نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه معماری، دانشکده‌ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

2 دانشیار، گروه معماری، دانشکده‌ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

3 استادیار، گروه معماری، دانشکده‌ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

4 دکتری برنامه درسی، شرکت ملی نفت ایران، تهران، ایران.

10.34785/J011.2023.004

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر قصد دارد به این پرسش پاسخ دهد که الزامات معماری برای تحقق «مدرسه به‌عنوان کانون محله» چیست؟ مطابق دیدگاه برخی از محققان، رویکرد بوم‌شناسی یادگیری و نیز سند تحول بنیادین آموزش‌وپرورش، معماری هر دوره محصول فلسفه تربیتی آن دوره است؛ بنابراین برای طراحی مدرسه باید از فلسفه‌ تربیتی آن شروع کرد که فیشر آن را پداگوژی روانی_ اجتماعی فضا می‌نامد. این پژوهش در چارچوب رویکرد کیفی از نوع اسنادی_ تحلیلی، با هدف کاربردی و با استفاده از رویکرد بوم‌شناسی یادگیری و برنامه‌ریزی به روش دورک به‌این‌صورت انجام گرفته که ابتدا سند تحول برای استخراج مأموریت، مبانی، اصول و اهداف مرتبط موردبررسی قرار گرفت. سپس داده‌های لازم از طریق سندکاوی و مصاحبه‌های نیمه‌ساختاریافته با اطلاع‌رسان‌ها اخذ گردید. اطلاع‌رسان‌ها شامل 23 نفر از معلمین بودند که به‌صورت هدفمند و با به‌کارگیری راهبرد نمونه‌گیری ملاک‌محور، گلوله برفی و با حداکثر تنوع برای تأمین مقبولیت داده‌ها، انتخاب گردیدند. به منظور تحلیل داده‌ها، از روش تحلیل محتوا و برای باورپذیری یافته‌ها، از راهبردهای چندسویه‌سازی و ممیزی همگنان بهره گرفته شد. به‌منظور تأمین معیار اعتمادپذیری، فرایند تحلیل داده‌ها تا حد ممکن توصیف شد. درنهایت فهرستی از الزامات معماری، برای تحقق مدرسه به‌عنوان کانون محله در سه موضوع اصلی و نُه مقوله شامل ویژگی محیط فیزیکی (عملکردی، انعطاف‌پذیری، تنوع و خوشایند بودن)، تأمین نیاز کاربر (فیزیولوژیکی، روانی و اجتماعی و مشارکت) و ویژگی‌های سازمانی (فرهنگی و همه‌جانبه‌‌نگری) ارائه گردید. الزامات معماری ارائه‌شده شباهت‌ها و تفاوت‌هایی با اسناد قبلی داشته که با توجه به منبع جمع‌آوری داده‌ها، به سه گروه مختص مصاحبه‌ها (ناشی از تأثیر فرهنگ و تمدن اسلامی _ ایرانی)، مختص اسناد قبلی (شامل نیازهای رده‌های بالاتر هرم مازلو) و مشترک (شامل نیازهای رده‌های پایین‌تر هرم مازلو) تقسیم گردیدند. مهم‌ترین ویژگی مدارس محله برای موفقیت، گسترش و تأمین همه‌جانبه عدالت بوده که برجسته‌ترین اصل آن تنوع و انعطاف‌پذیری در همه ابعاد آن ازجمله معماری است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Architectural requirements to the realization of the school as a neighborhood center Based on the Fundamental Reform Document of Education (FRDE)

نویسندگان [English]

  • mohammad taghizadeh kordi 1
  • Mahmoud Reza Saghafi 2
  • Mohsen Afshari 3
  • Saeid Safaei Movahhed 4

1 Department of architecture, Faculty of Architecture & Urban planning, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Department of architecture, Faculty of Architecture & Urban planning, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

3 Department of architecture, Faculty of Architecture & Urban planning, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

4 Curriculum Studies, National Iranian Oil Company, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Highlights
- Neighborhood (community) schools cannot be standardized. Their only common philosophy is to respond to the needs of their neighborhoods (communities).
- The participation of the educational ecosystem components, including experts, users, and stakeholders, will make the plan successful.
- The most important action in the design of quality schools is to meet the users’ needs.
- A school should function as the educational center of the neighborhood and a place to gain educational experiences.
- A successful neighborhood (community) school should hold the original values of respect, diversity, equality, and justice in its architecture.
 
