacency of spaces within an institute. As noise and safety are concerns in automotive workshops, noisy practical areas (machine shops, welding zones) should be acoustically separated from quiet study areas (BRANZ, 2016; Altaee & Al-kazzaz, 2024). At the same time, easy access between classrooms and workshops is beneficial so that theoretical lessons can be immediately applied or demonstrated practically. A “demonstration classroom” adjoining a workshop, for instance, allows an instructor to move between lecture and hands-on demonstration with minimal disruption, an idea aligned with UCD by reducing barriers between different learning modes. Social amenities like a cafeteria, outdoor courtyard or student common room can foster informal learning and peer support during breaks, which is particularly valuable in intensive technical programs. In summary, the literature suggests that an optimal automobile training institute would blend comfortable, well-equipped physical conditions (good air, light, acoustics, safety) with flexible, interactive spaces (movable furniture, breakout areas) and integrated technology. Achieving this through user-centered design can lead to environments where students are more engaged, instructors can employ varied teaching methods, and ultimately, trainees acquire skills more effectively and confidently. The following sections will describe how these concepts manifest (or not) in the case study institutes and what lessons can be drawn for future design improvements. 3 Methodology This research adopted a qualitative multiple-case study approach to investigate learning environment design in three automobile training institutes. A case study method was appropriate given the aim to explore contemporary phenomena (user-centered learning spaces) within real-life contexts (existing institutes) and to capture rich detail about each setting (Yin, 2014). The case studies selected were: Peugeot Automobile Nigeria (PAN) Learning Centre, Kaduna : a formal automotive training center operated in partnership with an automobile manufacturer. Industrial Skills Training Centre (ISTC), Kano : a government-established technical training center under Nigeria’s Industrial Training Fund. Department of Automotive Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria : an academic department within a university setting offering automotive engineering education. These sites were chosen based on their relevance (each provides automobile technical training), geographic proximity in North-West Nigeria, and variation in institutional type (private vs. public vs. academic), allowing for comparative insights (cf. Yin, 2014). All three cases were studied using the same instruments to enable cross-case analysis. 3.1 Data Collection We employed two main methods: a structured questionnaire survey and a visual survey with a checklist. The questionnaire was self-administered to the primary users of each facility, namely students/trainees and instructors. It consisted of closed-ended questions divided into four sections (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Yin, 2014): 3.1.1 Section 1 : Respondent profile (background, experience), to contextualize responses. Section 2 : Users’ experiential knowledge of the building, capturing how they perceive the current learning environment (comfort, usability, etc.). Section 3 : Users’ requirements and perceptions of how the design and facilities influence their learning and skill acquisition (questions on specific features of the built environment, e.g. ventilation, furniture layout, availability of equipment, and their impact on learning). 3.1.4 Section 4 : Additional comments (open-ended) for any information not covered in previous sections. Most questions in Sections 2 and 3 used a 5-point Likert scale for respondents to rate the influence or importance of various features. For example, trainees were asked to rate how strongly certain social learning space features (like group discussion areas or hands-on training equipment) affected their learning and competence development. Instructors similarly rated which design aspects they found most critical for teaching effectively. Concurrently, a visual survey and checklist assessment was conducted by the researcher at each site. The visual survey involved systematic observation and documentation of the facilities: noting the layout of spaces, furniture arrangements, presence of flexible elements, floor and wall materials, spatial volumes, lighting sources, ventilation methods, etc. Photographs, sketches, and written notes were collected to create an inventory of the physical environment features relevant to user-centered design. Based on these observations and the literature-derived design variables, a checklist was used to evaluate the extent to which user-centered design factors were reflected in each institute. The checklist items corresponded to the variables identified in the theoretical framework (environmental factors like ventilation, lighting, acoustic zoning; and social factors like interaction, flexibility, technology, etc.). Each item was rated on a scale (as observed by the researcher) from 1 to 4, where 1 = not present, 2 = low, 3 = moderate, and 4 = high level of implementation. For instance, if a classroom had plentiful windows and fans, ventilation might be rated 4 (high), whereas if no informal collaboration area existed, that item might be 1 (absent). Using multiple instruments allowed for triangulation: the questionnaire captured the users’ perspective on the facility’s effectiveness, while the checklist provided an objective audit of the physical environment. A pilot study was initially carried out at a mechatronics department in ABU Zaria to test and refine these instruments, ensuring the questions were clear and the checklist metrics were appropriate. 3.2 Data Analysis The study employed both descriptive and simple quantitative analysis techniques. Qualitative descriptions of each case’s context and design were written, and quantitative data from questionnaires and checklists were summarized using basic statistics (frequencies, mean scores, and rankings). Specifically, for each case, the checklist ratings were averaged to compute a mean score for each design factor (e.g., the mean rating for “Ventilation” or “Flexibility” in that institute). These mean values serve as indicators of how well the institute meets that particular user-centered design criterion from the researcher’s assessment. Similarly, questionnaire Likert responses (e.g., perceived importance of features) were aggregated (with mean or relative importance indices) to gauge which features users considered most significant for their learning. The results were then presented in tables and charts for clarity. For example, in each case study, tables show the checklist assessment of various factors, and bar charts illustrate the level of implementation of design variables (with higher mean values indicating better fulfillment of that factor). Comparative analysis was performed by examining patterns across the three cases: common strengths or deficiencies and differences possibly attributable to the institute type or design. This method allowed the research question, “What facilities and user-centered design factors can facilitate skill acquisition in automobile training institutes?”, to be answered through evidence-based insights from real examples. It is important to note that the sample sizes in each case were relatively modest (given the niche context of each training center), and the findings are not meant to be generalizable to all institutes universally. Rather, the goal is an in-depth understanding of each case and an analytical generalization to concepts and design principles (as per case study methodology; see Yin, 2014; Johansson, 2003). In the next section, we present the results from each case study, followed by an integrated discussion. 4 Results and Discussion 4.1 Case Study 1: Peugeot Automobile Nigeria (PAN) Learning Centre, Kaduna 4.1.1 Background and Facilities : The PAN Learning Centre in Kaduna is an automotive training facility affiliated with Peugeot Automobile Nigeria, originally established as part of the country’s drive for local capacity building in vehicle assembly and maintenance. It is one of the well-known formal training centers for auto-technicians in northwestern Nigeria (Effiong et al., 2023). The center boasts a faculty of specialists across automotive subfields, Auto-Mechatronics, Auto-Mechanical, Auto-Spray Painting, Auto-Panel Beating & Welding, as well as a Driving School and ICT training. In terms of physical layout, the site is a relatively flat plot in an industrial estate, sharing a boundary with the Peugeot assembly plant. The design features a straightforward, compact layout with a main learning building and various auxiliary structures. A single main gate leads into the premises, splitting into an access road toward the administrative/learning block and another toward practical areas (like a car wash and service bay). The main facility is surrounded by relevant training amenities: a vehicle preparation bay (for parking and prepping vehicles), storage rooms, a vehicle service area (workshop), a car spray booth, and an outdoor sit-out area. Within the main building, spaces are organized by function and noise level. As described in the study, the interior is zoned into three sections: an administrative section (housing the reception, offices for instructors and the director, a boardroom, library, etc.), a learning section (classrooms including an executive classroom and ICT classrooms, plus conveniences), and a workshop/practical section comprising various specialized workshops (e.g., automotive mechatronics, electronics, mechanics, panel beating & welding, and paint booth). The administrative section is separated by walls and a corridor from the noisy workshop areas, though some sound leakage was noted due to open windows and doors. The learning section (classrooms) is adjacent to but partially buffered from the workshops by a storage area and a change room. This layout reflects an attempt to balance proximity (for easy movement between theory and practice) with separation (for noise control and safety). 4.1.2 User-Centered Design Elements : In the PAN Centre, several user-centered design strengths and weaknesses were observed: Environmental Comfort : Classrooms and workshops at PAN were generally well-ventilated and well-lit. Large windows, ceiling fans, and high ceilings in classrooms provided good airflow and natural lighting, which students and instructors appreciated for physical comfort. On the checklist, “Ventilation” and “Lighting” both scored high (mean ~ 3.5 out of 4), aligning with the survey responses where over 80% of users rated these factors as satisfactory or excellent for learning. This confirms literature suggesting that adequate ventilation and lighting support concentration and well-being (Cheryan et al., 2014; Barrett et al., 2015). Temperature control, however, was a concern; air conditioning was limited to the executive classroom and offices; other spaces relied on fans and ventilation only. During hotter months, this was noted to cause discomfort. Spatial Layout and Flexibility : The workshops are sizable rooms with open floor plans, allowing reconfiguration of workstations and movement of vehicles/equipment. This openness scored moderately on flexibility (mean ~ 3.0). For instance, the Auto-Mechatronics workshop had movable worktables and tool racks on wheels, so the space could be rearranged for different projects. However, classrooms were traditional, with fixed desk-chair units in rows, which limited flexibility for group work. Instructors commented that they sometimes moved classes into the workshop areas or outdoors for group tasks because the classrooms could not be easily reconfigured. There were no movable partitions or multi-use breakout rooms in the design; each room had a fixed purpose, which is a shortcoming compared to best practices (Altaee & Al-kazzaz, 2024). The PAN Centre’s layout allowed fairly quick transitions between theory and practice sessions, as the distance between the classroom and the workshop was short. Social Learning Spaces : A notable gap was the lack of informal collaboration spaces. Apart from a few benches under a tree (an improvised outdoor student hangout) and the small library, there were no lounges or dedicated discussion areas. Students indicated in the survey that they desired a common room or study area to discuss problems or wait between sessions. The absence of such “third spaces” (Matthews et al., 2011) likely limits peer interaction outside formal classes. This was reflected in low satisfaction scores related to social space provision (mean ~ 1.5 on the checklist for “Informal interaction areas”). Management noted plans to convert an underused store into a student common room, highlighting awareness of this need. Technology Integration : PAN had a functional ICT laboratory with about 20 computers where trainees learn automotive diagnostics software and other IT skills. Additionally, some classrooms had overhead projectors. The availability of modern training equipment such as engine analyzers and auto-scan tools was a strong point (users rated “Equipment availability” high, mean ~ 3.7). However, connectivity was an issue: the internet was described as slow and not reliably accessible to students. Power outlets were few in classrooms, limiting the use of personal laptops. On the checklist, “Technology infrastructure” rated around 2.5, indicating a moderate presence (some support for tech, but room for improvement). This aligns with Apagu and Wakili’s (2015) findings that technical colleges often have limited ICT utilization despite some facilities being present. Safety and Ergonomics : Safety measures at PAN included marked pathways in workshops, fire extinguishers, and mandatory coveralls and boots for students in practical sessions. These contributed to a sense of safety (survey respondents largely agreed the institute was safe). Nonetheless, some ergonomic issues were observed: old metal stools in the workshop were uncomfortable for long use, and a few workbenches were at non-adjustable heights, causing taller students to stoop. Improving ergonomic furniture could enhance comfort and reduce fatigue during hands-on tasks. In summary, PAN Learning Centre demonstrated strengths in providing a comfortable and well-equipped environment, particularly for practical training, but it lacked flexibility in classroom spaces and dedicated social learning areas. The design partly embodies UCD principles (e.g., good ventilation and tool provision show responsiveness to user needs), but could be more adaptive and socially supportive. 