نقش محیط ساخته شده در تعاملات دانش‌آموزان در مدرسه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه بجنورد، بجنورد، ایران.

2 استادیار گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه بجنورد، بجنورد، ایران

چکیده

مدارس، محل گردهمایی‌ها و مکان فعالیت‌های اجتماعی دانش‌آموزان و بسان قلبی تپنده مرکز تمام نیروها، رویدادها و محل تجمع ارزش‌ها هستند. آن‌ها نقش اجتماعی بسیاری در زندگی جمعی دانش‌آموزان ایفا می‌کنند. در این بین مدرسه به‌عنوان مکان وقوع ارتباطات باید گستره وسیعی از کیفیات را داشته باشد تا انسان در آن به تعامل دست یابد و در نهایت یادگیری ارتقا یابد. مقاله حاضر در پی آن است که با مرور مطالعات انجام یافته در ارتباط با اجتماع‌پذیری فضا و راهکارها و اصول به‌کار گرفته شده در ایجاد تعاملات اجتماعی در مدرسه را تفسیر و تحلیل کند تا از این طریق یادگیری ارتقا یابد. روش تحقیق توصیفی و تحلیلی می‌باشد و برای گردآوری اطلاعات از ابزارهای کتابخانه‌ای و پرسشنامه بهره گرفته شده است و از لحاظ هدف، کاربردی است. جامعه آماری آن را متخصصین تشکیل می‌دهند و نمونه‌ها به شیوه تصادفی انتخاب شده‌اند. سپس با استفاده از فرآیند تحلیل سلسله‌مراتب، مؤلفه‌های مؤثر بر تعامل اجتماعی، با تکیه بر شاخص‌های پرسشنامه مورد تجزیه و تحلیل و اولویت‌بندی شده است. پرسشنامه‌های جمع‌آوری شده، در محیط نرم‌افزار اکسپرت چویس1، مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفته است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد ضریب اهمیت معیارهای ذهنی از بقیه بالاتر بود و معیار کالبدی در پایین‌ترین رتبه قرار داشت. از سویی دیگر، در اولویت‌بندی انجام شده میان تمامی زیرشاخص‌ها مشاهده شد که زیرشاخص‌های مدت زمان اقامت در مکان از معیار رفتاری و زیرشاخص‌های دسترسی‌پذیری فضای عمومی از قبیل کلاس از شاخص معیار کالبدی دارای بیش‌ترین ضریب اهمیت نسبت به دیگر زیرشاخص‌ها شناخته شدند؛ زیرا بهبود این معیارها، باعث رضایت‌مندی بیش‌تر دانش‌آموزان و افزایش تعامل اجتماعی برای آن‌ها خواهد شد

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Role of Built Environments in Student Interactions at School