Introduction
In the current educational system, the physical environment is considered less seriously as an educational puzzle. The school, as a component of the neighborhood, will have the possibility of accepting different roles therein and interacting with it due to its potential capacities. In the current educational system of Iran, the school has no interaction with the neighborhood, and these capitals remain unused, while such interaction was established in the traditional architecture of Iran, where the school space was not limited to lessons and discussions but used by the residents of every city and neighborhood on special days and occasions. Since communities are different, their schools are all different; their only common philosophy is to respond to these differences, which are identified with the participation of users and stakeholders. Therefore, the research conducted in other countries is not applicable to Iran. Thus, the present study intends to answer the following main question: what are the architectural requirements for realization of the school as the center of the neighborhood?
Theoretical Framework
This research is guided by the ecological approach, according to which students’ success is influenced by an interactive process between them and their surroundings on the one hand, and all the components of an ecosystem act as a single whole on the other, where a change in one component can have serious, unpredictable effects on others. In the planning of community schools, therefore, attention should be paid to larger, smaller, and external systems firstly; secondly, one should move from the whole to the parts in order to coordinate them with one another, according to Duerk’s method.
The most desirable learning environments will be created with the participation of the educational system hardware (architecture) and software (philosophy of education, learning theories, etc.). To design the architecture of an educational space, therefore, one should start from the educational philosophy, because every educational philosophy considers the physical educational environment in a special way, and the architecture is the result of that philosophy’s view.
Although the basic purpose of current school facilities is to provide the students of the community with a sound educational program, the objective of education is not achieved until the school facilities are provided to serve the overall community. Because learning can also happen beyond the school walls, most countries welcome the interaction between the school and the community, so that a learning ecosystem is created, through which all the people and organizations that are involved in the students’ learning can also participate in the school activities. For this reason, the community school or the interaction between the school and the community is explicitly or implicitly mentioned in various parts of the Fundamental Reform Document of Education (FRDE), where it has been stated that the school should function as the educational center of the neighborhood and a place to gain educational experiences.
Methodology
According to some studies, the learning ecology approach, and the FRDE, the architecture of each period is the product of the philosophy of that period; to design a school, therefore, one must start from its educational philosophy, which is essentially concerned with aligninment of pedagogy and space, and can be referred to as the psychosocial pedagogy of space.
This applied research was conducted in the framework of a qualitative approach of document analysis, also using the ecological approach of learning and planning with Durek’s method. Thus, FRDE was first examined to extract the mission, foundations, principles, and relevant goals. The necessary data were then collected through document mining and informal semi-structured interviews with the informants. The informants consisted of 23 teachers who were purposefully selected using the criterion-based snowball sampling strategy with maximum variety to ensure data credibility. The content analysis method was used to analyze the data, and the triangulation and peer debriefing strategies were used to validate the findings. In order to ensure dependability, the data analysis process was described in detail.
Results and Discussion
 After the data were collected using the literature review and interviews, initial coding was performed on them, where 137 initial codes were identified. A number of these codes were removed and combined to reduce them to a final set of 32. Finally, the identified architectural requirements were divided into three themes and nine categories, including the characteristics of the physical environment (functionality, flexibility, diversity, and favorability), satisfaction of user needs (physical and physiological, psychological and social, and participation), and organizational characteristics (cultural and holistic views).
  Conclusion
Although the process adopted in this research (starting from the foundations and principles) is similar to that in the previous studies, there are similarities and differences between the presented and previous architectural requirements since FRDE, forming the foundation of this research, is similar to and different from other frameworks in different respects. According to the source of data collection, these requirements were divided into three groups: those stated only in interviews (due to the influence of the Islamic-Iranian culture and civilization on Iranian architecture), those available only in previous documents (including the needs at the higher levels of Maslow’s Pyramid), and those mentioned in both sources (including the needs at the lower levels of Maslow’s Pyramid). The final aim of school architecture, as the center of the neighborhood, should be to create a suitable physical setting for the realization of various activities to provide and expand justice in all aspects, the most important principle of which is diversity and flexibility in all its dimensions, including architecture.
