Advertisement

Updating Users’ Needs Framework in Middle Schools. A Field Research Activity

  • Maria FianchiniEmail author
  • Franca Zuccoli
Chapter
Part of the Research for Development book series (REDE)

Abstract

A common knowledge on problems, needs, and wishes of middle school user communities—as regards conditions and ways of use of their facilities—currently lacks in Italy. However, in order to move towards an effective renewal of the schools, this framework of knowledge may be useful to raise awareness of the physical environment issues as well as to inform decision-making. Starting from this hypothesis, experimental field research was carried out on five lower secondary schools located in the metropolitan area of Milan by a research group that included scholars of both architecture and education, with the active involvement of a range of actors within the school communities. This essay focuses both on the methodological approach of the research and on the results of each stage of the evaluation process. The cross-reading of what emerged from the tours through the schools, the voices of students, teachers, and principals, as well as the information and data collected by questionnaires, highlighted a number of critical issues, that have been discussed in the conclusion.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all people who took part in this research work and especially:

- the school principals Elena Borgnini, Alessandra Condito, Aldo Domina, Giorgio Galanti, Cristina Gatti, Anna Polliani, Renato Rovetta, Elisabetta Trisolini;

- the students and the teachers of the lower secondary schools, “Forlanini” of Sesto San Giovanni (MI), “Ciresola” and “A. Bono Cairoli” of Milan, “Milano 2” and “Redecesio” of Segrate (MI);

- architect Carolina Tenti, who collaborated in the whole research process;

- the developers of the electronic version of the questionnairs, Alessandro Boggiano and Michele Rubini of the ICT services of the Politecnico di Milano.

The paper is the result of common research and findings undertaken by the authors. Nevertheless, Chaps. 1 and  6 were edited by Maria Fianchini and Franca Zuccoli; Chaps. 2,  3 and 5 were edited by Maria Fianchini, Chap. 4 was edited by Franca Zuccoli.

