Content uploaded by Carlo Giovannella
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carlo Giovannella on Dec 19, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
The school as a territorial learning ecosystem -
Participatory evaluation of the boundary conditions:
the case of the IIS Amaldi
Carlo Giovannella1,3, Maria Rosaria Autiero2
1 University of Rome Tor Vergata
2 IIS E. Amaldi, Rome
3 ASLERD
gvncrl00@uniroma2.it
Abstract. The community pact is a tool potentially capable of fostering the de-
velopment of learning ecosystems and communities with a variable territorial size
(from an urban district to a city or a region). The realisation of such potential is,
however, subjected to an adequate understanding of the boundary conditions, in-
vestigated in this paper through a participatory evaluation process. The outcomes
of such an evaluation process show that teachers and parents tend to develop dif-
ferent visions of how schools can act as a territorial presidium, which however
have in common an almost exclusive focus on the needs of its students, rather
than those of the territory. The perception of a higher level of school smartness
over the last seven years, in fact, has induced a strong sense of belonging to the
school community in all the stakeholders - students, teachers, and parents - which
has not been accompanied by an equally strong sense of belonging to the territory
of reference. The significant increase in the perceived smartness of the learning
ecosystem does not seem a sufficient condition, even in the presence of the formal
stipulation of a community pact, to push the development of an educating com-
munity capable of interacting in a capillary manner with all components of a ter-
ritory characterized by elements of strong degradation. Even the establishment of
a territorial presidium having the school as a pole of attraction requires a slow
work of confrontation, sharing, co-planning, and assumption of co-responsibility
to integrate the different points of view emerging from the participatory evalua-
tion process.
Keywords: Smart Learning Ecosystems, School community pact, learning com-
munity, participatory evaluation.
1 Introduction
The obsolescence of the model born in the aftermath of the industrial revolution -
known as the 'school factory' [1] - is showing all the limits brought about by a rigid
organisation based on the development of the learners based almost solely on their age
[2]. Since the last quarter of the last century, in fact, the democratisation of education,
combined with an increasingly rapid transformation of productive processes, induced
by technological progress, has led to schools that are less and less aligned with the
demands of the labor market (skills gap phenomenon [3,4]) and, paradoxically, also
less and less capable of transferring basic contents and procedures, due to the combined
effect of progression based mainly, if not only, on the student's age and the strong push
towards inclusion [5-8].
Actually, schools should consider individual propensities and help all learners, ac-
cording to the time needed by each one, to develop first and foremost as people, capable
of becoming active agents of society [9], to respect both others and their living envi-
ronment. This, in turn, means that educational processes should be competence-based
(not exclusively age-based), learning by being inspired, and that the integrated compe-
tence space of reference to be developed should include, in addition to basic skills [10]:
(a) life skills useful for the harmonious development of the personalities of individuals
and their preparation as proactive subjects of society; (b) vertical skills useful for the
insertion of individuals into the job market (no longer as a primary objective, but as a
complementary and integrated one aimed at the acquisition of an adequate level of per-
sonal dignity and independence, beyond the support to the growth of the productive
system); (c) digital skills understood as a tool for amplifying the other skills, rather than
as a separate and independent set of skills.
The centrality of the students, of their well-being, and of their becoming competent
persons, also about the society and the environment in which they live, endows the
learning environments (LEs) with a new centrality with respect to the territory of refer-
ence, to productive activities and territorial stakeholders, as well as to the entire popu-
lation (including the students' families) [11]. It would not be enough to modify the per-
spective and the architecture of the educational processes, one needs also to change the
citizens' perception of schools: no longer seen as a service but, rather, as a driving force
for the growth of the whole territory.
What instruments, actions, and boundary conditions are needed to transform the
schools into veritable smart learning ecosystems [12,13] capable of behaving also as
hubs [14] and contributing to the increase of the well-being of its students and all mem-
bers of the community of reference?
In the Italian context, a possibility to reinforce school autonomy (Law no.59 of
15/3/1997 and its implementing decree, Presidential Decree no. 275 of 8/3/1999 [15])
is offered by the so-called "community pacts" proposed in 2020 by the Ministry of Ed-
ucation to reinforce the sense of identity of the territorial community of reference of
any school [16]. The community pact implements the idea - supported by the ministry
since 2012 - that each school could become a veritable civic center. The main goal of
the community pact is the activation of the local community to identify shared solutions
to serious problems that may affect the most disadvantaged areas of a given territory:
such as educational poverty, the dropout at school, the high delinquency rate, etc. It is
no coincidence that just during the pandemic the Italian government enacted guidelines
and gave impetus to the community pacts, that could be considered a strong basis for
the establishment and development of veritable learning ecosystems. During the pan-
demic, in fact, the community pacts were used, among other purposes, to sustain the
search for spaces and resources useful to counteract the confinement and the social
distancing imposed by the lockdown.
In the current post-pandemic context, the community pacts can also be considered
a tool to be implemented to foster the achievement of excellence, the culture of active
and digital citizenship, to support the Sustainable Development Goals SDGs [17], so-
cial innovation and territorial development, and, therefore, the overall increase of
smartness of territories and cities. They represent, in fact, a tool through which it is
possible to stimulate the engagement of the local communities and involve them in the
processes of co-evaluation, co-design, and co-responsibility, to support the growth of
students' competencies and, as well, those of all other citizens belonging to the local
communities, in a coevolutionary perspective.
A recent survey [18] has brought to light the existence of a few hundred community
pacts on the Italian territory and an initial analysis [19] carried out on some fifteen cases
of formalised community pacts and educational alliances (which often constitute a pre-
liminary step to the formalisation of a community pact) has highlighted the impossibil-
ity of identifying any standardisation of their nature, since they differ in terms of terri-
torial dimension, operating methods, purpose, and potential to induce changes due to
the heterogeneity of the contexts and the dependence of a fairly wide range of factors.
Among these, the human factor emerges very clearly in terms of individual motivation,
leadership, desire to get involved, willingness to learn and undertake training and indi-
vidual growth to broaden one's horizons and competencies, the possibility of ensuring
continuity to the actions undertaken, and, as well, stability to the territorial presidium
established. These are all fundamental aspects in the constitution and stabilisation of an
educating territorial community, which, as highlighted by another report [20], should
primarily include parents and their relations, as well as the social capital that character-
ises the specific territory.
From these studies and reports, recommendations also emerge regarding the need
for participatory approaches aimed at co-planning and co-responsibility, as well as the
need for monitoring and evaluation processes, which should not be used to generate
reports but, rather, as a tool to share knowledge and trigger processes of change to solve
critical issues and to emphasise and take advantage of valuable elements.
Starting from this evidence and needs, in this work, we intend to follow up on the
preliminary investigation carried out in 2021 [11] on the case of the community pact of
the IIS E. Amaldi of Rome utilizing a participatory evaluation process involving the
main players of a learning ecosystem: students, teachers, and parents. Among other
things, this process has also made it possible to bring out the perception that each of
these categories has developed over the years regarding the level of smartness of the
school [21], with particular reference to the dimension of social interaction and how
this reflects on the school-territory relationship as well as on expectations regarding
possible initiatives to be undertaken. The use of the participatory evaluation also had
the goal, as recommended by [20], of reinforcing and supporting the culture of moni-
toring and evaluation to produce a knowledge base useful to elaborate improvement
plans [22,23].
In the next sections of this paper, the context, the participatory evaluation process,
and the analysis of the data collected (numerical and textual answers) will be described,
with particular reference to the outcomes that are more relevant to the theme of the
community pact. To close, conclusions and recommendations will be drawn for the
stabilisation of the pact and its activities, as a contribution to the realisation of a stable
territorial presidium.
2 The context
he IIS Amaldi is a high school that offers the following curricula: classical high school,
science high school and language high school.
The context of the pact stipulated by the IIS Amaldi - entitled "Schools in common
- We generate the change" – is the typical one, described in the study [24], that can be
associated to communities located within the urban areas of large cities: ‘often periph-
eral neighborhoods of medium-large cities characterised by situations of hardship and
degradation, both material and immaterial. Contexts with difficult and precarious liv-
ing and working conditions, with high rates of poverty, unemployment and dropping
out of school, in some cases with a foreign presence higher than the local average,
often characterised by forms of organised crime, contexts lacking in services and equip-
ment and need of care in public spaces, starting with schools, which often represent a
bulwark for the local community’.
Specifically, the community pact promoted by IIS Amaldi involves also a Compre-
hensive Institute (Melissa BASSI), the metropolitan city of Rome, the Municipio VI,
two parishes, and more than 20 cultural associations, most of them active in the territory
of reference of the school: Tor Bella Monaca district. The main declared objective of
the pact is to foster the educational co-responsibility of families and citizens so that an
educating community can be generated, together with the socio-cultural development
of the territory through the implementation of what has been defined as a community
school, i.e. a hub capable to connect public institutions and citizens’ associations. The
pact proposes to take advantage of the skills and competencies of each member to coun-
teract educational poverty, the uneasiness of the youths, the school dropout, and, as
well, to favor the integration of formal, informal, and non-formal learning.
3 The participatory evaluation process
The verification of the extent to which the working hypotheses enunciated in the
"Schools in common - We generate the change" pact was able to meet the imaginary,
desires and stimulate the co-responsibility of the players involved in the educational
process was entrusted, as mentioned above, to a participatory evaluation whose intent
and objectives were, actually, much broader. The survey, in fact, intended to measure
the perceived value of three complementary constructs: the smartness of the learning
ecosystems [12,13], its e-maturity [26-30], and the level of well-being [31] induced in
students and teachers. The full description of the contents of the survey will be ad-
dressed in a forthcoming paper. Here, we will limit ourselves to comparing, and de-
scribing, the factors that allowed to measure the level of smartness of the learning eco-
system and to compare it with the results of equivalent surveys carried out in the same
and other schools in 2016 and 2017. In addition, we will focus on the subset of factors
that determined the contribution to the social interaction level of the ecosystem’s smart-
ness and on the open-ended questions about the community pact topic.
The participatory evaluation was conducted utilizing questionnaires that proposed
106 questions for the students, 85 for the parents, and 145 for the teachers, most of
which only required a numerical response on a Likert scale. The table in Appendix A
shows the set of factors that have been used to calculate the average values of the indi-
ces (Table 1) corresponding to the levels contributing to the definition of the ecosys-
tem’s smartness. Fig. 1. These indices are also useful for making a comparison with
the level of smartness perceived in the participatory evaluation campaigns carried out
previously (see next section).
Fig. 1. the ASLERD pyramid of the smartness of a slearning ecosystem (adaptation to school
contexts of the construct defined for a generic smart ecosystem [32,33]). The first 8 levels have
been used for the comparison of the participatory evaluation campaigns from 2016 to the present
(see figure 2); flow was not used because it was not measured in all evaluation campaigns. Also
shown in the figure is the positioning of the factors relevant to Self-Determination Theory (SDT
[34] with respect to the levels of the ASLERD pyramid.
The data collection period was three weeks. A total of 98 students (58F and 40M),
77 teachers (55F and 22M, average age 48.9), and 254 parents (209F and 45M, average
age 47.9) responded to the questionnaires; previously, during the 2016 and 2017 cam-
paigns, the participatory evaluations had been attended by 1231 and 1567 students, 103
and 49 teachers, and 29 and 26 parents, respectively. The participation of students in
the present participatory evaluation is greatly reduced compared to the previous ones
due to the choice in favour of student-free participation; the participation of teachers,
on the other hand, is on the average of those observed previously, while the participa-
tion of parents is tenfold. A so large participation of the parents may have been induced
by their increased habit of 'digital participation' induced by the recent pandemic and/or
by an improved quality of the relationship with the staff of the educational institution.
The participatory evaluation has not involved the territorial stakeholders because
their participation in the preliminary survey [11] was far lower than the number of those
adhering to the pact, denoting a limited sense of co-responsibility towards the latter.
The distributions of students and parents over the five years of the curricula was
more or less equivalent (students: I - 28.5%, II - 18.4%, III - 21.4%, IV - 22.4% and V
- 11.2%; parents: I - 29.1%, II - 22.4%, III - 20.5%, IV - 18. 5% and V - 9.4%) and
shows how the level of participation tends to be higher in the first year and, then, to
gradually decrease over the years, even considerably during the fifth year, i.e. in the
year the students will leave the school after the baccalaureate examination; most prob-
ably because both the students and their families see themselves projected into the new
phase of life that will await them after high school, with a relative weakening of the
sense of belonging to the school community.
As far as the family context is concerned, it is interesting to note that parent 1 (usu-
ally the father) is employed 42% in the private sector, 25% in the public sector, while
about 20% work as freelancers and only 2% are unemployed and 1% are householders;
on the other hand, parent 2 (usually the mother) is employed 36% in the private sector,
28% in the public sector, while 8% work as freelancers, 19% are housewives and 4%
are unemployed. The social context of the school students, or at least of those who
responded to the questionnaire, is therefore characterised by families with at least one
if not two incomes, belonging to a predominantly clerical or working class that tends
to border on the middle class. Situations of strong socio-economic hardship seem to be
limited in percentage and certainly far lower than the local average. This would lead
one to suppose that the students of the IIS Amaldi belong in a large majority to the more
privileged groups that populate the Tor Bella Monaca neighborhood and its surround-
ings.
