ارائة چارچوب مفهومی برای طراحی فضای فیزیکی مدرسه‌های ابتدایی بر مبنای نظریة یادگیری مشارکتی ویگوتسکی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشدرشته علوم تربیتی، گروه مدیریت آموزشی و توسعه منابع انسانی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

2 دانشیار گروه مدیریت آموزشی و توسعه منابع انسانی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

3 دانشیار گروه معماری و شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران

چکیده

هدف پژوهش حاضر، ارائة چارچوب مفهومی برای طراحی فضای فیزیکی مدرسه‌های ابتدایی بر مبنای «نظریة یادگیری مشارکتی ویگوتسکی» است. رویکرد تحقیقی «روش پژوهش اسنادی» است و برای انجام آن از «تکنیک تحلیل محتوا» استفاده شد. قلمرو موردمطالعة این پژوهش اسناد و مدارک معتبر علمی، استانداردها و گزارش‌های بین‌المللی در طراحی مدرسه و نمونه‌های موردی مدرسه‌های طراحی‌شده بر مبنای رویکرد سازنده گرایی اجتماعی است که با روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند انتخاب شده‌اند. بنا بر یافته‌های پژوهش، مهم‌ترین مؤلفه‌های یادگیری مشارکتی عبارت‌اند از: ساختن دانش، نقش فعال یادگیرنده، تسهیل یادگیری، تنوع مواد و منابع یادگیری، زمینه و تعامل محوری که در ابعاد فضایی (رنگ، محوطه‌سازی و انعطاف‌پذیری)، روان‌شناختی (مناطق اجتماعی غیررسمی)، فیزیولوژی (دما، تهویه، نور و سروصدا) و رفتاری (پیکربندی U شکل، میزهای گرد، فضاهای بازی، فضاهای شخصی، فضای عمومی یادگیری (خیابان یادگیری)) می‌تواند بازنمایی مطلوبی از فضای فیزیکی مدرسه‌های ابتدایی ارائه دهد. همچنین نتایج نشان دادند که ایجاد محیط یادگیری مشارکتی در ابعاد ساخت دانش، تعامل، تنوع در منابع و مواد آموزشی، تسهیل یادگیری و نقش فعال یادگیرنده، نیازمند طراحی فضای فیزیکی با در نظر گرفتن تنوع رنگی، انعطاف‌پذیری در طراحی فضا و محوطه‌سازی و نیز ایجاد مناطق اجتماعی غیررسمی است. علاوه بر این، توجه به ویژگی‌های فیزیولوژی فضا موجب تأثیر بر سرعت یادگیری، کیفیت تدریس، ارتقای رفتار اجتماعی دانش‌آموزان، تسهیل در دستیابی به هدف‌های آموزشی، دسترسی به تجهیزات و تسهیلات متنوع یادگیری و ایجاد فضای یادگیری مشارکت محور می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A conceptual framework for designing the physical space of the primary schools based on the collaborative learning theory

نویسندگان [English]

  • zahra eskandaritorbaghan 1
  • rezvan hoseingholizadeh 2
  • Hamed Kamelnia 3
1 ferdowsi university of mashhad
2 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Management and Human Resource Development, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
3 (PhD), Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
چکیده [English]

The aim of this study was to provide a conceptual framework for designing the physical space of the primary schools based on Vygotsky's collaborative learning theory. The research approach was the documentary research method and it was conducted using the content analysis technique. The research sample included the valid scientific documents, international standards and reports on the school's designation and case studies of the schools which were designed based on the social constructivism approach selected through purposeful sampling method. The research findings showed that the most important components of the collaborative learning Theory are: knowledge building, the active role of the learner, facilitating learning, variety of the learning materials and resources, the context and axial interactions that can provide a desirable representation of the physical space of the primary schools within the spatial (color, landscaping, and flexibility), psychological (informal social areas), physiological (temperature, ventilation, light and noise) and behavioral (U-shaped configuration, round tables, play areas, personal spaces, public learning space (street learning) dimensions. The results also showed that creating a collaborative learning environment in terms of the knowledge building, interaction, diversity in the resources and teaching materials, facilitating learning and making learner more active requires designing the physical space considering the color variability, flexibility in the space design, landscaping and also creating the informal social areas. In addition, attention to the characteristics of the space physiology could affect the learning speed, the quality of the teaching, and the promotion of the students' social behavior. Also, the behavioral characteristics facilitate the achievement of the educational goals, access to the diverse learning equipment and facilities, and the creation of a collaborative-centered learning environment.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • collaborative learning
  • Designing the Physical Space
  • Primary School
 اسلامیان کوپایی، مرضیه. (1394). طراحی باغ- مدرسه با رویکرد به نقش طبیعت در آموزش نوجوانان (پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد). دانشگاه سراسری کاشان، کاشان.
 بردی حق‌نیا، حلیم و بردی حق‌نیا، رحیم. (1395). راهکارهای بهینه‌سازی فضای یادگیری مدارس کشور. نشریة مطالعات علوم اجتماعی، 2(2)، 50-55.
 حسینی، سیده سولماز و حیدرنتاج، وحید. (1395). دبستان خلاق: بهبود خلاقیت دانش‌آموزان در محیط مدارس ابتدایی با رویکرد روان‌شناسی محیطی. کنفرانس بین‌المللی مهندسی معماری و شهرسازی. تهران، دبیرخانه دایمی کنفرانس، https://www.civilica.com/Paper-ARCHITECTUREUR01ARCHITECTUREUR01_202.html
 خالوندی، رضا. (1397). قدمگاهی برای پیشرفت - طراحی فضای یادگیری کودکان با هدف ارتقای خلاقیت با نگاهی به الگوهای معماری ایرانی (پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد). دانشگاه سراسری کردستان، کردستان.
 خدابخشی، سحر؛ فروتن، منوچهر و سمیعی، امیر. (1394). بررسی سیر تحول فضای معماری مدارس بر اساس ارزیابی نقش نظام آموزشی حاکم بر آن‌ها (نمونه موردی: مدرسه سپه‌سالار، دارالفنون و دبیرستان البرز). نشریة علمی پژوهشی باغ نظر، 12(37)، 61-74.
 صادقی فسایی، سهیلا، عرفان‌منش، ایمان. (1394). مبانی روش‌شناختی پژوهش اسنادی در علوم اجتماعی؛ موردمطالعه: تأثیرات مدرن‌شدن بر خانواده ایرانی. فصلنامة علمی پژوهشی راهبرد فرهنگ، 8(29)، 61-91.
 قائم پناه، مهدی. (1393). بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر سرزندگی در فضاهای آموزشی متوسطه (پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد). دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجائی، تهران.
 ملکیان، فرامرز. (1397). توصیف و تحلیل معیارهای طراحی فضاهای آموزشی از دیدگاه متخصصین تکنولوژی آموزشی بر اساس تفکر خلاق. نشریة پژوهش در نظام‌های آموزشی، 12(ویژه‌نامه)، 731-748..
 Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference? Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438-448. Retrieved from http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
 Akyol, S. & Fer, S. (2010). Effects of social constructivist learning environment design on 5th grade learners’ learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 948-953.
 Alzahrani, I. & Woollard, J. (2013). The Role of the Constructivist Learning Theory and Collaborative Learning Environment on Wiki Classroom, and the Relationship between Them. 3rd International Conference For e-learning & Distance Education (2013).
 Amineh, R. J. & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9-16.
 Andjomshoaa, A. Islami, S. G. & Mokhtabad-Amrei, S. M. (2011). Application of constructivist educational theory in providing tacit knowledge and pedagogical efficacy in architectural design education: A case study of an architecture school in Iran. Life Science Journal, 8(1), 213-233.
 Atmodiwirjo, P. (2013). School Ground as Environmental Learning Resources: Teachers' and Pupils' Perspectives on Its Potentials, Uses and Accessibility. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 3(2), 101-119.
 Ayaz, M. F. & Sekerci, H. (2015). The Effects of the Constructivist Learning Approach on Student's Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis Study. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 14(4), 143-156.
 Barrett, P. Davies, F. Zhang, Y. & Barrett, L. (2017). The holistic impact of classroom spaces on learning in specific subjects. Environment and Behavior, 49(4), 425-451.
 Barrett, P. S. & Zhang, Y. (2009). Optimal learning spaces: Design implications for primary schools, Technical Report, SCRI, Salford. Availoble at: www.scri.salford.ac.uk
 Bay, E. Bagceci, B. & Cetin, B. (2012). The effects of social constructivist approach on the learners' problem solving and metacognitive levels. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 343-349.
 Blazer, C. (2012). The Impact of School Buildings on Learning. Information Capsule. Volume 1204. Research Services. Retrieved from http://drs.dadeschools.net/InformationCapsules/IC.asp