References

  1. Baird, G., Gray, J., Isaacs, N., Kernohan, D., & Mc Indoe, G. (1995). Building evaluation techniques. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Blyth, A., & Worthington, J. (2001). Managing the brief for better design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Blyth, A., Gilby, A., & Barlex, M. (2006). Guide to post occupancy evaluation.  London: Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Retrieved from http://www.smg.ac.uk/documents/POEBrochureFinal06.pdf.
  4. Bodino, C. (1990). Arrigo arrighetti architetto. Milano: Archivio storico civico.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, H. (2002). The role of the physical environment in enhancing teaching and learning. London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  6. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspective: Toward trust, dialoguer, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook-Sather, A. (2009). I am not afraid to listen: Prospective teachers learning from students. Theory Into Practice, 48(3), 176–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook-Sather, A. (2013). Legittimare i punti di vista degli studenti. Nella direzione della fiducia, del dialogo e del cambiamento in educazione. In V. Grion & A. Cook-Sather (a cura di), Student Voice. Prospettive internazionali e pratiche emergenti in Italia (pp. 27–61). Milano: Guerini Scientifica (Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31, 2002, 3–14).Google Scholar
  9. Colella, F. (2011). Focus group. Ricerca sociale e strategie applicative. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  10. Corrao, S. (2005). Il focus group. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  11. Daish. J, Gray, J., & Kernohan, D. (1983). Post occupancy evaluation of government buildings. Architectural-Science-Review, 26(2), 50–55.Google Scholar
  12. Dessì, V., Fianchini, M. (2015). Lights and shadows in university classrooms. Paper presented at the International Conference Arquitectonics Network: Mind, Land and Society, 3-4-5 June 2015. Barcelona, Coac (Colegio Oficial de Arquitectos de Cataluña) and Etsab (Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de Barcelona). Retrieved from https://pa.upc.edu/ca/Varis/altres/arqs/congresos/international-conference-architecture-education-and-society/final-papers-comunicaciones-finales/arq2015-fianchini-dessi.pdf/view.
  13. Dettori, G. F. (2009). La scuola media che vorrei. Una ricerca empirica con studenti e docenti di scuola secondaria di primo grado. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1985). Scuola e società. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
  15. Di Vita, A. (2017).  Student Voice” per la valorizzazione delle risorse personali [“Student Voice” to increase the value of personal resources]. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 16, 269–294.Google Scholar
  16. Earthman, G. & Lemasters, L. (1996). Review of research on the relationship between school buildings, student achievement and student behaviour. Scottsdale, Arizona: Council of Education Facility Planners International.Google Scholar
  17. Fianchini, M. (2001). Un esempio di valutazione post-occupativa a Milano: il caso del Civico Centro Professionale di via Amoretti 30. Ambiente Costruito, 2, 22–27.Google Scholar
  18. Fianchini, M. (2007). Fitness for purpose: A performance evaluation methodology for the management of university buildings. Facilities, 25 (3/4), 137–146. Retrieved from https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/02632770710729728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fianchini, M. (2015). Valutare gli edifici in uso. Un’applicazione sperimentale di Post Occupancy Evaluation a Milano. In E. Fattinnanzi & G. Mondi (Eds.). L’analisi multicriteri tra valutazione e decisione, (pp. 369–377). DEI, Roma.Google Scholar
  20. Fianchini, M. (2017) The dimension of knowledge on built environment interventions. The evolution of performance analysis models between theories and practice. Techne, 13, 159–164. Retrieved from http://www.fupress.net/index.php/techne/article/view/20006.
  21. Fielding, M. (2011). La voz del alumnado y la inclusión educativa. Una aproximación democrática radical para el aprendizaje intergeneracional. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 25, 31–62.Google Scholar
  22. Fielding M. (2012). Beyond student voice: Patterns of partnership and the demands of deep democracy. Revista de Educación, 359, 45–65.Google Scholar
  23. Fletcher, A. (2004) Meaningful Student Involvement: Research Guide. Washington: Sound-out!/The Freechild Project.Google Scholar
  24. Flutter et al. (2004). Consulting pupils: What’s in it for schools? London: Routledge-Farmer.Google Scholar
  25. Flutter, J. (2006). This place could help you learn-: Student participation in creating better school environments. In Educational Review, 58(2), 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flutter J., Rudduck (2005). Student Voice and the architecture of change: Mapping the territory. A Report to Research Committee 07/06. Cambridge: Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  27. Gattico et al. (1998). I metodi quantitativi. Milano: Bruno Mondadori.Google Scholar
  28. Gemma C., Grion V. (Eds.). (2015). Pratiche di partecipazione degli studenti e nuove implicazioni educative. Barletta: Cafagna Editore.Google Scholar
  29. Gori, G. (1968). Le problematiche progettuali della nuova scuola media in una esperienza didattica interdisciplinare. Casabella, 331, dicembre 1968, anno XXXII, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  30. Grio, V., Devecchi, C. & Colinet C. (2014). Not only accademically oriented, but friendly and supportive: una ricerca sulla qualità della scuola dal punto di vista degli studenti in tre paesi europei. Formazione & Insegnamento XII(4), 275–290.Google Scholar
  31. Grion, V. & Maretto, M. (2017). Student voice e didattica partecipativa: Un valore aggiunto per l’innovazione scolastica. Form@ re, Open Journal Per La Formazione In Rete, 17(3), 174–187.Google Scholar
  32. Hudson-Ross, Cleary, & Casey. (1993).Google Scholar
  33. Mantovani (ed.) (1998). I metodi qualitativi. Milano: Bruno Mondadori.Google Scholar
  34. Masci, S. (2012). A scuola di emozioni. Insegnanti e genitori ascoltano gli adolescenti. Roma: Armando Editore.Google Scholar
  35. Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, (1963). La scuola media. Studi schemi esempi. Quaderni del Centro Studi per l’edilizia scolastica, 2.Google Scholar
  36. Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, (1965). La prefabbricazione nell’edilizia scolastica. Quaderni del Centro Studi per l’edilizia scolastica, 4–5.Google Scholar
  37. Mitra, D. (2006). Increasing student voice and moving towards leadership. The Prevention Researcher, 13(1), 7–10.Google Scholar
  38. Mortari, L. (2010). Dire la pratica. La cultura del fare scuola. Milano-Torino: Bruno Mondadori-Pearson.Google Scholar
  39. Mugnai, M. (1984). Il progetto della scuola in Italia, 3. Dall’Unità all’avvento del fascismo. Firenze: CESIS.Google Scholar
  40. OECD (2009). International Pilot Study on the evaluation of quality in educational spaces (EQES). User manual final version. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/innovation-education/evaluatingqualityineducationalfacilities.htm.
  41. Pastori, G. (2017). In ricerca. Parma: Spaggiari-Junior.Google Scholar
  42. Peräkylä, A. (2005). Analyzing talk and test, in N. K. Denzin, I. S. Lincoln (Eds.). The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 869–886.Google Scholar
  43. Pietropolli Charmet, G. (1993). Adolescenza temuta, adolescenza sognata. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
  44. Pietropolli Charmet, G. (2013). La paura di essere brutti. Gli adolescenti e il corpo. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.Google Scholar
  45. Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z. & White, E. T. (1988). Post Occupancy evaluation. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, London.Google Scholar
  46. Rudduck, J. & Flutter, J. (2003). How to improve your school: Giving pupils a voice. London-New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
  47. Rudduck, J. & Flutter. J. (2004). How to improve your school: Giving pupils a voice. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  48. Scottish Future Trust & BDP. (2012). Scotland’s schools for the future. Schools development handbook. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/school-handbook-guidance/.
  49. Shibley, R. G. (1985). Building evaluation in the main stream. Environment and Behavior, 17(1), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shields, C. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 109–132.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zuccoli, F. (2013). La pratica della discussione, una metodologia indispensabile per attivare la voce degli studenti, in V. Grion, A. Cook-Sather (Eds.). Student Voice. Prospettive internazionali e pratiche emergenti in Italia. Milano: Guerini, pp. 212–231.Google Scholar
  52. Zuccoli, F. (2017). Il museo in dialogo con una scuola che parla di competenze, In A. C. Cimoli (2017) (Ed.). Che cosa vedi? Musei e pubblici adolescente. Busto Arsizio: Nomos, pp. 61–68.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture and Urban StudiesPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.“Riccardo Massa” Department of Human Sciences for EducationUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations