Authors
- Ivanova Elena Vladimirovna PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor
- Vinogradova Irina Anatol’evna PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor
- Barsukova Ekaterina M.
Annotation
Very often, the renovation of the school infrastructure and the design of the school space is of a local nature (to place the necessary equipment in the classroom, add new decor elements, change furniture in the educational and recreational space, etc.) without understanding the meaning and essence of the necessary changes, which in the future will not gives the desired educational effects. The previous methods of designing and developing the educational environment no longer meet the requirements of the time, it is necessary to develop and implement other methods based on a systematic approach to solving issues, on the involvement of participants in educational relations in creating an environment in which the capabilities of teachers and students would be most fully revealed. System design solutions allow you to build a holistic strategy for changing the school infrastructure, which determines the interconnectedness of analysis, planning, resource provision of the necessary changes, which determines the relevance of the topic of the article touched upon by the authors. In this regard, this article, using the example of a specific educational organization, examines the full cycle of school infrastructure renovation from analyzing the situation and determining the potential of an educational organization through defining and agreeing on the goals of the necessary changes to planning and implementing specific actions to obtain the planned results.
The leading method in this work on the renovation of school infrastructure was the method of structured observation (international scale SACERS). Тhe survey method included the use of a method for identifying the visual preferences of participants in educational relations. The work also used design methods in the format of creative sessions, participatory design methods and SWOT analysis. All 6 buildings of the educational complex were expertly evaluated, 204 people took part in the graphic survey, including teachers, students and representatives of the administration. In the course of the study, deficiencies and zones of well-being were identified, as well as visual preferences for styles and interior solutions of participants in the educational process. The materials presented in the article allow us to talk about the need for system design solutions for the renovation of school infrastructure.
How to link insert
Ivanova, E. V., Vinogradova, I. A. & Barsukova, E. M. (2022). RENOVATION OF SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE: A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 16(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-9121.2022.16.1.01
References
1.
1. Bakulina, M. S. (2011). Systemic and integrated approaches: similarities and differences. Vestnik KGPU im. V. P. Astaf’eva, 2, 168–173. (In Russ.).
2.
2. Ryzhov, B. N. (2017). The systemic structure of personality. Sistemnaia psikhologiia i sotsiologiia, 3(23), 5–11. (In Russ.).
3.
3. Shchedrovitskii, P. G. (2018). Introduction to Philosophical and Pedagogical Anthropology. Moscow: Russian Political Book. (In Russ.).
4.
4. Louson, G. (2016). A journey through the system landscape. Moscow: DMK-Press. (In Russ.).
5.
5. Valentinov, V., Verschraegen, G., & Van Assche, K. (2019). The limits of transparency: A systems theory view. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36 (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2591
6.
6. Vanderstraeten, R. (2019). Systems everywhere? Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2596
7.
7. Blauberg, I. V., Sadovskii, V. N., & Iudin, E. G. (1969) System research and general theory of systems. Sistemnye issledovaniia. Ezhegodnik. Moscow: Science, 7–29. (In Russ.).
8.
8. Afanasyev, V. G. (1982). Modeling as a method of studying social systems. Sistemnye issledovaniia. Ezhegodnik, 26–46. Moscow: Science (In Russ.).
9.
9. Shchedrovitskii, G. P. (2004). On the boards. Moscow: Moscow: School of Cultural Policy. (In Russ.).
10.
10. Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General System Theory: foundations, development, applications.
New York: George Braziller. URL: https://monoskop.org/images/7/77/Von_Bertalanffy_Ludwig_General_System_Theory_1968.pdf (date accesses: 28.09.2021).
11.
11. Ivanova, E. V., Vinogradova, I. A., Nesterova, O. V., & Maiakova, E. V. (2019). The concept of the development of educational conditions of Moscow schools. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniia, 4. URL: http://www.science-education.ru/article/view?id=2913. (In Russ.).
12.
12. Luminen, Kh., Rimpelia, M., & Tarvainen, E. (2018). Cookbook 2.0. Recipes for modern design of the educational environment. Finnish Education Group – FEG Oy. (In Russ.).
13.