 Bodin Danielsson, C. (2010). The Office-An Explorative Study: Architectural Design's Impact on Health, Job Satisfaction & Well-being (Doctoral dissertation). University of Stockholm. Stockholm.
 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.
 Costley, K. C. (2012). An Overview of the Life, Central Concepts, Including Classroom Applications of Lev Vygotsky. Online submission. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529565.pdf
 Crotty, C. (2012). Educational Theory Constructivism. Waterford Women’s Centre. Retrieved from https://fdocuments.in/document/educational-theory-waterford-womens-crotty-2012-waterford-womens-centre.html
  Davydov, V. V. (1995). The influence of LS Vygotsky on education theory, research, and practice. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12-21
 De Gregori, A. (2011). Reimagining the classroom: Opportunities to link recent advances in pedagogy to physical settings. Policy Paper: Designing Classroom Space to Better Support 21st Century Learning. McGraw-Hill Research Foundation. URL Accessed December, 8, 2012.
 Deulen, A. A. (2013). Social constructivism and online learning environments: Toward a theological model for Christian educators. Christian Education Journal, 10(1), 90-98.
 DeVries, R. (2000). Vygotsky, Piaget, and education: A reciprocal assimilation of theories and educational practices. New ideas in Psychology, 18(2-3), 187-213.
 Doolittle, P. E. (2014). Complex constructivism: A theoretical model of complexity and cognition. International Journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 26(3), 485-498.
 Doolittle, P. E. (1995). Understanding Cooperative Learning through Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development. Lilly National Conference on Excellence in College Teaching, Colombia, SC, June 2-4, Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED384575
 Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (2013). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Routledge.
 Earthman, G. I. (2004). Prioritization of 31 criteria for school building adequacy. Baltimore, MD: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland. Available at: http://www.aclumd.org/aTop%20Issues/Education%20Reform/EarthmanFinal10504.pdf
 Erdem, M. (2009). Effects of learning style profile of team on quality of materials developed in collaborative learning processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 154-171.
 Fakomogbon, M. A. & Bolaji, H. O. (2017). Effects of Collaborative Learning Styles on Performance of Students in a Ubiquitous Collaborative Mobile Learning Environment. Contemporary Educational Technology, 8(3), 268-279.
 Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environments Research, 13(2), 127-145.
 Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105-117.
 Havens, K. (2010). Midcentury Modern High Schools: Rebooting the Architecture. School Business Affairs, 76(4), 12-16.
 Holt, D. G. & Willard-Holt, C. (2000). Let's Get Real™: Students solving authentic corporate problems. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(3), 243-246.
 Amineh, R. J. & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9-16.
 Jaramillo, J. A. (1996). Vygotsky's sociocultural theory and contributions to the development of constructivist curricula. Education, 117(1), 133-141.
 Johnson, D. W. Maruyama, G. Johnson, R. Nelson, D. & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 89(1), 47-62.
 Jonassen, D. (1999). 10 Design i ng Constructivist Learning Environments. In Charles M. Reigeluth (eds.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models, (pp.215-239). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 Jubran, S. M. (2016). The Effect of the Social Constructivist Approach on Teaching Reading to Jordanian University Students. US-China Education Review, 6(5), 310-315.
 Kayama, M. & Okamoto, T. (2002). Collaborative Learning in the Internet Learning Space: a framework for a learning environment and knowledge management in the educational context. Industry and higher education, 16(4), 249-259.
 Khor*, E. T. (2015). Virtual collaborative learning using wiki for adult ODL learners: The case of Wawasan Open University. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 10(2), 1-12.
 Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 1(1), 16-25.
 Kazemi, M. & Nazari, L. (2015). Studying the Effect of Schools Environment Architecture on Students Identity Formation in Iran High Schools. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 5(3), 43-52.
 Korkmaz Toklucu, S. & Tay, B. (2016). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Method and Systematic Teaching on Students' Achievement and Retention of Knowledge in Social Studies Lesson. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 66, 315-334.
 Kukla, A. (2013). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. Routledge
 Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2009). Social construction of reality. Encyclopedia of communication theory, 2, 891-894
 Kumar, R. O'Malley, P. M. & Johnston, L. D. (2008). Association between physical environment of secondary schools and student problem behavior: A national study, 2000-2003. Environment and Behavior, 40(4), 455-486.
 Laal, M. & Laal, M. (2012). Collaborative learning: what is it? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 491-495.
 Lai, E. R. (2011). Collaboration: A literature review. Pearson Research Report, 2.
 Lawrence, A. S. & Vimala, A. (2012). School Environment and Academic Achievement of Standard IX Students. Online Submission, 2(3), 210-215.
 Li, L. & Guo, R. (2015). A student-centered guest lecturing: A constructivism approach to promote student engagement. Journal of instructional pedagogies, 15, 1-7.
 Lin, L. (2015). Exploring collaborative learning: Theoretical and conceptual perspectives. In Investigating Chinese HE EFL Classrooms (pp. 11-28). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