4 Data analysis
4.1 Descriptive statistics
The table in appendix A shows the average values of the factors that, as stated above,
could be compared with those extracted in the 2016 (M16) and 2017 (M17) campaigns,
calculated for students (S), teachers (T), and parents (P), respectively. Light green and
bold green were used to highlight the increases in the mean that (according to the Wil-
coxon test) could be considered statistically, respectively, significant and highly signif-
icant in comparison to those worked out from the 2017 participatory evaluation. The
same criterion was used for negative variations, but using the colour red.
The first observation to be highlighted concerns the average values of the factors
derived from the students' answers that, as in the participatory evaluation campaigns
carried out in past years, appear to be considerably lower than those perceived by the
teachers. Parents' perceptions, as usual, lie numerically between those of the students
and those of the teachers, much closer to the latter.
A detailed comparison with the participatory evaluation carried out in 2017 reveals
a significantly more positive perception towards the 'Amaldi' learning ecosystem par-
ticularly, but not exclusively, by parents. Overall, this indicates a positive perception
towards the work done by the school principal and by all those involved in the processes
implemented by the learning ecosystem from 2017 to date. Let's look at the outcomes
of the participatory evaluation for each of the macro-areas considered.
Basic needs. There is a significant improvement in internal services related to the pro-
vision of food and drink, as well as a marked improvement in the perception of safety
within the school, also as a workplace (teachers). The feeling of safety in the outside
area also improves for students and, above all, parents; the perception of teachers on
this topic remains stable. Overall, however, the average values for external safety are,
although sufficient, fairly low and, in any case, quite lower than those for internal
safety. This is the first evidence of the difficulty of considering the territory, in its en-
tirety and complexity, as an interlocutor for the constitution of an educating community.
Infrastructure and technological resources. Unanimous among students, teachers, and
parents is the perception of a highly significant improvement in both the adequacy of
school spaces and the technological resources available to the school.
Competences. There is a positive variation in the perception of civic and social compe-
tences possessed by the students, both by teachers and parents, the perception of the
students being stable on this factor.
The positive change also extends, as far as parents are concerned, to the perception of
professional competences expressed by the school.
Organisational factors. As far as organisational factors (evaluated almost exclusively
by the teachers) one can observe a general increase in the average values of the factor
associated with this area, an increase that becomes statistically significant as regards
the sharing of choices and actions to be taken, the support for co-design and the impact
of collaborative work, indicating an open design approach and shared governance. For
teachers, peer relationships have also improved (see the section on social interaction).
On the parents' side, a significantly more positive perception emerges about the easi-
ness of administrative procedures, while the teachers' perceptions in this regard remain
unchanged.
These observations are corroborated by: a) an increased agreement with the objec-
tives pursued by the school, an increase that is statistically significant as far as parents
are concerned; b) a statistically significant appreciation of the school organisation for
all categories that participated in the evaluation.
The picture is completed by the increase in the average value relating to the will-
ingness to listen to the opinions expressed by individuals, detected in the case of both
teachers and parents; stable on this factor is the opinion of students.
Educational process. Positive and statistically significant feedback was also obtained
from parents on almost all factors concerning the educational process. In particular, this
feedback was extremely significant about the initiatives to support the Development of
Transversal Skills and increase the students Orientation (PCTO) and, as well, the sup-
port for excellence.
In the opinion of the students, the situation is somewhat critical about personalised
teaching and in particular for what concerns the support for individual development
(personal propensities). The support provided for collaborative work is judged equally
negatively by the students.
These observations, together with the perceived low sufficiency in the use of tech-
nologies to support the educational processes, seem to indicate critical aspects in the
relationship between students and teachers, which is also underlined by the statistically
significant decrease in the mean value of the perception regarding the student-teacher
relationship.
Social interaction. The school's effort in terms of inclusion and valorization of diversity
is judged positively by all categories.
On the other hand, the evaluation regarding the climate within the classroom does
not rise, with a statistically significant decrease for parents, perhaps due to the worse
student-teacher relationship mentioned above.