4.2 Case Study 2: Industrial Skills Training Centre (ISTC), Kano 4.2.1 Background and Facilities : The ISTC in Kano is a government-run technical training center aimed at vocational skills development in various trades, including automobile mechanics. It serves a large urban population of youth and is intended to support initiatives like the NADDC’s automotive training programs. The campus is larger and more dispersed than PAN’s, consisting of multiple one-story workshop buildings arranged around a central green. Facilities include separate workshops for Engine Mechanics, Auto Electrical, and Bodywork, each with adjacent classrooms; a dedicated computer lab building; an administrative block; and common amenities like a cafeteria and auditorium. The spatial layout reflects a campus style: buildings are connected by walkways, and related departments are clustered (the auto workshops and classrooms are near each other, while other trades have their own sections). This layout provides ample space for expansion but means walking distances between classes and workshops are greater than at PAN. The site is relatively flat but with some open lawn areas that students use for informal gatherings. 4.2.2 User-Centered Design Elements: Environmental Comfort : ISTC’s buildings were older and generally less well-maintained than PAN’s. Some classrooms had broken louver windows and non-functioning ceiling fans at the time of study, leading to stuffy conditions. Ventilation in workshops was adequate through large doors and windows, but the enclosed classrooms often became hot (a common complaint in surveys). Lighting varied; some spaces relied on dim fluorescents and had few windows. The checklist scores for ventilation and lighting were lower here (around 2.0–2.5) compared to PAN. Students’ performance and comfort likely suffer in these suboptimal conditions, echoing the importance of facility upkeep (Bello & Ibrahim, 2022). Recognizing this, ISTC management had requested funds for facility refurbishment. Spatial Flexibility : The auto workshops at ISTC were spacious and could accommodate vehicles similar to PAN. However, workshop interiors were rigidly arranged with built-in workbenches that were not easily movable. Classrooms used heavy wooden desks, limiting reconfiguration. As a positive, one large room in the auto section was designated as a multi-purpose hall; it was occasionally used for group training or as an exhibition space for student projects. This hall was essentially an open area with stackable chairs, an element of flexibility in design. Overall, flexibility was moderate (mean ~ 2.5). The potential for adaptive reuse of spaces exists (the campus has a few underutilized rooms), but currently, infrastructure does not support quick changes (no modular partitions, few mobile furnishings). Social Learning Spaces : ISTC had an edge in providing a few social spaces. There was a shaded outdoor canteen area where students often congregated, and a student common room attached to the library that had lounge chairs and a bulletin board. These spaces were well-utilized; survey respondents rated the availability of break areas slightly higher than PAN’s (mean ~ 2.0, still low in absolute terms but higher than 1.x at PAN). The presence of a campus-like environment (grassy lawns, outdoor seating) inadvertently created informal meeting spots. This supports the idea that not only indoor spaces, but campus landscapes, can contribute to social learning opportunities (Matthews et al., 2011). Nonetheless, structured collaboration zones (like design studios or project rooms) were missing. Technology Integration : The ISTC’s dedicated computer lab was a strength: it had about 30 PCs and was air-conditioned. It served all trades, though, meaning scheduling conflicts could arise. Unlike PAN, few classrooms had projection capability; instructors mostly taught on chalkboards. On a positive note, ISTC had some modern training equipment supplied by government programs (e.g., a fuel injection simulator, an automotive oscilloscope). Technology integration was thus a mix: equipment availability was decent, but everyday teaching tech was lacking. The checklist score for technology was around 2.0. Instructors noted that with better AV equipment in classrooms, they could utilize multimedia resources for teaching theory more effectively. Safety and Layout : The dispersal of buildings meant that dangerous practical activities were inherently isolated from quiet areas, which is good for noise and risk management. Workshops had marked safety zones and clear signage (e.g., “Wear PPE beyond this point”). One issue observed was students crossing active workshop floors as a shortcut, indicating that circulation paths could be better defined to separate pedestrians from work areas. Ergonomically, ISTC workshops had an advantage of space, reducing crowding around equipment, which can improve safety and comfort. In summary, ISTC offered a more campus-oriented experience with some amenities, but many of its learning spaces were not up to modern standards of comfort or technological support. The user-centered design approach would suggest renovations focusing on ventilation, lighting, and classroom technology, as well as creating a few flexible, collaborative indoor areas to complement the outdoor social spots the students already use. 4.3 Case Study 3: Department of Automotive Engineering, ABU Zaria 4.3.1 Background and Facilities : Unlike PAN and ISTC, which are dedicated training centers, ABU Zaria’s Automotive Engineering Department is part of a higher education institution. It operates within the Faculty of Engineering and has a dual mandate of teaching and research. Facilities include traditional lecture halls (shared with other departments), specialized labs (e.g., an Engine Lab, Materials Lab), a workshop garage for student projects, faculty offices, and access to central university resources like the main library and e-learning center. The department is housed in an older concrete building (circa 1970s) with two floors of classrooms and offices, plus a separate hangar-style workshop nearby. The layout was not purpose-built for automotive training specifically, meaning some labs are repurposed spaces originally designed for general engineering use. 4.3.2 User-Centered Design Elements: Environmental Comfort : The university setting meant large lecture halls with high occupancy. Many of these halls were reported by students as uncomfortable, overcrowded at times, with insufficient fans. In our survey, automotive students noted that general courses held in big lecture theatres were the most difficult environment (hot, noisy, and hard to engage). Smaller classrooms within the department building were better but still relied on natural ventilation. On the checklist, ventilation and temperature control scored low (~ 1.8) here, reflecting that these legacy buildings do not perform well in tropical climate without HVAC. Lighting was adequate (large windows in labs provided daylight, and power supply was more stable on campus allowing use of electrical lights). The impact of these conditions is consistent with prior research: poor physical comfort can distract and impede learning (Cheryan et al., 2014). Many students simply tolerated these issues, perhaps perceiving them as the norm in a public university. Spatial Flexibility : The automotive program at ABU faced rigidity in space usage because of its integration in a larger institution. Classrooms are scheduled and fixed; furniture is bench-type or fixed seating in halls, making group activities challenging inside. In response, faculty often use the workshop or outdoor spaces for group design exercises or practical demonstrations (similar workaround as at PAN). One notable flexible space is the project workshop: it’s essentially a garage where final-year students build their project cars or engines. This garage has movable tool cabinets and worktables, embodying a student-centered maker space. However, it is small and only a few students can use it at a time. Flexibility scored lowest here (~ 1.5) because most spaces are static and heavily scheduled. The lack of dedicated modern learning studios or adaptable classrooms indicates a gap between current infrastructure and pedagogical needs for collaborative, project-based learning (Monahan, 2002). Social and Study Spaces : Being on a university campus, automotive students have access to general facilities like the engineering library, cafeterias, and courtyards. Thus, while the department itself didn’t provide lounges, students could find informal learning spaces around (the library was a common spot for group study). The sense of community might be fostered more by these university-wide spaces than by anything within the department building. For instance, a cluster of picnic tables under trees outside the engineering block was a popular gathering space for discussion. This underscores how broader campus design contributes to student experience. In our user feedback, many students expressed a wish for a dedicated departmental common room or design studio where they could congregate and work on assignments together. Technology Integration : The ABU department had limited departmental-level technology provisions; instead, they relied on central resources. There was a smart classroom in the faculty (with projector, etc.) used occasionally for seminars. Most lectures were done on chalkboard. Lab equipment existed (some dated, some newer donations), but computer-based learning was minimal in regular classes. Students often had to do simulations or CAD assignments in the university’s general computer labs, not within the department. This separation sometimes hindered immediate application of theory to practice (e.g., doing an engine simulation requires booking time in another building). Technology integration in daily teaching was minimal (score ~ 1.5). On the plus side, being a university, there were more opportunities for internet access and students often had personal laptops to fill the gap. Safety and Organization : As an academic department, safety protocols were less formal than at vocational institutes. For example, the enforcement of wearing protective gear in labs was inconsistent (some students in workshops only wore safety glasses at their discretion). Also, the workshop being small led to clutter when multiple projects were ongoing. From a UCD perspective, organizing space to safely accommodate student work (like providing ample storage and clear workstations) would improve both safety and learning focus. In summary, the ABU Automotive Engineering case highlights the differences in user experience between a higher education program and dedicated technical training centers. While students benefit from the rich campus environment and resources, the learning spaces for hands-on training were less intentionally designed for user needs and more a product of historical circumstance. Improvements could include retrofitting classrooms with modern instructional technology, creating a dedicated collaborative design lab for students, and upgrading ventilation in lecture spaces, all interventions that align with user-centered design priorities in learning environments. 