 McDuff, E. (2012). Collaborative learning in an undergraduate theory course: An assessment of goals and outcomes. Teaching Sociology, 40(2), 166-176
 McGregor, J. (2004). Specialty and the place of materials in schools. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 12(3), 347-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681360400200207
 McLeod, J. (2014). Space, place and purpose in designing Australian schools. History of Education Review, 43(2), 133-137.
 Miller, A. & Cunningham, K. (2011). Classroom environment. Recuperado de https://www.ortingschools.org/cms/lib03/WA01919463/Centricity/domain/326/purpose/research/Classroom% 20Environment% 20article. pdf (marzo, 2017).
 Neo, M. (2003). Developing a collaborative learning environment using a web‐based design. Journal of computer assisted learning, 19(4), 462-473.
 Nair, P. & Fielding, R. (2005). The language of school design: Design patterns for 21st century schools.
 Nielsen, K. (2009). A collaborative perspective on learning transfer. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(1), 58-70.
 Olson, S. L. & Kellum, S. (2003). The impact of sustainable buildings on educational achievements in K-12 schools. Leonardo Academy Cleaner and Greener Program Report, 25(2), 2-14.
 Ortega, M. (2015). Nature and Scope of Educational Management. Available at: https://prezi.com/3yvckxdgvg98/nature-and-scope-of-educational-management/
 Popkewitz, T. S. (1998). Dewey, Vygotsky, and the social administration of the individual: Constructivist pedagogy as systems of ideas in historical spaces. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 535-570
 Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American journal of education, 100(3), 354-395.
 Rae, J. Taylor, G. & Roberts, C. (2006). Collaborative learning: A connected community for learning and knowledge management. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 3(3), 225-233.
 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.
 Retnowati, E. Ayres, P. & Sweller, J. (2017). Can collaborative learning improve the effectiveness of worked examples in learning mathematics? Journal of educational psychology, 109(5), 666-679.
 Saylan, A. Armagan, F. Ö. & Bektas, O. (2016). The Relationship between Pre-Service Science Teachers' Epistemological Beliefs and Preferences for Creating a Constructivist Learning Environment. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(2), 251-267.
 Scoditti, S. Clavica, F. & Caroli, M. (2011). Review of architecture and interior designs in Italian kindergartens and their relationship with motor development. International journal of pediatric obesity, 6(2), 16-21. http://web.irvingisd.net/history/briefhistorybyconnor.htm
 Schreiber, L. M. & Valle, B. E. (2013). Social constructivist teaching strategies in the small group classroom. Small Group Research, 44(4), 395-411.
 Sharp, L. A. & Whaley, B. (2018). Wikis as Online Collaborative Learning Experiences:“A Different Kind of Brainstorming”. Adult Learning, 29(3), 83-93.
 Swann, J. (2009). A dialogic approach to online facilitation. ASCILITE.
 Sultan, S. & Hussain, I. (2012). Comparison between individual and collaborative learning: Determining a strategy for promoting social skills and self-esteem among undergraduate students. The Journal of Educational Research, 15(2), 35-43.
 Sundstrom, E. (1991). Work environments: offices and factories. Handbook of environmental psychology, 733-758.
 Tanner, C. K. (2009). Effects of school design on student outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 381-399
 Tanner, C. K. (2000). The influence of school architecture on academic achievement. Journal of educational administration, 38(4), 309-330.
 Temli Durmus, Y. (2016). Effective Learning Environment Characteristics as a Requirement of Constructivist Curricula: Teachers' Needs and School Principals' Views. International Journal of Instruction, 9(2), 183-198.
 Tomasello, M. Kruger, A. C. & Ratner, H. H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and brain sciences, 16(3), 495-511.
 TW Chan, C. & Sher, W. (2014). Exploring AEC education through collaborative learning. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 21(5), 532-550.
 Unesco. (2014). Learning to Live Together. Education Policies and Realities in the Asia-Pacific. Bangkok: UNESCO OfficeBangkok, Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002272/227208E.pdf
 Van Meter, P. & Stevens, R. J. (2000). The role of theory in the study of peer collaboration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 113-127.
 Vygotsky, L. S. (1991). Imagination and creativity in the adolescent. Soviet Psychology, 29(1), 73-88.
 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.)
 Wang, L. Bruce, C. & Hughes, H. (2011). Sociocultural theories and their application in information literacy research and education. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 42(4), 296-30
 Wang, P. (2016). Teachers’ Implementation of Constructivist Teaching: Does Career Motivation Make a Difference? (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania.
 Weegar, M. and Pacis, D. (2012). A Comparison of Two Theories of Learning - Behaviorism and Constructivism as applied to Face-to-Face and Online Learning. 1st ed. [ebook] San Diego, CA, USA: E-Leader Manila, pp. ک 1-9. Available at: http://www.g-casa.com/conferences/manila/papers/Weegar.pdf [Accessed 2 May 2016].
 Yazici, H. J. (2004). Student perceptions of collaborative learning in operations management classes. Journal of Education for Business, 80(2), 110-118.
 Yeoman, B. (2012). Special report: Rebuilding America’s schools. Parade Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.parade.com/news/2012/08/12-rebuilding-americas-schools.html
 Yeung, A. S. Craven, R. G. & Kaur, G. (2014). Teachers’ self-concept and valuing of learning: Relations with teaching approaches and beliefs about students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 305-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.905670