Support for social interaction is perceived more positively by teachers and, above
all, parents, while it remains at the same level for students.
Support for interaction with the territory is perceived as significantly increasing.
The significance of the positive changes in the average values of most of the factors
examined so far (see Appendix A) is reflected in the calculation of the indices shown
in Table 1. Such indices are useful not only to make an immediate comparison with the
values of the same indices obtained in 2016 and 2017 but also to carry out a comparison
with the values found in similar campaigns conducted in other schools located in the
city of Rome.
Table 1. Comparison of the indices obtained as the average of the values of the factors listed in
square brackets for each index (see Table 1A in Appendix A for the description of the factors)
weighted for the opinions of students, teachers, and parents, collected during the 2016, 2017 and
2023 participatory evaluation campaigns carried out in the IIS Amaldi school. The last column
shows, in green colour, the increase in the index values found in 2023 in comparison to those
measured in 2017.
Indices
2016
2017
2023
Delta-17
Smartness: integrated values
Infrastructures/
Resources
6.48
6.98
7.23
0.25
[SSA, STA, SPC]
Process
6.43
6.01
7.03
1.02
Process subindices
Learning process:
design
[ASO, ShOA,
FUA, RWLSA,
SOA, SCoD]
6.56
6.22
7.24
Learning process:
activities
[SCoW, ICoW,
ESSLD, LCA,
OIQ, SED,
SPESE]
6.30
5.80
6.81
Info-Admin Ser-
vices
[ECSO, APF,
IwP, IDSGA,
IATA]
7.47
6.55
7.01
Environment
[EnC]
6.10
5.66
6.55
0.88
Food Services
[FSA]
5.86
5.75
6.71
0.96
Safety
[ISe, Ese]
6.52
6.42
7.21
0.79
Social capital
(community)
[SSSI, SSCC,
TSI, PISA]
6.03
5.92
6.88
0.96
Support to sociali-
zation
[(SSSI), SiD,
SIA]
6.30
6.25
7.37
1.22
Other socialization indices
School Climate
[CSC, PRQ,
SSCC]
6.82
6.70
7.11
0.41
Relationships
[STR, TPR,
TATAR]
6.85
6.68
7.49
0.81
Challenges
[SCQ]
5.91
6.10
6.92
0.82
Flow
[well-being at
work, challenges,
(ILTT), SSID
PCTO]
6.04
6.11
6.89
0.79
A possible way of comparison among indices is represented by a Principal Compo-
nent Analysis [35,36] of the values found in the different campaigns, shown in Fig. 2.
One can immediately realise how the ISS Amaldi has substantially modified its position
on the plane represented by the first two principal components by shifting significantly
to the right, i.e. along the first principal component to which almost all indices contrib-
ute. This shift corresponds, therefore, to a shift towards higher values of perceived
smartness. The direction of the increase in smartness is indicated, as a guide for the
eyes, by the red line. It is particularly interesting to note that the position of the ISS
Amaldi in 2023 is very close to the position of the school identified by no. 6, i.e. a
private school that can be attended for a fee. This latter type of school, usually, is char-
acterised by a far more positive perception of the services provided with those available,
on average, in public schools.
Fig. 2. Results of the principal component analysis carried out on the indices shown in Table 1
measured in the case of 10 schools, indicated by a number to maintain anonymity. Only the labels
corresponding to the participatory evaluation campaigns carried out in the Amaldi school are
shown. In green are shown the contributions made by the various indices to the first two principal
components PC1 and PC2. The direction of increasing smartness is indicated as a guide for the
aye by the red line.
Factors of specific interest for the community pact. Fig.2 and the analysis of the results
of the participatory evaluation discussed so far show us - apart from a few criticisms,
relating to the personalisation of the teaching process and the relationship between stu-
dents and teachers – that the perception of the various players with regard to the
‘Amaldi’ learning ecosystem is very positive, to the point of also suggesting a positive
predisposition towards the development of a solid community sanctioned and supported
by a community pact.
The nature of such hypothetical predisposition can be inferred and checked from an
analysis of the indicators that are most relevant to the development of an educating
community to support the school ecosystem, see Table 2.
Table 2. Mean values and dispersions of additional factors related to the theme of Community
Pact investigated during the participatory evaluation and expression of the opinion of students
(S), teachers (T) and parents (P).
