Smart Schools with K9 Student Opinions: The Aveiro José Estêvão Case
Smartness has been advocated with a strong bias, almost exclusive, on technology’s characteristics and extension of implementation in diverse ecosystems. The research process reported in this paper takes place in the school ecosystem and considers all its stakeholders in a bottom-up approach to nurture the knowledge needed to understand the relation that is established between educational community and school. This approach does not exclude other top-down models and approaches to understand the school ecosystem, in fact, it supports the complementary need to have a correlation of both perspectives to develop on the community - school relation. The reported work contextualizes and explains the smart learning ecosystem strategy and describes the research method used to engage and inquire stakeholders concerning their wishes, interests and needs in the school ecosystem. The smart school questionnaires used to inquire the educational community’s stakeholders will be described considering structure and nature of closed and open-ended questions that are used. The research procedure, data processing and analysis will be shared in the context of the pilot study that took place last spring 2017 in the José Estêvão Aveiro school cluster, with 7–9th grade students, n = 81. The potential for co-design of technology-mediated solutions (APPs/services) will also be discussed in the context of the qualitative opinion of these particular stakeholders.
KeywordsSchool smartness K9 Co-design Communication Educational community
Research reported in this paper was also supported by the grant SFRH/BSAB/128152/2016 (Fundo Social Europeu and Portuguese financial resources from the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education - MCTES). A special acknowledgment to all the teachers, parents and students at the school cluster Agrupamento de Escola José Estêvão de Aveiro, Portugal, 7th–9th grade 2016/2017, that shared their opinion and disposed of part of their time for this research.
- 1.Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday Things. MIT Press (2002)Google Scholar
- 2.Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J.: This is Service Design Thinking. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam (2011)Google Scholar
- 3.Pereira, H., Mil-Homens, P., Rocha Pinto, M.L., Lourtie, P.: As Universidades Públicas estão em época de exames. Eleição da Melhor Universidade Pública. Diário de Notícias, Lisboa, Portugal (2001)Google Scholar
- 4.Galego, D., Giovannella, C., Mealha, O.: An investigation of actors’ differences in the perception of learning ecosystems’ smartness: the case of university of aveiro. Interact. Des. Archit. 31(1), 19–31 (2016)Google Scholar
- 5.Giovannella, C., Andone, D., Dascalu, M., Popescu, E., Rehm, M., Mealha, O.: Evaluating the resilience of the bottom-up method used to detect and benchmark the smartness of university campuses. In: Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), 2016 IEEE International - Improving the Citizens’ Quality of Life, pp. 1–5 (2016)Google Scholar
- 6.Giovannella, C.: Participatory bottom-up self-evaluation of schools’ smartness: an Italian case study. Interact. Des. Archit. 31(1), 9–18 (2016)Google Scholar
- 8.Csíkszentmihályi, M.: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Collins (1990)Google Scholar
- 9.Oliveira, Á., Campolargo, M.: From smart cities to human smart cities. In: Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 2336–2344, (2015)Google Scholar
- 10.Barroca, J., Brito, D., Campolargo, M., Concilio, G., Ferreira, V., Martires, P., Rizzo, F.: MyNeighbourhood Concept (2013). http://my-neighbourhood.eu/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018
- 12.Mealha, O.: Citizen-driven dashboards in smart ecosystems: a framework. Inter. Des. Archit. J. IxD&A 31, 32–42 (2016)Google Scholar