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mostafa Arghiani 1
  • Musa Shakeri 2
1 Assistant Professor of Architecture, Faculty of Arts, University of Bojnord, Bojnourd, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor of Architecture, Faculty of Arts, University of Bojnord, Bojnourd, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Schools are the gathering place and places for the social activity of students and like the beating heart, are the centers for all forces, events, and the gathering place of values. They play an important social role in the collective life of students. As a place of communication, the school must have a wide range of qualities to allow people to interact and ultimately promote learning. The purpose of this article is to interpret and analyze the strategies and principles adopted to establish social interaction in school to promote learning by reviewing studies on the sociopetality of space. This is an applied research study in terms of purpose that uses descriptive-analytical methodology. The required data were collected using desk research and a questionnaire. The statistical population consists of a panel of experts, and the samples are randomly selected. The effective social interaction components were then analyzed and prioritized based on the questionnaire indicators using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The collected questionnaires were analyzed using the Expert Choice software. The results showed that the mental criteria had the highest importance coefficient and the physical criterion had the lowest importance coefficient. On the other hand, the prioritization of sub-indicicators showed that the sub-indicators of "length of stay" belonged to the behavioral criterion, and the sub-indicators of "accessibility of public space", such as class, belonging to the physical criterion, had the highest importance. The reason is that an improvement in these criteria will lead to greater student satisfaction and increased social interaction.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Closed Educational Space
  • Social Interaction
  • hierarchical analysis
  • Survey Method
Anderson, C.S. (1982). The Search for School Climate: A Review of Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 368-420. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052003368
Baker, L., Mckoy, D., Moore, K., & Vincent, J.M. (2008). Re-Visioning School Facility Planning and Design for the 21 Century: Creating Optimal Learning Environments, Roundtable Proceedings Report, California Department of Education, Center for Cities & Schools, University of California, Berkeley.
Barker, R., & Gump, P.V. (1964). Big School, Small School. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bentley, I. (1985). Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers. Routledge.
Bisadi, M., Mozafar, F., & Hosseini, S.B. (2013). Spatial Traits Effective in Increasing the Creativity of Researchers in Architectural and Urban Research Centers. Journal of Educational Technology, 8(3), 239-249.
Bransford, D., Brown, J., & Cocking, R. (1999). How People Learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Churchill, D.L. (2014).The Impact of School Design and Arrangement on Learning Experiences: A Case Study of an Architecturally Significant Elementary School. UN Published Phd Thesis, Department of Education, Columbia University.
Clegg, D., & Billington, S. (1994). The Effective Primary Classroom: Management and Organization of Teaching and Learning .London: David Fulton.
Deane Mason, L. (2008). School Facility Design Characteristics Supporting California Schools to Watch™-Taking Center Stage Middle Schools: Perceptions of Middle School Principals and Teachers, Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership, College of Education and Organizational Leadership, University of Laverne.
Department for Education and Employment. (1999). The National Numeracy Strategy: Framework for Teaching Mathematics From Reception to Year 6, London: DEEE. https://www.goodreads.com/work/editions/54397407-the-national-numeracy-strategy-framework-for-teaching-mathematics-from
Duke, D.L., & Trautvetter, S. (2001). Reducing the Negative Effects of Large Schools, Washington: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, D.C.
Duran-Narucki, V. (2008). School Building Condition, School Attendance, and Academic Achievement in New York City Public Schools: A Mediation Model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 278-286. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494408000194
Fisher, K.D. (2009). Placing Social Interaction: An Integrative Approach to Analyzing Past Built Environments. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 28(4), 439-457. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278416509000464
Gehl, J. (1986). “Soft Edges” in Residential Streets. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 3(2), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/02815738608730092
Hartup, W. (1996). The Company they keep: Friends and their Developmental Significance. Child Development, 76, 1-13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1131681?seq=1
Kaczynski, A.T., & Henderson, K.A. (2007). Environmental Correlates of Physicalactivity: A Review of Evidence about Parks and Recreation. Leisure Sciences, 29(4), 315-354. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01490400701394865