Social interaction: Community Pact Related Factors
Factors
Mean S
Mean T
Mean P
Belonging to
School Commu-
nity (BSC)
M = 6.58
[6.16, 7.04]
M = 8.18
[7.83, 8.18]
M = 6.80
[6.59, 7.00]
Support to Terri-
torial Social Inter-
action (STSI)
M = 6.34
[5.94, 6.74]
M = 7.73
[7.44, 8.02]
M = 7.12
[6.92, 7.33]
Utility of Territo-
rial Community
Development
(UTCD)
M = 6.65
[6.22, 7.09]
M = 8.13
[7.80, 8.46]
M = 7.87
[7.69, 8.05]
Utility of Territo-
rial Virtual Com-
munity Develop-
ment (UTVCD)
M = 6.09
[5.66, 6.51]
M = 6.95
[6.58, 7.31]
M = 7.22
[7.02, 7.42]
Belonging to
School Territory
(BST)
M = 6.56
[6.13, 6.99]
M = 6.53
[6.05, 7.00]
M = 6.90
[6.69, 7.11]
Availability to
support the
School Commu-
nity (ASSC)
M = 6.70
[6.24, 7.16]
M = 6.91
[6.49, 7.33]
-
Parents Involve-
ment in School
Activities
(PISA)*[also or-
ganizational fac-
tor]
M = 5.52
[5.05, 5.98]
M = 6.87
[6.46, 7.27]
M = 6.85
[6.60, 7.10]
Availability to
support the
School Territory
(ASST)
M = 6.44
[6.00, 6.89]
M = 6.37
[5.89, 6.85]
-
From Table 2 it can be noticed that, although at a sufficient level, the willingness to
support actions aimed at the territory, compared to actions aimed at supporting the
school community, is significantly lower in the teachers and lower also in the students
(data from parents not available). This result would seem to be justified by the differ-
ence between the teachers' sense of belonging to the school community and that to the
territorial community. Sufficient and similar values were found for the sense of belong-
ing to the school and territorial communities in the case of parents and students, but
relatively low compared to those found for almost all the other factors considered in
this investigation. It is possible to hypothesise that this result may have been induced
by the sense of limited safety offered by the area surrounding the school, compared to
the protected environment of the school itself.
The above also reveals a limited availability of the teachers towards the school's
territory of reference, evidence that can most likely be explained by the fact that the
territorial area in which the teachers reside, in most cases, does not coincide with the
school's reference territory. It seems that the critical aspects capable of inducing a lim-
ited feeling of territorial safety also influence the value of the indicators related to the
sense of belonging and availability towards the territory. Somewhat greater appears to
be the availability of teachers and students towards the school community.
To better identify the community model that corresponds to the results of the anal-
ysis illustrated so far, it was necessary to carry out an analysis of the textual answers
given by the participants to some open questions proposed by the questionnaire, see
next subsection.
4.2 Analysis of the Textual Answers
Before going into the analysis of the answers given by students, parents and teachers,
it is worth emphasising that a very high percentage of the participants declared them-
selves insufficiently informed about the nature and purpose of the community pact:
89% of the students, 68% of the parents and 27% of the teachers. This situation resulted
in a very limited contribution from the students to the survey.
The analysis of the texts of the answers of those who felt sufficiently informed to
provide their contribution focused on the answers to the following questions: What
should be the purpose of a community pact? What should be the school's additional
offer sustained by the pact? How could a denser social interaction between students
and broader participation of parents be fostered? What challenges and opportunities
would be desirable to offer to the students?
Purposes of the community pact. From the parents' point of view, the aims of the
pact should be to: a) realise a school as open as possible to the territory, during the
whole day and capable of promoting socialisation, recreational activities, and educa-
tional activities to train students as active and environmentally respectful citizens b)
foster collaboration between families and the school to share and be co-responsible for
the projects listed above and for the student's growth. Objectives that are expected to
be achieved also thanks to interchange and collaboration with territorial realities (in
particular public bodies).
Only a small minority believe that a secondary goal of the pact could be the valori-
sation and development of the territory, also to support individuals undergoing eco-
nomic and social hardships.
From the teachers' point of view, the pact should amplify the school's networking
ability (especially concerning public bodies and institutions, but also other schools and
associations) to create an educating community capable of designing and offering ser-
vices, as well as implementing cultural initiatives. More specifically, a certain number
of teachers believe that the school should be open to the territory and operate as an
aggregating pole, also with social aims; offer educational initiatives to make up for the
territory's shortcomings, foster the development of competences and the integration of
formal and informal knowledge, counteract school drop-out and educational poverty,
foster the harmonious development of personality and, as well, a responsible and active
citizenship.