4.4 Comparative Discussion: Across the three case studies, common themes emerge regarding user-centered design (UCD) in automotive training environments: Physical Comfort is Foundational : All three institutes demonstrated that basics like ventilation, lighting, and space are not to be taken for granted. PAN had a clear advantage in comfort, correlating with higher user satisfaction and presumably better focus in class. ISTC and ABU’s weaker comfort conditions were among the first complaints by users. This confirms that addressing physical comfort is a fundamental UCD step since it directly impacts learners’ well-being and ability to concentrate (Barrett et al., 2015; Geister et al., 2025). Flexible & Interactive Spaces Are Lacking : None of the case studies had truly flexible, modern classroom designs or plentiful collaborative spaces. This gap between current facilities and contemporary design principles was evident. Traditional layouts still dominate, which may hinder interactive learning methods. However, we saw adaptive behavior: instructors and students repurposing workshops or outdoor areas to facilitate group work. It indicates a demand for flexibility that the design has not met. Future designs should incorporate multi-use rooms or movable furniture to cater to this need. Technology Integration Needs Improvement : While specialized equipment (like diagnostic tools) was present, particularly at PAN and ISTC, the integration of everyday learning technology (projectors, e-learning, etc.) was limited. Enhancing this would support blended learning and allow more engaging delivery of theoretical content (Apagu & Wakili, 2015). Ensuring consistent power supply and internet connectivity is part of this integration in the Nigerian context, as technological tools are only as good as the infrastructure supporting them. Social Learning Spaces Add Value : Institutes that provided even basic social spaces (ISTC with its canteen, ABU with campus spots) inadvertently supported peer interaction and informal learning. PAN’s lack thereof was noted as a weakness. This aligns with the literature on “third places” where much tacit learning can occur (Matthews et al., 2011). Incorporating lounges, discussion nooks, or even just comfortable seating areas into future facilities would likely enhance the learning experience by promoting collaboration and mentorship among trainees. Safety and Ergonomics Should Be Designed In : Especially in workshops, user-centered design means designing for safe, efficient workflows. PAN and ISTC’s measures (safety zones, ample space) were good practices. Some issues like the ergonomic mismatch of furniture (too high/low workbenches, uncomfortable seating) show that even when macro-design is sound, micro-design details matter for user comfort and productivity. Engaging with instructors and students during the design phase could catch such issues (e.g., specifying adjustable-height workstations). In essence, these case studies highlight that many existing training institutes in Nigeria were built to older standards and are only partially aligned with current pedagogical needs. The user-centered design approach provides a framework to modernize these facilities by focusing on the actual activities and preferences of the users (the students and teachers). Table 1 (not included here) would summarize how each case performs on various UCD criteria derived from the checklist, which can guide priorities for upgrades. 5 Conclusion and Recommendations Our multi-case analysis reveals that while Nigerian automobile training institutes provide the basic infrastructure for skill acquisition, there are significant opportunities to enhance learning outcomes through user-centered design improvements. Key findings include: Providing comfortable environmental conditions (good ventilation, lighting, and thermal comfort) is crucial and currently uneven across institutes. Upgrading these will directly improve student concentration and well-being. Introducing flexible, interactive learning spaces , such as reconfigurable classrooms or project studios, would better support modern pedagogies emphasizing collaboration and hands-on learning. Enhancing technology integration in everyday teaching (through classroom A/V equipment, reliable internet, and plentiful power access) is needed to complement the specialized training tools. This enables blended learning and exposure to digital resources aligned with industry trends. Incorporating informal social learning areas can foster peer-to-peer learning and mentorship, elements shown to enrich vocational education by strengthening professional communities of practice among students (Geister et al., 2025). Ensuring workshop layouts and furnishings are ergonomic and safe reflects a user-centered approach that values students’ health and efficiency, ultimately leading to better skill mastery and fewer accidents. To implement these improvements, a concerted effort by policymakers, institutional administrators, and design professionals is required. Participatory design methods are recommended, whereby students and instructors contribute feedback in the planning of new facilities or renovations. For instance, running focus groups with trainees about their daily challenges in existing classrooms can inform targeted interventions (like adding adjustable fans or creating break-out corners within large labs). Similarly, instructors can advise on optimal adjacencies (e.g., having a demonstration area directly connected to workshops). From a policy perspective, bodies like the NADDC should incorporate facility standards into their automotive training programs, ensuring that investments are not solely in equipment but also in the spaces housing that equipment. Standards could specify minimum requirements for ventilation, floor space per student in workshops, ICT infrastructure, and so on, grounded in educational research and benchmarks. In conclusion, user-centered design offers a pathway to revitalizing technical education infrastructure in Nigeria. By aligning training facilities with the needs and activities of learners and teachers, we can create environments that not only impart technical skills more effectively but also inspire and motivate students. As one study succinctly noted, the design of the learning environment affects how people feel and their ability to learn, their commitment to the field, and even the creation of new knowledge (Barrett et al., 2015; Geister et al., 2025). The experiences from PAN, ISTC, and ABU exemplify both the challenges and the potential solutions in this domain. Investing in user-centered facility design is an investment in the quality of future automotive professionals. A well-designed institute can serve as a “built pedagogy,” teaching students not just through curriculum but through the very experience of using the space, fostering qualities of innovation, teamwork, and problem-solving that are essential for their careers. The findings of this article echo that sentiment and provide a roadmap for architects and educators to collaborate in creating next-generation learning environments for technical education in Nigeria and beyond. Declarations Ethics Approval Statement This study involved minimal-risk research using questionnaires and observational assessments with adult participants (students and instructors). Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant departmental research oversight committee at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. The study was conducted in accordance with institutional and international ethical standards for research involving human participants. Participant Consent Statement Informed consent was obtained from all participants before they participated in the study. Participation was voluntary, and respondents were informed of the purpose of the research, their right to withdraw at any time, and the anonymity of their responses. No personally identifiable information was collected. Author Contribution All authors listed on this manuscript made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, and the development of the work. All authors were involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content. Each author approved the final version to be published and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that any questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the study are appropriately investigated and resolved. Data Availability All data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Akinrata, O. A. (2021). Exploring user-centered design approach for enhancing learning in the design of automobile training institute, Kano, Nigeria (Master’s thesis, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria). Altaee, R. Z., & Al-kazzaz, D. A. (2024). Design guidelines for active learning: A case study of contemporary schools. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 19 (12), 4635–4652. Altay, B. (2014). User-centered design through learner-centered instruction. Teaching in Higher Education, 19 (2), 138–155. Apagu, V. V., & Wakili, B. A. (2015). Availability and utilization of ICT facilities for teaching and learning of vocational and technical education in Yobe State technical colleges. American Journal of Engineering Research, 4 (2), 113–118. Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., & Barrett, L. (2015). The impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. Building and Environment, 89 , 118–133. Bello, M., & Ibrahim, J. (2022). Vocational training in Nigeria: Issues, challenges, and prospects. Nigerian Journal of Educational Administration, 31 (1), 45–67. Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49 (4), 219–243. Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Plaut, V. C., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2014). Designing classrooms to maximize student achievement. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1 (1), 4–12. Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17 (1), 1–28. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage. Ejikpese, V. A., & Effiom, V. N. (2024). The future of vocational training in Nigeria: Addressing skill gaps for economic development. Multi-Disciplinary Journal of Research and Development Perspectives, 13 (2), 127–146. Effiong, A., Shehu, I. Y., Yalams, S. M., & Ahmed, A. (2023). Assessment of National Automotive Design and Development Council training programmes in informal sector automobile mechanics in Nigeria. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 3 (2), 141–151. Finkelstein, A., Ferris, J., Weston, C., & Winer, L. (2016). Research-informed principles for (re)designing teaching and learning spaces. Journal of Learning Spaces, 5 (1), 26–40. Frank, J. N., Oluka, I., & Mbah, C. N. (2023). The effects of auto technicians’ activities on frequent breakdowns of vehicles in Nigeria: A case study of Owerri Metropolis, Imo State. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 13 (10), 1044–1068. Geister, S., Keser Aschenberger, F., Çetinkaya-Yıldız, E., & Apaydın, S. (2025). The role of informal learning spaces in promoting social integration and wellbeing in higher education. Frontiers in Education, 10 , 1637874. Goyol, A., & Sunday, G. (2020). Bridging the skills gap of graduates of technical colleges and the industries in Nigeria. International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education Research, 6 (1), 1–9. Kalvelage, K., & Dorneich, M. (2014). A user-centered approach to user–building interactions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 27–31). Knight, C., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The relative merits of lean, enriched, and empowered offices: An experimental examination of the impact of workspace management strategies on well-being and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16 (2), 158–172. Matthews, K. E., Andrews, V., & Adams, P. (2011). Social learning spaces and student engagement. Higher Education Research & Development, 30 (2), 105–120. Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space & built pedagogy: Emerging IT and new architectural forms. Inventio, 4 (1), 1–19. Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Space as a change agent. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 1.1–1.4). EDUCAUSE. Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards a user-centered theory of the built environment. Building Research & Information, 36 (3), 231–240. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Harvard University Press. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8708242","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":581014639,"identity":"beac1daf-d689-4354-8b3d-0f15febbda33","order_by":0,"name":"Oluwasegun Akinrata","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institution: Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Nigeria","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Oluwasegun","middleName":"","lastName":"Akinrata","suffix":""},{"id":581014641,"identity":"5505fa7f-bc9f-47e2-bd48-20ec749232af","order_by":1,"name":"Olushola Adaramola","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Harrisburg University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Olushola","middleName":"","lastName":"Adaramola","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-27 09:08:49","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8708242/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8708242/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102749081,"identity":"849eb60d-fbcb-4c01-847b-09b2148e6499","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-16 09:11:56","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1143323,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8708242/v1/54780ace-7dfa-4c4c-b332-1fadfc87c0d3.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"User-Centered Design for Skill Acquisition in Nigerian Automobile Training Institutes: Case Study Insights","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eNigeria\u0026rsquo;s dependence on automobiles for transportation has grown enormously, with road transport carrying well over 90% of the nation\u0026rsquo;s passenger traffic (Effiong et al., 2023). The decline of rail and limited air travel options have led to mass importation of vehicles, including sophisticated mechatronic models that require advanced maintenance skills (Aliyu et al., 2024). However, a gap in technical know-how has emerged: many youth learn auto-mechanics in environments lacking basic infrastructure for effective training (Bello \u0026amp; Ibrahim, 2022; Goyol \u0026amp; Sunday, 2020). This skills deficit contributes to poorly maintained vehicles and frequent breakdowns or accidents, incurring social and economic costs (Frank et al., 2023). Bridging the automotive skills gap is vital for Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s sustainable economic development (Ejikpese \u0026amp; Effiom, 2024). In response, the government and industry stakeholders have initiated plans to establish modern automobile training centers. For example, the National Automotive Design and Development Council (NADDC) proposed an automotive training school in Kano, a state with over 5\u0026nbsp;million youth and high unemployment, to empower young people with vehicle production and maintenance skills (Akinrata, 2021). Such efforts underscore the need to design training institutes that effectively support skill acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesigning an effective learning environment goes beyond providing classrooms and equipment; it requires a user-centered design (UCD) approach that places the needs of students and instructors at the forefront of the design process (Altay, 2014). In architectural education, UCD emphasizes creating spaces that support users\u0026rsquo; activities and enhance their experience. Vischer (2008) noted that buildings exist to support the activities of their users, and the user\u0026ndash;environment relationship is dynamic and interactive. When training facilities are designed without considering users\u0026rsquo; requirements, such as comfort, safety, social interaction, and technology, a mismatch arises between the built environment and the learning needs of students (Cheryan et al., 2014). This mismatch can hinder skill mastery and motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch has shown that the way a learning environment is designed and occupied directly affects how people feel and their ability to learn (Barrett et al., 2015). Satisfied occupants who find their classrooms comfortable and functional tend to have higher productivity and better learning outcomes (Cleveland \u0026amp; Fisher, 2014; Geister et al., 2025). Conversely, poor learning spaces can diminish concentration and skill development. For instance, well-designed, adequately maintained facilities can measurably improve learners\u0026rsquo; performance and productivity (Knight \u0026amp; Haslam, 2010; Barrett et al., 2015). Considering this, there is a clear impetus to research and identify the facilities and design factors that most impact learning in automobile training institutes, and to apply user-centered principles in their design.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis article aims to analyze the facilities and user-centered design factors that facilitate skill acquisition in Nigerian automobile training institutes, using three case studies in northern Nigeria as the basis. These cases, the PAN Learning Centre (Kaduna), ISTC (Kano), and ABU\u0026rsquo;s Automotive Engineering Department (Zaria), provide a cross-section of an industry-run center, a government technical training center, and a university program. By examining how each facility\u0026rsquo;s design supports or constrains learning, we derive insights into effective architectural strategies for technical/vocational education spaces. The findings will inform architects, educators, and policymakers on improving existing institutes and guiding future projects. The next sections review relevant literature on learning space design, outline the methodology of the case study research, present results from the three institutes (with comparative discussion), and conclude with recommendations for integrating user-centered design in automotive training facilities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Learning Environments and User-Centered Design","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe concept of user-centered design (UCD) originates from the idea that the end-users\u0026rsquo; needs should guide every stage of the design process (Altay, 2014). In educational architecture, UCD means creating spaces that actively support teaching and learning activities, aligning with how learners behave and what they need. Altay (2014) defines UCD as a design process giving extensive attention to end-users\u0026rsquo; needs at each stage, ensuring outcomes beyond mere utility to encourage users\u0026rsquo; engagement and motivation. This approach leads to environments that users find meaningful, bringing their own experiences and interpretations to the space (Bur\u0026ccedil;ak, 2014). In the context of learning institutions, a user-centered environment is one that adapts to how students learn best, thus potentially enhancing skill acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Theoretical Foundations; Environment and Social Constructivism\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eUCD theory in building design bridges two key perspectives: environmental determinism and social constructivism (Kalvelage \u0026amp; Dorneich, 2014). Environmental determinism posits that the physical environment influences human behavior and outcomes. According to Vischer (2008), a fundamental principle is that a built environment exists to support its users\u0026rsquo; activities. Extensive research in environmental psychology underpins this, demonstrating that features like space layout, lighting, and acoustics can shape users\u0026rsquo; feelings and actions (Vischer, 2008). In educational settings, environmental comfort factors, ventilation, lighting, noise control, and air quality, have predictable effects on learning (Cheryan et al., 2014; Chi \u0026amp; Wylie, 2014). If these factors are poor (e.g., stuffy air, dim or glaring light, loud noise), learning is adversely affected, as students may experience fatigue, distraction or discomfort. Conversely, proper ventilation, adequate illumination, acoustic control, and clean air contribute to a healthy, focused learning experience (Cheryan et al., 2014; Barrett et al., 2015). For example, good ventilation ensures fresh air and thermal comfort, which supports students\u0026rsquo; concentration, while natural lighting has been linked to improved mood and academic performance (Barrett et al., 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial constructivism, on the other hand, emphasizes that learning is fundamentally a social process. Vygotsky\u0026rsquo;s (1978) theory describes knowledge construction as occurring first between people (interpersonally) and then within the individual (intrapersonally). In practical terms, students learn effectively through active discourse, collaboration, and shared experiences with peers and instructors (Chi \u0026amp; Wylie, 2014). A social constructivist view of learning spaces thus prioritizes design elements that facilitate interaction, group work, and community. Oldenburg\u0026rsquo;s concept of the \u003cem\u003ethird place\u003c/em\u003e, informal or semi-formal areas where students can meet, discuss, and engage outside of structured class time, has influenced the notion of social learning spaces (Matthews et al., 2011; Geister et al., 2025). These could be lounges, study pods, outdoor courtyards, or cafes on campus, which blend social and academic life. Research indicates that providing such spaces strengthens peer networks and enables mentorship, which in turn enhances learning outcomes (Matthews et al., 2011; Geister et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Design Principles for 21st Century Learning Spaces\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eModern pedagogical research outlines several key design principles to create effective learning environments. An adaptation by McGill University (2004) identified four overarching principles, interaction, flexibility, environment, and technology, which align well with user-centered design goals (Finkelstein et al., 2016). These principles can be summarized as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInteraction\u003c/b\u003e: Spaces should promote communication and collaboration. This involves movable furniture that can be reconfigured for group work, ample room for people to move around and interact, and acoustics engineered to accommodate both whole-group discussions and multiple small-group conversations simultaneously (Altaee \u0026amp; Al-kazzaz, 2024). For instance, providing multiple writing surfaces (whiteboards, screens) and ensuring all participants can hear each other in a classroom supports interaction (Altaee \u0026amp; Al-kazzaz, 2024). Importantly, informal interaction areas (e.g. seating niches just outside classrooms) allow learning conversations to continue beyond the lesson (Matthews et al., 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFlexibility\u003c/b\u003e: Given the rapidly evolving nature of curricula and technology, learning spaces must be adaptable. A single space may need to support a lecture, a hands-on demonstration, and group project work at different times. Designing for flexibility means using modular furniture, movable partitions, and multi-purpose layouts that can be easily reconfigured (Altaee \u0026amp; Al-kazzaz, 2024; BRANZ, 2016). Building guidelines emphasize creating open and connected spaces that can host concurrent activities, while also ensuring acoustic separation when needed (BRANZ, 2016; Altaee \u0026amp; Al-kazzaz, 2024). A flexible design balances openness with the ability to section off quiet vs. noisy activities (e.g. through sliding walls or scheduling) (BRANZ, 2016; Altaee \u0026amp; Al-kazzaz, 2024). In technical training institutes, flexibility might mean a lab that can expand into a classroom or a workshop that can accommodate different group sizes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEnvironment (Comfort and Well-being)\u003c/b\u003e: Beyond spatial layout, the ambient environment must support learners\u0026rsquo; physical well-being. This principle reiterates factors like thermal comfort, lighting quality, acoustics, and ergonomics. Comfortable seating, proper ventilation, access to daylight, and avoidance of noise distractions contribute to students feeling at ease and focused (Cheryan et al., 2014). Studies have found that good design boosts well-being by giving learners a sense of ownership and belonging in their space, which correlates with positive social interaction and academic attainment (Barrett et al., 2015; Geister et al., 2025). In vocational workshops, this also extends to safety considerations, clear layouts that prevent accidents, safety markings, and well-planned circulation routes are critical.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTechnology\u003c/b\u003e: With the rise of digital learning tools, technology integration is a cornerstone of contemporary educational design. Modern learning is increasingly facilitated through projectors, internet resources, and networked computers (Apagu \u0026amp; Wakili, 2015). An effective training space must have the infrastructure to support these tools: sufficient power outlets, high-speed internet connectivity, mounting points for audio-visual equipment, and lighting that can adjust for screen viewing (Apagu \u0026amp; Wakili, 2015; Finkelstein et al., 2016). Design guidelines recommend designing with viewing angles and sightlines in mind (so all students can see screens), providing multiple display surfaces, and ensuring consistent technological capabilities across all classrooms (Finkelstein et al., 2016). Moreover, futureproofing is important, the space should allow new technologies to be added later with minimal disruption (Finkelstein et al., 2016). In automotive training institutes, this could include simulation labs, diagnostic computer stations, or smart boards for interactive teaching.