Acknowledgment
This article has been extracted from the Ph. D. thesis entitled "Participatory architectural planning for community school (case study in the Andiseh New Town and selected area of Tehran)", written by the first author under the Supervision of the second and third authors and the advice of the fourth author in the Department of Architecture at the Art University of Isfahan. Also, the thesis as a research project has the financial and spiritual support of Civil company Andiseh New Town.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Neighborhood School
  • Neighborhood Education Center
  • Community School
  • Fundamental Reform Document
  • Architectural Planning
Afroozeh, L., & Saghafi, M. R. (2020). The Proposed Model of User Participation in Programming Process of the Community School (Case S‌tudy: Omolbanin Primary School at Mollasadra neighborhood in Isfahan). Hoviatshahr, 14(41), 5-16. [in Persian]
Attai, S. L., Reyes, J. C., Davis, J. L., York, J., Ranney, K., & Hyde, T. W. (2021). Investigating the impact of flexible furniture in the elementary classroom. Learning Environments Research, 24(2), 153-167.
Backhouse, S., Newton, C., Fisher, K., Cleveland, B., & Naccarella, L. (2019). Rethink: Interdisciplinary evaluation of academic workspaces. In 53rd International Conference of the Architectural Science Association 2019 (pp. 87-96).
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology.
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human development, 49(4), 193-224.
Bingler, S., Quinn, L., & Sullivan, K. (2003). Schools as centers of community: A citizen's guide for planning and design. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O'Mara, J., & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes.
Blank, M. J., Jacobson, R., & Melaville, A. (2012). Achieving Results through Community School Partnerships: How District and Community Leaders Are Building Effective, Sustainable Relationships. Center for American Progress.
Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the Difference: Research and Practice in Community Schools: ERIC.
Brkovic, M. (2013). Sustainable schools as the ‘third teacher': Creating a design framework for sustainable schools in Serbia, learning from practices in England, Germany, and Spain. University of Sheffield. 
Brukštutė, G. (2020). Physical classroom environment and pedagogy. Architecture and urban planing, 1-10.
Carvalho, L., Nicholson, T., Yeoman, P., & Thibaut, P. (2020). Space matters: Framing the New Zealand learning landscape. Learning Environments Research, 23(3), 307-329.
Carvalho, R. O. (2003). The development of a community-school partnership in a Brazilian elementary school: A case study.
Churchman, A. (2002). Environmental psychology and urban planning: Where can the twain meet. Handbook of environmental psychology, 191.
Clark, A. (2001). How to listen to very young children: The mosaic approach. Child Care in Practice, 7(4), 333-341.
Cleveland, B. W. (2011). Engaging spaces: Innovative learning environments, pedagogies and student engagement in the middle years of school. In LEaRN.
Coelho, C., Cordeiro, A., Alcoforado, L., & Moniz, G. C. (2022). Survey on Student School Spaces: An Inclusive Design Tool for a Better School. Buildings, 12(4), 392.
Council, N. R. (2015). Identifying and supporting productive STEM programs in out-of-school settings: National Academies Press.
Craissati, D., Banerjee, U. D., King, L., Lansdown, G., & Smith, A. (2007). A human rights based approach to education for all: UNICEF.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2016). Shaping school culture: John Wiley & Sons.
Do, M. (2015). Making Room for Change: Community School Space and Shifting the Educational Paradigm. Columbia University. 
Dryfoos, J. (2002). Partnering full-service community schools: Creating new institutions. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 393-399.
Dryfoos, J. (2005). Full‐service community schools: A strategy—not a program. New directions for youth development, 2005(107), 7-14.
Dryfoos, J., & Maguire, S. (2019). Inside full-service community schools: Simon and Schuster.
Dudek, M. (2007). Schools and kindergartens: A design manual: Walter de Gruyter.
Dudek, M. (2012). Architecture of schools: The new learning environments: Routledge.
Duerk, D. P. (1993). Architectural programming: Information management for design: Van Nostrand Reinhold New York.
Falk, N., & Carley, M. (2012). Sustainable urban neighbourhoods: Building communities that last. Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York, UK.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2015). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the socio-material: Routledge.
Fisher, K. (2004). Revoicing Classrooms: A Spatial Manifesto. In FORUM: for promoting 3-19 Comprehensive Education (Vol. 46, pp. 36-38): ERIC.
Fisher, K. (2005). Linking pedagogy and space: Planning principles for Victorian schools based on the principles of teaching and learning. Retrieved from Melbourne: http://www. eduweb. vic. gov. au/edulibrary/public/assetman/bf/Linking_Pedagogy_and_Space. pdf.
Fisher, K. (2016). The translational design of schools: An evidence-based approach to aligning pedagogy and learning environments: Springer.
Frelin, A., & Grannäs, J. (2022). Teachers’ pre-occupancy evaluation of affordances in a multi-zone flexible learning environment–introducing an analytical model. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 30(2), 243-259.
Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: using public space: Island press.
 