13. Tittse, V., Ditrikh, I., Grenner, K., Khanish, A., & Marks, Iu. (2018). Assessment and development of the quality of preschool education. Moscow: MOZAIKA-SINTEZ. (In Russ.).
14.
14. Kazakova, E. I. (2010). From quality management to quality management. Workbook for an additional professional educational program for advanced training of specialists at the municipal level of education management. SPb.: Scythia-print. (In Russ.).
15.
15. Jeroen, V., Esther van Oorschot-Slaat, Campbell, C., & Brokmann, H. (2017, June 18–22). Effective Open Learning Landscapes and the Well-Being of Teachers and Students. Paper prepared for the 12th ICBEN (International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise) Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Zurich. URL.: http://www.icben.org/2017/ICBEN%202017%20Papers/SubjectArea04_Vugts_0408_3741.pdf
16.
16. Shmis, T., Ustinova, M., & Chugunov, D. (2019). Learning Environments and Learning Achievement in the Russian Federation How School Infrastructure and Climate Affect Student Success. Washington: World Bank Gropup. http://doi.org/10.1596/978-4648-1499-0
17.
17. Barrett, P., Treves, A., Shmis, T., Ambasz, D., & Ustinova, M. (2019). The Impact of School Infrastructure on Learning: A Synthesis of the Evidence. International Development in Focus. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. URL: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30920; http://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1378-8
18.
18. Closs, L., Mahat, M., & Imms, W. (2021). Learning environments’ influence on students’ learning experience in an Australian Faculty of Business and Economics. Learning Environments Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09361-2
19.
19. Ivanova, E. V., & Vinogradova, I. A. (2018). Scales SACERS: Results of the study of the educational environment of Moscow schools. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 7(3), 498–510. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2018.3.498
20.
20. Ivanova, E. V., Vinogradova, I. A., Zadadaev, S. A. (2019). Study of the educational environment of the school in the context of ensuring equal access to quality education. Obrazovanie i nauka, 21(7), 69–89. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2019-7-69-89
21.
21. Nelessen, А. С. (2021). Community Visioning for Place Making: A Guide to Visual Preference Surveys for Successful Urban Evolution. New York: Imprint Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003108719
22.
22. Ewing, R. (2001). Using a Visual Preference Survey in Transit Design, 2001. Public Works Management & Policy, 5(4), 270–280.
23.
23. Goodspeed, R., & Yan, X. (2017). Big Data for Regional Science. Routledge, 75–93. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315270838-7
24.
24. Noland, R. B., Weiner, M. D., Gao, D., Cook, M., & Nelessen, A. (2016). Eyetracking technology, visual preference surveys, and urban design: preliminary evidence of an effective methodology. Journal of Urbanism International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2016.1187197
25.
25. Sanoff, H. (2010, August 23). Democratic Design Case Studies in Urban and Small-Town Environments. North Carolina State University: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
26.
26. Sanoff, H. (2018). Participatory Environmental Design. North Carolina State University: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328407464_Participatory_Environmental_Design
27.
27. Mikheeva, M. M. (2012). Modern methods in design. Moscow: MSTU im. N. E. Bauman. URL: http://design.bmstu.ru/ru/metodichki/Bakalavriat/Sovremennny%60e%20metody%60%20v%20dizai%60ne.pdf
28.
28. Elkins, L. A., Bivins, D., & Holbrook, L. (2009). Community Visioning Process: A Tool for Successful Planning. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 13(4), 75. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ905413.pdf
29.
29. Community Visioning Handbook. State Planning Office. URL.: https://www1.maine.gov/dacf/municipalplanning/docs/visioning.pdf
30.
30. Ivanova, E. V., & Barsukova, E. M. (2020). Participatory design of educational infrastructure together with children: methods and algorithms of social design. Trends in Education Development: How to Plan and Implement Effective Educational Reforms. Proceedings of the XVII Annual International Scientific and Practical Conference, 125–131.
31.
31. Le-van, T., Filatova, B., & Yakshina, A. (2021). How to design a schoolyard: participatory design with children and the school community. Ideas for leaders. Moscow: Ekon-Inform Publishing House.6. Vanderstraeten, R. (2019). Systems everywhere? Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2596