Kasalı, A., & Doğan, F. (2010). Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh-Grade Students’ Use of Non-Classroom Spaces during Recess: The Case of Three Private Schools in Izmir, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 518-532. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494410000356
Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of Moral Development. Http://Www.Xenodochy.Org/Ex/Lists/Moraldev.Htm
Kraut, R.E., Fussell, S.R., Brennan, S.E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding Effects of Proximity on Collaboration: Implications for Technologies to Support Remote Collaborative Work. Distributed Work, 137-162.
Ladd, G.W. (1999). Peer Relationships and Social Competence during Early and Middle Childhood. Annual Review Psychology, 50, 333-359. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.333
Leyden, K.M. (2003). Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhood’s. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1546-1551. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.93.9.1546
Lipsitz, J. (1977). Grown Up Forgotten: A Review of Reasearch and Programs Concerning Early Adolescence, D.C. Heath, and Lexington, MA.
Maas, J., Van Dillen, S.M.J., Verheij, R.A., & Groenewegen, P.P. (2009). Social Contacts as a Possible Mechanism behind the Relation between Green Space and Health. Health Place, 15, 586-595. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006
Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and Private Spaces of the City. Routledge.
Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Zottmann, J., Kaplan, F., & Fischer, F. (Eds.). (2010). Classroom of the Future: Orchestrating Collaborative Spaces (1-12). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Marcus, C.C., & Sarkissian, W. (1986). Housing as if People Mattered, Berkeley, University of California Press.
Marx, A., Furher, U., & Hartig, T. (2000). Effects of Classroom Seating Arrangements on Children’s Question-Asking. Learning Environment Research, 2, 249-263. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009901922191
McGregor, J. (2004). Spatiality and the Place of the Material in Schools. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 12(3), 347-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360400200207
Michael, R.L. (2009).Supporting Intergenerational Interaction: Affordance of Urban Public Space, Unpublished PhD Thesis in Design, North Carolina State University.
Mohammadi, M., & Ayatollah, M. (2015). Effective Factors in Promoting Sociability of Cultural Buildings; Case Study: Farshchian Cultural Academy in Isfahan. Journal of Architecture and Urban Planing, 8(15), 79-96. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322356379_Effective_Factors_in_Promoting_Sociability_of_Cultural_Buildings_Case_Study_Farshchian_Cultural_Academy_in_Isfahan
Pasalar, C. (2003). The Effects of Spacial Layouts on Students Relations in Middle Schools: Multiple Case Analysis, Unpublished Thesis Submitted to the Department of Design, Raleigh, North Carolina State University.
Patterson, M.L. (1968). Social Space and Social Interaction. Doctor of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
Peters, K., Elands, B., & Buijs, A. (2010). Social Interactions in Urban Parks: Stimulating Social Cohesion? Urban forestry & Urban Greening, 9(2), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.11.003
Read, M.A., Sugawara, A.I., & Brandt, J.A. (1999). Impact of Space and Color in the Physical Environment on Preschool Children’s Cooperative Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31(3), 413-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972173
Ridling, Z. (1994). The Effect of Three Seating Arrangements on Teacher’s Use of Selective Interactive Verbal Behaviors, AERA Annual Meeting. New Orleans.
Sailer, K., & McCulloh, I. (2012). Social Networks and Spatial Configuration- How Office Layouts Drive Social Interaction. Social Networks, 34(1), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.05.005
Seeland, K., Duebendorfer, S., & Hansmann, R., (2008). Making Friends in Zurich’s Urban Forests and Parks: The Role of Public Green Space for Social Inclusion of Youths from Different Cultures. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.07.005
Taylor, A. (2009). Linking Architecture and Education: Sustainable Design of Learning Environments. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Tiburcio, T. (2011).The Architecture of the Classroom: Changes and Challenges.
Toker, U., & Gray, D.O. (2008). Innovation Spaces: Workspace Planning and Innovation in US University Research Centers. Research Policy, 37(2), 309-329.
UNESCO. (2012). A Place to Learn: Lessons from Research on Learning Environments.
Wang, N., & Boubekri, M. (2009). Behavioral Responses to Daylit Space: A Pilot Study. Journal of the Human-Environment System, 12(1), 15-25. DOI: 10.1618/jhes.12.15
Wasley, P.A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N.E., King, S.P., Mosak, E., & Powell, L. C. (2000). Small Schools: Great Strides. A Study of New Small Schools in Chicago
Weinstein, C.S. (1979). The Physical Environment of the School: A Review of the Research. Review of Educational Research, 49, 577-610.
Weinstein, C.S., & David, T.G. (1987). Space for Children: The Built Environment and Child Development, New York: Plenum Press.
Weinstein, C.S., & Mignano, A.J. (1997). Elementary Classroom Management: Lessons From Research and Practice, 2 Nd.Ed, NY: Mcgraw-Hill.