GHaffari, A. (2009). Olgoy nazari zir nezam faza va tajhizat dar nezam amozesh va parvaresh Jomhori islami Iran, tarhe tadvin sanade melli amozesh va parvaresh. Iran Komite motaleate nazari. [in Persian]
Gharavi  Alkhansari, M. (2005). COMMUNITY SCHOOL: A NEW ROLE- MODEL FOR SCHOOL FUNCTIONING IN COMMUNITY. HONAR-HA-YE-ZIBA, -(21). [in Persian]
Ghaziani, R. (2009). Children's and teachers' voices: a framework for school design. University of Sheffield. 
Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice: Optimal books Colville, WA.
Golby, M., & Appleby, R. (1997). New School-New Era? Westminster Studies in Education, 20(1), 65-74.
Hajibabayi, H. (2012). A study on the characteristics of “the school which I like” according to the document on fundamental development in education. Educational Innovations, 11(2), 51-74. [in Persian]
Hartnell-Young, E., & Fisher, T. (2007). Circling the Square; six activities for listening to teachers and students. Nottingham, UK: Learning Sciences Research Institute and School of Education, University of Nottingham.
Hecht, M., & Crowley, K. (2020). Unpacking the learning ecosystems framework: Lessons from the adaptive management of biological ecosystems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(2), 264-284.
Hertzberger, H. (2008). Space and learning: Lessons in architecture 3 (Vol. 3): 010 Publishers.
Hudson, J. (2012). Architecture from commission to construction: Hachette UK.
Hughes, J. M., & Morrison, L. J. (2020). Innovative learning spaces in the making. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 5, pp. 89): Frontiers.
KHosravi, F., Saghafi, M. R., & Kamelnia, H. (2019). Investigating the Effective Indicators in Designing Community Rural Schools Using Collaborative Approaches (Case study: Zirkan village of Mashhad). Journal of Housing and Rural Environment, 37(164), 125-140. [in Persian]
Könings, K. D., Bovill, C., & Woolner, P. (2017). Towards an interdisciplinary model of practice for participatory building design in education. European Journal of Education, 52(3), 306-317.
Lackney, J. A. (1996). Quality in school environments: A multiple case study of the diagnosis, design and management of environmental quality in five elementary schools in the Baltimore city public schools from an action research perspective: The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Lackney, J. A. (2000). Thirty-Three Educational Design Principles for Schools & Community Learning Centers.
Lawson, B. (2007). Language of space: Routledge.
Lefebvre, H. (1974). The Production of Space (Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishing).
López-Chao, V., & López-Pena, V. (2021). Purpose Adequacy as a Basis for Sustainable Building Design: A Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Higher Education Classrooms. Sustainability, 13(20), 11181. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11181.
López-Chao, V., Lorenzo, A. A., & Martin-Gutiérrez, J. (2019). Architectural indoor analysis: A holistic approach to understand the relation of higher education classrooms and academic performance. Sustainability, 11(23), 6558.
Mäkelä, T., & Leinonen, T. (2021). Design framework and principles for learning environment co-design: Synthesis from literature and three empirical studies. Buildings, 11(12), 581.
Mansor, H. N. (2014). The role of school as community hub and its implications on promoting community cohesion towards sustainable communities. University of Salford. 
McFadyen, E., & Benade, L. (2021). The importance of people and place. Teachers' Work, 18(1), 12-17.
McMichael, C. A. (2004). Perspectives of school planners and architects and professional educators regarding elementary school facility design characteristics. University of Georgia. 
Mesman, A. M. (2018). A Study of the Characteristics of the Full-Service Community School Model in Southeastern Louisiana Title I Elementary Schools. Southeastern Louisiana University. 
Monahan, T. (2013). Globalization, technological change, and public education: Routledge.