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese principles reflect a shift from traditional teacher-centered classrooms to learner-centered environments. Instead of rows of fixed seats and a singular focus on the blackboard, the trend is toward active learning spaces where students can collaborate, problem-solve, and engage directly with learning materials (obviously crucial in hands-on fields like automotive technology). The concept of \u003cem\u003ebuilt pedagogy\u003c/em\u003e encapsulates this idea: the design of space itself can shape how teaching and learning occur (Monahan, 2002). If a workshop is cramped and poorly lit, instructors might stick to theory instead of demonstrations; if a classroom has no provision for group work, students miss out on peer learning opportunities. Thus, aligning facility design with pedagogical goals is paramount. As Oblinger (2006) argues, space can be an agent for change in education, reinforcing or hindering new teaching methods. For vocational institutes aiming to produce industry-ready graduates, spaces must be designed to support practical, project-based learning and teamwork.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Facilities for Automotive Skill Training\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAutomotive training institutes typically require a mix of specialized and general facilities. Based on industry and educational standards (NADDC; Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s technical education curricula), key facilities include: classrooms for theoretical instruction, workshops/laboratories for practical training (e.g. engine repair bays, electrical/electronics labs, bodywork and spray painting booths), ICT rooms for computer-based learning (such as automotive diagnostics software), and supportive amenities like libraries/resource centers and conference rooms. Ezeama et al. (2016) found that capacity building for motor vehicle mechanics now demands familiarity with auto diagnostic (scan tool) technology, implying that training centers must provide modern tools and ICT facilities to remain relevant. Moreover, Apagu and Wakili (2015) highlighted that many technical colleges in Nigeria lack adequate ICT infrastructure for teaching, which can hamper the instruction of mechatronics and modern automotive electronics. This gap reinforces the need for design that intentionally includes technology-rich spaces.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother consideration is zoning and adjacency of spaces within an institute. As noise and safety are concerns in automotive workshops, noisy practical areas (machine shops, welding zones) should be acoustically separated from quiet study areas (BRANZ, 2016; Altaee \u0026amp; Al-kazzaz, 2024). At the same time, easy access between classrooms and workshops is beneficial so that theoretical lessons can be immediately applied or demonstrated practically. A \u0026ldquo;demonstration classroom\u0026rdquo; adjoining a workshop, for instance, allows an instructor to move between lecture and hands-on demonstration with minimal disruption, an idea aligned with UCD by reducing barriers between different learning modes. Social amenities like a cafeteria, outdoor courtyard or student common room can foster informal learning and peer support during breaks, which is particularly valuable in intensive technical programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the literature suggests that an optimal automobile training institute would blend comfortable, well-equipped physical conditions (good air, light, acoustics, safety) with flexible, interactive spaces (movable furniture, breakout areas) and integrated technology. Achieving this through user-centered design can lead to environments where students are more engaged, instructors can employ varied teaching methods, and ultimately, trainees acquire skills more effectively and confidently. The following sections will describe how these concepts manifest (or not) in the case study institutes and what lessons can be drawn for future design improvements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research adopted a qualitative multiple-case study approach to investigate learning environment design in three automobile training institutes. A case study method was appropriate given the aim to explore contemporary phenomena (user-centered learning spaces) within real-life contexts (existing institutes) and to capture rich detail about each setting (Yin, 2014). The case studies selected were:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePeugeot Automobile Nigeria (PAN) Learning Centre, Kaduna\u003c/b\u003e: a formal automotive training center operated in partnership with an automobile manufacturer.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eIndustrial Skills Training Centre (ISTC), Kano\u003c/b\u003e: a government-established technical training center under Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s Industrial Training Fund.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDepartment of Automotive Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria\u003c/b\u003e: an academic department within a university setting offering automotive engineering education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese sites were chosen based on their relevance (each provides automobile technical training), geographic proximity in North-West Nigeria, and variation in institutional type (private vs. public vs. academic), allowing for comparative insights (cf. Yin, 2014). All three cases were studied using the same instruments to enable cross-case analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe employed two main methods: a structured questionnaire survey and a visual survey with a checklist. The questionnaire was self-administered to the primary users of each facility, namely students/trainees and instructors. It consisted of closed-ended questions divided into four sections (Creswell \u0026amp; Plano Clark, 2018; Yin, 2014):\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1.1 \u003cb\u003eSection 1\u003c/b\u003e: Respondent profile (background, experience), to contextualize responses.\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSection \u003cspan refid=\"Sec2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e: Users\u0026rsquo; experiential knowledge of the building, capturing how they perceive the current learning environment (comfort, usability, etc.).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSection \u003cspan refid=\"Sec6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e: Users\u0026rsquo; requirements and perceptions of how the design and facilities influence their learning and skill acquisition (questions on specific features of the built environment, e.g. ventilation, furniture layout, availability of equipment, and their impact on learning).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1.4 Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec11\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e: Additional comments (open-ended) for any information not covered in previous sections.\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost questions in Sections \u003cspan refid=\"Sec2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Sec6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e used a 5-point Likert scale for respondents to rate the influence or importance of various features. For example, trainees were asked to rate how strongly certain social learning space features (like group discussion areas or hands-on training equipment) affected their learning and competence development. Instructors similarly rated which design aspects they found most critical for teaching effectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcurrently, a visual survey and checklist assessment was conducted by the researcher at each site. The visual survey involved systematic observation and documentation of the facilities: noting the layout of spaces, furniture arrangements, presence of flexible elements, floor and wall materials, spatial volumes, lighting sources, ventilation methods, etc. Photographs, sketches, and written notes were collected to create an inventory of the physical environment features relevant to user-centered design. Based on these observations and the literature-derived design variables, a checklist was used to evaluate the extent to which user-centered design factors were reflected in each institute. The checklist items corresponded to the variables identified in the theoretical framework (environmental factors like ventilation, lighting, acoustic zoning; and social factors like interaction, flexibility, technology, etc.). Each item was rated on a scale (as observed by the researcher) from 1 to 4, where 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not present, 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;low, 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;moderate, and 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;high level of implementation. For instance, if a classroom had plentiful windows and fans, ventilation might be rated 4 (high), whereas if no informal collaboration area existed, that item might be 1 (absent).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing multiple instruments allowed for triangulation: the questionnaire captured the users\u0026rsquo; perspective on the facility\u0026rsquo;s effectiveness, while the checklist provided an objective audit of the physical environment. A pilot study was initially carried out at a mechatronics department in ABU Zaria to test and refine these instruments, ensuring the questions were clear and the checklist metrics were appropriate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study employed both descriptive and simple quantitative analysis techniques. Qualitative descriptions of each case\u0026rsquo;s context and design were written, and quantitative data from questionnaires and checklists were summarized using basic statistics (frequencies, mean scores, and rankings). Specifically, for each case, the checklist ratings were averaged to compute a mean score for each design factor (e.g., the mean rating for \u0026ldquo;Ventilation\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;Flexibility\u0026rdquo; in that institute). These mean values serve as indicators of how well the institute meets that particular user-centered design criterion from the researcher\u0026rsquo;s assessment. Similarly, questionnaire Likert responses (e.g., perceived importance of features) were aggregated (with mean or relative importance indices) to gauge which features users considered most significant for their learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results were then presented in tables and charts for clarity. For example, in each case study, tables show the checklist assessment of various factors, and bar charts illustrate the level of implementation of design variables (with higher mean values indicating better fulfillment of that factor). Comparative analysis was performed by examining patterns across the three cases: common strengths or deficiencies and differences possibly attributable to the institute type or design. This method allowed the research question, \u0026ldquo;What facilities and user-centered design factors can facilitate skill acquisition in automobile training institutes?\u0026rdquo;, to be answered through evidence-based insights from real examples.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is important to note that the sample sizes in each case were relatively modest (given the niche context of each training center), and the findings are not meant to be generalizable to all institutes universally. Rather, the goal is an in-depth understanding of each case and an analytical generalization to concepts and design principles (as per case study methodology; see Yin, 2014; Johansson, 2003). In the next section, we present the results from each case study, followed by an integrated discussion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Case Study 1: Peugeot Automobile Nigeria (PAN) Learning Centre, Kaduna\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e4.1.1 Background and Facilities\u003c/b\u003e: The PAN Learning Centre in Kaduna is an automotive training facility affiliated with Peugeot Automobile Nigeria, originally established as part of the country\u0026rsquo;s drive for local capacity building in vehicle assembly and maintenance. It is one of the well-known formal training centers for auto-technicians in northwestern Nigeria (Effiong et al., 2023). The center boasts a faculty of specialists across automotive subfields, Auto-Mechatronics, Auto-Mechanical, Auto-Spray Painting, Auto-Panel Beating \u0026amp; Welding, as well as a Driving School and ICT training. In terms of physical layout, the site is a relatively flat plot in an industrial estate, sharing a boundary with the Peugeot assembly plant. The design features a straightforward, compact layout with a main learning building and various auxiliary structures. A single main gate leads into the premises, splitting into an access road toward the administrative/learning block and another toward practical areas (like a car wash and service bay).