Montuori, A. (2008). Edgar Morin’s path of complexity. Hampton Press, New York.
Moore, G. T., & Lackney, J. A. (1994). Educational facilities for the twenty-first century: Research analysis and design patterns: Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research, University of Wisconsin ….
Nair, P., Fielding, R., & Lackney, J. A. (2013). The language of school design: Design patterns for 21st century schools: DesignShare.
nazarpour, m. t. (2018). The Architecture of Learning Environments on the basis of the Document of the Fundamental Transformation of Education. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING IN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS, 11(2 (21) #r00376), -. Retrieved from https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=652900. [in Persian]
Nicely, T. H. (2016). An examination of the community school model in an urban school setting. East Tennessee State University. 
Niemi, K. (2021). ‘The best guess for the future?’Teachers’ adaptation to open and flexible learning environments in Finland. Education Inquiry, 12(3), 282-300.
OECD., Scientific, & Educational, C. O. U. N. (2016). Reviews of National Policies for Education Education in Thailand An OECD-UNESCO Perspective: OECD Publishing.
Perkins, B. (2002). Building type basics for elementary and secondary schools: John Wiley & Sons.
Preiser, W. F. (2015). Programming the Built Environment (Routledge Revivals): Routledge.
Rossiter, S. (2007). Feasibility Study of Community Hubs for the Parramatta Local Government Area-Briefing Paper. Prepared for the Parramatta City Council.
Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning: John Wiley & Sons.
Sanoff, H. (2001). School Building Assessment Methods.
Sanoff, H. (2005). Community participation in riverfront development. CoDesign, 1(1), 61-78.
Sanoff, H. (2016). Integrating Programming, Evaluation and Participation in Design (Routledge Revivals): A Theory Z Approach: Routledge.
Schneider, M. (2002). Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?
Shelton, L. (2018). The Bronfenbrenner primer: A guide to develecology: Routledge.
Soltanzadeh, H. (1985). Tarikh e madares Iran az ahd bastan ta tasise dar ul-Funun. Iran Agah.
Tanner, C. K., & Lackney, J. A. (2006). Educational facilities planning: Leadership, architecture, and management: Allyn & Bacon.
Taylor, A. (2009). Linking architecture and education: Sustainable design for learning environments: UNM Press.
Uline, C. L., Tschannen‐Moran, M., & Wolsey, T. D. (2009). The walls still speak: The stories occupants tell. Journal of Educational Administration.
Upitis, R. (2004). School architecture and complexity. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 1(1).
Van Ausdall, A. (2006). Examining Process and Progress in Planning and Developing Cincinnati Community Learning Centers. University of Cincinnati. 
Vincent, J. M. (2006). Public schools as public infrastructure: Roles for planning researchers. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(4), 433-437.
Walden, R. (2015). Conclusion: What Makes a School a “School of the Future”? In Schools for the Future (pp. 223-233): Springer.
White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library trends, 55(1), 22-45.
Wicker, A. (Singer-songwriter). (1979). An introduction to ecological psychology. Brooks. On: Cole Publishing Company, Monterey, California.
Wilkin, A., Kinder, K., White, R., Atkinson, M., & Doherty, P. (2003). Towards the development of extended schools: Department for Education and Skills London.
Willems, E. P. (2018). BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AS A PERSPECTIVE FOR MAN-ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH 2.4. In Environmental Design Research: Volume two symposia and workshops (pp. 152): Routledge.
Young, F., & Cleveland, B. (2022). Affordances, Architecture and the Action Possibilities of Learning Environments: A Critical Review of the Literature and Future Directions. Buildings, 12(1), 76.