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main facility is surrounded by relevant training amenities: a vehicle preparation bay (for parking and prepping vehicles), storage rooms, a vehicle service area (workshop), a car spray booth, and an outdoor sit-out area. Within the main building, spaces are organized by function and noise level. As described in the study, the interior is zoned into three sections: an administrative section (housing the reception, offices for instructors and the director, a boardroom, library, etc.), a learning section (classrooms including an executive classroom and ICT classrooms, plus conveniences), and a workshop/practical section comprising various specialized workshops (e.g., automotive mechatronics, electronics, mechanics, panel beating \u0026amp; welding, and paint booth). The administrative section is separated by walls and a corridor from the noisy workshop areas, though some sound leakage was noted due to open windows and doors. The learning section (classrooms) is adjacent to but partially buffered from the workshops by a storage area and a change room. This layout reflects an attempt to balance proximity (for easy movement between theory and practice) with separation (for noise control and safety).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.1.2 User-Centered Design Elements\u003c/b\u003e: In the PAN Centre, several user-centered design strengths and weaknesses were observed:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEnvironmental Comfort\u003c/b\u003e: Classrooms and workshops at PAN were generally well-ventilated and well-lit. Large windows, ceiling fans, and high ceilings in classrooms provided good airflow and natural lighting, which students and instructors appreciated for physical comfort. On the checklist, \u0026ldquo;Ventilation\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Lighting\u0026rdquo; both scored high (mean\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;3.5 out of 4), aligning with the survey responses where over 80% of users rated these factors as satisfactory or excellent for learning. This confirms literature suggesting that adequate ventilation and lighting support concentration and well-being (Cheryan et al., 2014; Barrett et al., 2015). Temperature control, however, was a concern; air conditioning was limited to the executive classroom and offices; other spaces relied on fans and ventilation only. During hotter months, this was noted to cause discomfort.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSpatial Layout and Flexibility\u003c/b\u003e: The workshops are sizable rooms with open floor plans, allowing reconfiguration of workstations and movement of vehicles/equipment. This openness scored moderately on flexibility (mean\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;3.0). For instance, the Auto-Mechatronics workshop had movable worktables and tool racks on wheels, so the space could be rearranged for different projects. However, classrooms were traditional, with fixed desk-chair units in rows, which limited flexibility for group work. Instructors commented that they sometimes moved classes into the workshop areas or outdoors for group tasks because the classrooms could not be easily reconfigured. There were no movable partitions or multi-use breakout rooms in the design; each room had a fixed purpose, which is a shortcoming compared to best practices (Altaee \u0026amp; Al-kazzaz, 2024). The PAN Centre\u0026rsquo;s layout allowed fairly quick transitions between theory and practice sessions, as the distance between the classroom and the workshop was short.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSocial Learning Spaces\u003c/b\u003e: A notable gap was the lack of informal collaboration spaces. Apart from a few benches under a tree (an improvised outdoor student hangout) and the small library, there were no lounges or dedicated discussion areas. Students indicated in the survey that they desired a common room or study area to discuss problems or wait between sessions. The absence of such \u0026ldquo;third spaces\u0026rdquo; (Matthews et al., 2011) likely limits peer interaction outside formal classes. This was reflected in low satisfaction scores related to social space provision (mean\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;1.5 on the checklist for \u0026ldquo;Informal interaction areas\u0026rdquo;). Management noted plans to convert an underused store into a student common room, highlighting awareness of this need.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTechnology Integration\u003c/b\u003e: PAN had a functional ICT laboratory with about 20 computers where trainees learn automotive diagnostics software and other IT skills. Additionally, some classrooms had overhead projectors. The availability of modern training equipment such as engine analyzers and auto-scan tools was a strong point (users rated \u0026ldquo;Equipment availability\u0026rdquo; high, mean\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;3.7). However, connectivity was an issue: the internet was described as slow and not reliably accessible to students. Power outlets were few in classrooms, limiting the use of personal laptops. On the checklist, \u0026ldquo;Technology infrastructure\u0026rdquo; rated around 2.5, indicating a moderate presence (some support for tech, but room for improvement). This aligns with Apagu and Wakili\u0026rsquo;s (2015) findings that technical colleges often have limited ICT utilization despite some facilities being present.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSafety and Ergonomics\u003c/b\u003e: Safety measures at PAN included marked pathways in workshops, fire extinguishers, and mandatory coveralls and boots for students in practical sessions. These contributed to a sense of safety (survey respondents largely agreed the institute was safe). Nonetheless, some ergonomic issues were observed: old metal stools in the workshop were uncomfortable for long use, and a few workbenches were at non-adjustable heights, causing taller students to stoop. Improving ergonomic furniture could enhance comfort and reduce fatigue during hands-on tasks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, PAN Learning Centre demonstrated strengths in providing a comfortable and well-equipped environment, particularly for practical training, but it lacked flexibility in classroom spaces and dedicated social learning areas. The design partly embodies UCD principles (e.g., good ventilation and tool provision show responsiveness to user needs), but could be more adaptive and socially supportive.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Case Study 2: Industrial Skills Training Centre (ISTC), Kano\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e4.2.1 Background and Facilities\u003c/b\u003e: The ISTC in Kano is a government-run technical training center aimed at vocational skills development in various trades, including automobile mechanics. It serves a large urban population of youth and is intended to support initiatives like the NADDC\u0026rsquo;s automotive training programs. The campus is larger and more dispersed than PAN\u0026rsquo;s, consisting of multiple one-story workshop buildings arranged around a central green. Facilities include separate workshops for Engine Mechanics, Auto Electrical, and Bodywork, each with adjacent classrooms; a dedicated computer lab building; an administrative block; and common amenities like a cafeteria and auditorium.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe spatial layout reflects a campus style: buildings are connected by walkways, and related departments are clustered (the auto workshops and classrooms are near each other, while other trades have their own sections). This layout provides ample space for expansion but means walking distances between classes and workshops are greater than at PAN. The site is relatively flat but with some open lawn areas that students use for informal gatherings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2.2 User-Centered Design Elements:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEnvironmental Comfort\u003c/b\u003e: ISTC\u0026rsquo;s buildings were older and generally less well-maintained than PAN\u0026rsquo;s. Some classrooms had broken louver windows and non-functioning ceiling fans at the time of study, leading to stuffy conditions. Ventilation in workshops was adequate through large doors and windows, but the enclosed classrooms often became hot (a common complaint in surveys). Lighting varied; some spaces relied on dim fluorescents and had few windows. The checklist scores for ventilation and lighting were lower here (around 2.0\u0026ndash;2.5) compared to PAN. Students\u0026rsquo; performance and comfort likely suffer in these suboptimal conditions, echoing the importance of facility upkeep (Bello \u0026amp; Ibrahim, 2022). Recognizing this, ISTC management had requested funds for facility refurbishment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSpatial Flexibility\u003c/b\u003e: The auto workshops at ISTC were spacious and could accommodate vehicles similar to PAN. However, workshop interiors were rigidly arranged with built-in workbenches that were not easily movable. Classrooms used heavy wooden desks, limiting reconfiguration. As a positive, one large room in the auto section was designated as a multi-purpose hall; it was occasionally used for group training or as an exhibition space for student projects. This hall was essentially an open area with stackable chairs, an element of flexibility in design. Overall, flexibility was moderate (mean\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;2.5). The potential for adaptive reuse of spaces exists (the campus has a few underutilized rooms), but currently, infrastructure does not support quick changes (no modular partitions, few mobile furnishings).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSocial Learning Spaces\u003c/b\u003e: ISTC had an edge in providing a few social spaces. There was a shaded outdoor canteen area where students often congregated, and a student common room attached to the library that had lounge chairs and a bulletin board. These spaces were well-utilized; survey respondents rated the availability of break areas slightly higher than PAN\u0026rsquo;s (mean\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;2.0, still low in absolute terms but higher than 1.x at PAN). The presence of a campus-like environment (grassy lawns, outdoor seating) inadvertently created informal meeting spots. This supports the idea that not only indoor spaces, but campus landscapes, can contribute to social learning opportunities (Matthews et al., 2011). Nonetheless, structured collaboration zones (like design studios or project rooms) were missing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTechnology Integration\u003c/b\u003e: The ISTC\u0026rsquo;s dedicated computer lab was a strength: it had about 30 PCs and was air-conditioned. It served all trades, though, meaning scheduling conflicts could arise. Unlike PAN, few classrooms had projection capability; instructors mostly taught on chalkboards. On a positive note, ISTC had some modern training equipment supplied by government programs (e.g., a fuel injection simulator, an automotive oscilloscope). Technology integration was thus a mix: equipment availability was decent, but everyday teaching tech was lacking. The checklist score for technology was around 2.0. Instructors noted that with better AV equipment in classrooms, they could utilize multimedia resources for teaching theory more effectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSafety and Layout\u003c/b\u003e: The dispersal of buildings meant that dangerous practical activities were inherently isolated from quiet areas, which is good for noise and risk management. Workshops had marked safety zones and clear signage (e.g., \u0026ldquo;Wear PPE beyond this point\u0026rdquo;). One issue observed was students crossing active workshop floors as a shortcut, indicating that circulation paths could be better defined to separate pedestrians from work areas. Ergonomically, ISTC workshops had an advantage of space, reducing crowding around equipment, which can improve safety and comfort.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, ISTC offered a more campus-oriented experience with some amenities, but many of its learning spaces were not up to modern standards of comfort or technological support. The user-centered design approach would suggest renovations focusing on ventilation, lighting, and classroom technology, as well as creating a few flexible, collaborative indoor areas to complement the outdoor social spots the students already use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Case Study 3: Department of Automotive Engineering, ABU Zaria\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e4.3.1 Background and Facilities\u003c/b\u003e: Unlike PAN and ISTC, which are dedicated training centers, ABU Zaria\u0026rsquo;s Automotive Engineering Department is part of a higher education institution. It operates within the Faculty of Engineering and has a dual mandate of teaching and research. Facilities include traditional lecture halls (shared with other departments), specialized labs (e.g., an Engine Lab, Materials Lab), a workshop garage for student projects, faculty offices, and access to central university resources like the main library and e-learning center.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe department is housed in an older concrete building (circa 1970s) with two floors of classrooms and offices, plus a separate hangar-style workshop nearby. The layout was not purpose-built for automotive training specifically, meaning some labs are repurposed spaces originally designed for general engineering use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3.2 User-Centered Design Elements:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEnvironmental Comfort\u003c/b\u003e: The university setting meant large lecture halls with high occupancy. Many of these halls were reported by students as uncomfortable, overcrowded at times, with insufficient fans. In our survey, automotive students noted that general courses held in big lecture theatres were the most difficult environment (hot, noisy, and hard to engage). Smaller classrooms within the department building were better but still relied on natural ventilation. On the checklist, ventilation and temperature control scored low (~\u0026thinsp;1.8) here, reflecting that these legacy buildings do not perform well in tropical climate without HVAC. Lighting was adequate (large windows in labs provided daylight, and power supply was more stable on campus allowing use of electrical lights). The impact of these conditions is consistent with prior research: poor physical comfort can distract and impede learning (Cheryan et al., 2014). Many students simply tolerated these issues, perhaps perceiving them as the norm in a public university.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSpatial Flexibility\u003c/b\u003e: The automotive program at ABU faced rigidity in space usage because of its integration in a larger institution. Classrooms are scheduled and fixed; furniture is bench-type or fixed seating in halls, making group activities challenging inside. In response, faculty often use the workshop or outdoor spaces for group design exercises or practical demonstrations (similar workaround as at PAN). One notable flexible space is the project workshop: it\u0026rsquo;s essentially a garage where final-year students build their project cars or engines. This garage has movable tool cabinets and worktables, embodying a student-centered maker space. However, it is small and only a few students can use it at a time. Flexibility scored lowest here (~\u0026thinsp;1.5) because most spaces are static and heavily scheduled. The lack of dedicated modern learning studios or adaptable classrooms indicates a gap between current infrastructure and pedagogical needs for collaborative, project-based learning (Monahan, 2002).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial and Study Spaces\u003c/b\u003e: Being on a university campus, automotive students have access to general facilities like the engineering library, cafeterias, and courtyards. Thus, while the department itself didn\u0026rsquo;t provide lounges, students could find informal learning spaces around (the library was a common spot for group study). The sense of community might be fostered more by these university-wide spaces than by anything within the department building. For instance, a cluster of picnic tables under trees outside the engineering block was a popular gathering space for discussion. This underscores how broader campus design contributes to student experience. In our user feedback, many students expressed a wish for a dedicated departmental common room or design studio where they could congregate and work on assignments together.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTechnology Integration\u003c/b\u003e: The ABU department had limited departmental-level technology provisions; instead, they relied on central resources. There was a smart classroom in the faculty (with projector, etc.) used occasionally for seminars. Most lectures were done on chalkboard. Lab equipment existed (some dated, some newer donations), but computer-based learning was minimal in regular classes. Students often had to do simulations or CAD assignments in the university\u0026rsquo;s general computer labs, not within the department. This separation sometimes hindered immediate application of theory to practice (e.g., doing an engine simulation requires booking time in another building). Technology integration in daily teaching was minimal (score\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;1.5). On the plus side, being a university, there were more opportunities for internet access and students often had personal laptops to fill the gap.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSafety and Organization\u003c/b\u003e: As an academic department, safety protocols were less formal than at vocational institutes. For example, the enforcement of wearing protective gear in labs was inconsistent (some students in workshops only wore safety glasses at their discretion). Also, the workshop being small led to clutter when multiple projects were ongoing. From a UCD perspective, organizing space to safely accommodate student work (like providing ample storage and clear workstations) would improve both safety and learning focus.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the ABU Automotive Engineering case highlights the differences in user experience between a higher education program and dedicated technical training centers. While students benefit from the rich campus environment and resources, the learning spaces for hands-on training were less intentionally designed for user needs and more a product of historical circumstance. Improvements could include retrofitting classrooms with modern instructional technology, creating a dedicated collaborative design lab for students, and upgrading ventilation in lecture spaces, all interventions that align with user-centered design priorities in learning environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Comparative Discussion:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross the three case studies, common themes emerge regarding user-centered design (UCD) in automotive training environments:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePhysical Comfort is Foundational\u003c/b\u003e: All three institutes demonstrated that basics like ventilation, lighting, and space are not to be taken for granted. PAN had a clear advantage in comfort, correlating with higher user satisfaction and presumably better focus in class. ISTC and ABU\u0026rsquo;s weaker comfort conditions were among the first complaints by users. This confirms that addressing physical comfort is a fundamental UCD step since it directly impacts learners\u0026rsquo; well-being and ability to concentrate (Barrett et al., 2015; Geister et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFlexible \u0026amp; Interactive Spaces Are Lacking\u003c/b\u003e: None of the case studies had truly flexible, modern classroom designs or plentiful collaborative spaces. This gap between current facilities and contemporary design principles was evident. Traditional layouts still dominate, which may hinder interactive learning methods. However, we saw adaptive behavior: instructors and students repurposing workshops or outdoor areas to facilitate group work. It indicates a demand for flexibility that the design has not met. Future designs should incorporate multi-use rooms or movable furniture to cater to this need.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTechnology Integration Needs Improvement\u003c/b\u003e: While specialized equipment (like diagnostic tools) was present, particularly at PAN and ISTC, the integration of everyday learning technology (projectors, e-learning, etc.) was limited. Enhancing this would support blended learning and allow more engaging delivery of theoretical content (Apagu \u0026amp; Wakili, 2015). Ensuring consistent power supply and internet connectivity is part of this integration in the Nigerian context, as technological tools are only as good as the infrastructure supporting them.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSocial Learning Spaces Add Value\u003c/b\u003e: Institutes that provided even basic social spaces (ISTC with its canteen, ABU with campus spots) inadvertently supported peer interaction and informal learning. PAN\u0026rsquo;s lack thereof was noted as a weakness. This aligns with the literature on \u0026ldquo;third places\u0026rdquo; where much tacit learning can occur (Matthews et al., 2011). Incorporating lounges, discussion nooks, or even just comfortable seating areas into future facilities would likely enhance the learning experience by promoting collaboration and mentorship among trainees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSafety and Ergonomics Should Be Designed In\u003c/b\u003e: Especially in workshops, user-centered design means designing for safe, efficient workflows. PAN and ISTC\u0026rsquo;s measures (safety zones, ample space) were good practices. Some issues like the ergonomic mismatch of furniture (too high/low workbenches, uncomfortable seating) show that even when macro-design is sound, micro-design details matter for user comfort and productivity. Engaging with instructors and students during the design phase could catch such issues (e.g., specifying adjustable-height workstations).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn essence, these case studies highlight that many existing training institutes in Nigeria were built to older standards and are only partially aligned with current pedagogical needs. The user-centered design approach provides a framework to modernize these facilities by focusing on the actual activities and preferences of the users (the students and teachers). Table\u0026nbsp;1 (not included here) would summarize how each case performs on various UCD criteria derived from the checklist, which can guide priorities for upgrades.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5 Conclusion and Recommendations","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur multi-case analysis reveals that while Nigerian automobile training institutes provide the basic infrastructure for skill acquisition, there are significant opportunities to enhance learning outcomes through user-centered design improvements. Key findings include:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eProviding \u003cem\u003ecomfortable environmental conditions\u003c/em\u003e (good ventilation, lighting, and thermal comfort) is crucial and currently uneven across institutes. Upgrading these will directly improve student concentration and well-being.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntroducing \u003cem\u003eflexible, interactive learning spaces\u003c/em\u003e, such as reconfigurable classrooms or project studios, would better support modern pedagogies emphasizing collaboration and hands-on learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnhancing \u003cem\u003etechnology integration\u003c/em\u003e in everyday teaching (through classroom A/V equipment, reliable internet, and plentiful power access) is needed to complement the specialized training tools. This enables blended learning and exposure to digital resources aligned with industry trends.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncorporating \u003cem\u003einformal social learning areas\u003c/em\u003e can foster peer-to-peer learning and mentorship, elements shown to enrich vocational education by strengthening professional communities of practice among students (Geister et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnsuring \u003cem\u003eworkshop layouts and furnishings are ergonomic and safe\u003c/em\u003e reflects a user-centered approach that values students\u0026rsquo; health and efficiency, ultimately leading to better skill mastery and fewer accidents.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo implement these improvements, a concerted effort by policymakers, institutional administrators, and design professionals is required. \u003cem\u003eParticipatory design\u003c/em\u003e methods are recommended, whereby students and instructors contribute feedback in the planning of new facilities or renovations. For instance, running focus groups with trainees about their daily challenges in existing classrooms can inform targeted interventions (like adding adjustable fans or creating break-out corners within large labs). Similarly, instructors can advise on optimal adjacencies (e.g., having a demonstration area directly connected to workshops).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a policy perspective, bodies like the NADDC should incorporate \u003cem\u003efacility standards\u003c/em\u003e into their automotive training programs, ensuring that investments are not solely in equipment but also in the spaces housing that equipment. Standards could specify minimum requirements for ventilation, floor space per student in workshops, ICT infrastructure, and so on, grounded in educational research and benchmarks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, user-centered design offers a pathway to revitalizing technical education infrastructure in Nigeria. By aligning training facilities with the needs and activities of learners and teachers, we can create environments that not only impart technical skills more effectively but also inspire and motivate students. As one study succinctly noted, the design of the learning environment affects how people feel and their ability to learn, their commitment to the field, and even the creation of new knowledge (Barrett et al., 2015; Geister et al., 2025). The experiences from PAN, ISTC, and ABU exemplify both the challenges and the potential solutions in this domain. Investing in user-centered facility design is an investment in the quality of future automotive professionals. A well-designed institute can serve as a \u0026ldquo;built pedagogy,\u0026rdquo; teaching students not just through curriculum but through the very experience of using the space, fostering qualities of innovation, teamwork, and problem-solving that are essential for their careers. The findings of this article echo that sentiment and provide a roadmap for architects and educators to collaborate in creating next-generation learning environments for technical education in Nigeria and beyond.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthics Approval Statement This study involved minimal-risk research using questionnaires and observational assessments with adult participants (students and instructors). Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant departmental research oversight committee at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. The study was conducted in accordance with institutional and international ethical standards for research involving human participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipant Consent Statement Informed consent was obtained from all participants before they participated in the study. Participation was voluntary, and respondents were informed of the purpose of the research, their right to withdraw at any time, and the anonymity of their responses. No personally identifiable information was collected.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll authors listed on this manuscript made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, and the development of the work. All authors were involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content. Each author approved the final version to be published and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that any questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the study are appropriately investigated and resolved.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkinrata, O. A. (2021). \u003cem\u003eExploring user-centered design approach for enhancing learning in the design of automobile training institute, Kano, Nigeria\u003c/em\u003e (Master\u0026rsquo;s thesis, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAltaee, R. Z., \u0026amp; Al-kazzaz, D. A. (2024). Design guidelines for active learning: A case study of contemporary schools. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 19\u003c/em\u003e(12), 4635\u0026ndash;4652.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAltay, B. (2014). User-centered design through learner-centered instruction. \u003cem\u003eTeaching in Higher Education, 19\u003c/em\u003e(2), 138\u0026ndash;155.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eApagu, V. V., \u0026amp; Wakili, B. A. (2015). Availability and utilization of ICT facilities for teaching and learning of vocational and technical education in Yobe State technical colleges. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Engineering Research, 4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 113\u0026ndash;118.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., \u0026amp; Barrett, L. (2015). The impact of classroom design on pupils\u0026rsquo; learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. \u003cem\u003eBuilding and Environment, 89\u003c/em\u003e, 118\u0026ndash;133.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBello, M., \u0026amp; Ibrahim, J. (2022). Vocational training in Nigeria: Issues, challenges, and prospects. \u003cem\u003eNigerian Journal of Educational Administration, 31\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45\u0026ndash;67.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChi, M. T. H., \u0026amp; Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychologist, 49\u003c/em\u003e(4), 219\u0026ndash;243.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Plaut, V. C., \u0026amp; Meltzoff, A. N. (2014). Designing classrooms to maximize student achievement. \u003cem\u003ePolicy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 4\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCleveland, B., \u0026amp; Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. \u003cem\u003eLearning Environments Research, 17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell, J. W., \u0026amp; Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). \u003cem\u003eDesigning and conducting mixed methods research\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEjikpese, V. A., \u0026amp; Effiom, V. N. (2024). The future of vocational training in Nigeria: Addressing skill gaps for economic development. \u003cem\u003eMulti-Disciplinary Journal of Research and Development Perspectives, 13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 127\u0026ndash;146.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEffiong, A., Shehu, I. Y., Yalams, S. M., \u0026amp; Ahmed, A. (2023). Assessment of National Automotive Design and Development Council training programmes in informal sector automobile mechanics in Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Education and Humanities, 3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 141\u0026ndash;151.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFinkelstein, A., Ferris, J., Weston, C., \u0026amp; Winer, L. (2016). Research-informed principles for (re)designing teaching and learning spaces. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Learning Spaces, 5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 26\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrank, J. N., Oluka, I., \u0026amp; Mbah, C. N. (2023). The effects of auto technicians\u0026rsquo; activities on frequent breakdowns of vehicles in Nigeria: A case study of Owerri Metropolis, Imo State. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 13\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1044\u0026ndash;1068.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeister, S., Keser Aschenberger, F., \u0026Ccedil;etinkaya-Yıldız, E., \u0026amp; Apaydın, S. (2025). The role of informal learning spaces in promoting social integration and wellbeing in higher education. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Education, 10\u003c/em\u003e, 1637874.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoyol, A., \u0026amp; Sunday, G. (2020). Bridging the skills gap of graduates of technical colleges and the industries in Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Vocational and Technical Education Research, 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKalvelage, K., \u0026amp; Dorneich, M. (2014). A user-centered approach to user\u0026ndash;building interactions. In \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 27\u0026ndash;31).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKnight, C., \u0026amp; Haslam, S. A. (2010). The relative merits of lean, enriched, and empowered offices: An experimental examination of the impact of workspace management strategies on well-being and productivity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 158\u0026ndash;172.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatthews, K. E., Andrews, V., \u0026amp; Adams, P. (2011). Social learning spaces and student engagement. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education Research \u0026amp; Development, 30\u003c/em\u003e(2), 105\u0026ndash;120.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMonahan, T. (2002). Flexible space \u0026amp; built pedagogy: Emerging IT and new architectural forms. \u003cem\u003eInventio, 4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOblinger, D. G. (2006). Space as a change agent. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eLearning spaces\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1.1\u0026ndash;1.4). EDUCAUSE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVischer, J. C. (2008). Towards a user-centered theory of the built environment. \u003cem\u003eBuilding Research \u0026amp; Information, 36\u003c/em\u003e(3), 231\u0026ndash;240.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVygotsky, L. S. (1978). \u003cem\u003eMind in society: The development of higher psychological processes\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYin, R. K. (2014). \u003cem\u003eCase study research: Design and methods\u003c/em\u003e (5th ed.). Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"User-centered design, learning environments, vocational architecture, automobile training institutes, architectural performance","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8708242/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8708242/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eNigerian road transport relies heavily on automobiles, yet the technical skills for maintaining modern vehicles lag due to suboptimal training environments. This article examines how user-centered design of educational facilities can enhance learning in automobile training institutes. Drawing on case studies of Peugeot Automobile Nigeria (PAN) Learning Centre in Kaduna, Industrial Skills Training Centre (ISTC) in Kano, and the Automotive Engineering Department at Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) Zaria, we identify key facilities and design factors that facilitate effective skill acquisition. A qualitative case study approach was adopted, using structured questionnaires and checklists to gather data from students and instructors on the learning environment. Findings reveal that while basic infrastructure for physical comfort (ventilation, lighting, safety) is generally adequate, critical gaps exist in social learning spaces, spatial flexibility, and technology integration. Technology-enhanced learning tools, flexible multi-purpose workshops, and collaborative spaces were minimal in the institutes studied, reflected in low user satisfaction scores for those factors. In contrast, well-ventilated, well-lit classrooms and workshops were present, supporting learners\u0026rsquo; physical well-being. The study underscores that 21st-century automotive training requires not only modern equipment but also adaptive learning spaces that encourage interaction and hands-on practice. We conclude that incorporating user-centered design principles, ranging from ergonomic environmental features to spaces that support collaboration and emerging technologies, can substantially improve students\u0026rsquo; learning experience and skill proficiency. Recommendations are provided to guide the design of future automobile training centers in Nigeria, emphasizing an integrated approach to facility planning that aligns the physical environment with pedagogical needs.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"User-Centered Design for Skill Acquisition in Nigerian Automobile Training Institutes: Case Study Insights","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-30 17:54:25","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8708242/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5b476dd3-a664-4bed-8356-7650903b1907","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 30th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-16T01:23:49+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-30 17:54:25","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8708242","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8708242","identity":"rs-8708242","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}