Also, in the case of teachers, only a few individuals think that the school should
operate to support the development of the territory for the benefit of all citizens.
The contribution made by the few student responses cannot be considered significant.
Fig. 3. Graphic representation of the perspective view of parents and teachers on the topology
and direction of the relationships that should be established by the learning ecosystem thanks to
the community pact.
From what has been reported above it is quite evident that for most parents and
teachers the dominant model should be that of a learning ecosystem acting as a refer-
ence pole, aimed primarily at a more complete and harmonious development of the
students who are members of the school community, with the possibility to assume also
the role of a civic center and permanent presidium open to citizens. In the case of par-
ents, a closer collaboration between the school, families, and local stakeholders is rec-
ommended. In the case of teachers, more focus is placed on a network of collaboration
among peers (other learning ecosystems) and with institutions located on the territory.
For both categories of actors, the dominant model looks topologically centripetal (with
respect to the territory) with variations that are represented in Fig. 3.
Offer of initiatives and services by the pole. The parents' opinions reveal an idea of the
pole as somewhere between a recreational/socialisation center and an after-school cen-
ter for remedial and further education purposes. Meetings with external experts from
various fields (artists, writers, technicians and scientists, politicians, psychologists) are
also part of possible cultural insights to be offered. There emerges also a demand for
access to laboratory space and computer equipment after school hours. As far as extra-
curricular activities are concerned, the preferences go, in order, to music, theatre, digital
communication, and art.
Also, from this set of answers is confirmed a weak propensities to support an ubiq-
uitous interaction with the territory, which appear confined to the request for agree-
ments with facilities capable of adding a plus to the school context (theatre and swim-
ming pools) and to a few requests to organize courses for senior citizens and adults (IT
and languages).
In line with the parents' imaginary is the contribution of the students, who focus
essentially on extracurricular activities of a creative nature (music, art, acting, creation
of multimedia products) and sports (including swimming pool). Meetings with scien-
tists and external visits are also mentioned, as well as initiatives capable of supporting,
at large, individual development.
Less relevant, although not absent in the teachers' imaginary are extracurricular ac-
tivities of a cultural and recreational nature (cinema, theatre, music, sport). The prevail-
ing opinion among the teachers is that the center should organise itself and function as
a service center (medical, psychological, pedagogical), also capable of offering study
support, and cultural and linguistic mediation. They also mention the possibility for the
students to access spaces (study rooms, library, reading rooms, computer rooms, labor-
atories, outdoor/green spaces) and equipment (books, teaching materials, photocopier)
to carry on for after-school activities, supported by technical and pedagogical assis-
tance. It is also hoped that additional competences (with regards to those already avail-
able at the school) could be accessed to offer in-depth computer and language (Italian
L2) courses for adults and working students too. Few teachers see the community pact
also as an opportunity to renew the school's indoor and outdoor spaces (parquet, com-
puters, WIFI) making them more beautiful and functional, and also to create a science
museum devoted to mathematics and physics.
Fig. 4. Graphic representation of the perspective view of parents and teachers on activities and
services that should be offered by the learning ecosystem thanks to the community pact.
Parents involvement. More active parent involvement is frowned upon by teachers who
fear interferences in teaching and unjustified defensive positions on the topic of student
assessment. Only a limited number of teachers propose involving parents in online ac-
tivities to take advantage of their skills (cultural mediation, work and/or personal expe-
rience, etc.).
Parents show their willingness to support also financially – on average 27 and 30 €
- initiatives aimed respectively at improving school infrastructures and at developing
students' transversal competences (e.g. knowing how to relate, knowing how to deal
with the unexpected, exercising critical thinking, developing initiative skills, managing
emotions, etc.). They also call for awareness initiatives about the most common and
dangerous addictions. Both parents and teachers, in any case, feel the need to further
improve school-family communication and to increase the number of occasions for
meetings and discussions.
5 Conclusions and lesson learnt
The present case study dedicated to investigating the factors that can determine the
development of a community pact showed us, first of all, that there exist a clear differ-
ence between the development of a community in which the learning ecosystem acts as
an engine for initiatives aimed at the generation of social innovation and development
of a degraded territory and alternatively, a community in which the learning ecosystem
transforms itself and acts as an aggregating pole, even a civic center, whose main target
is to enhance the process of growth of its students to which can, eventually, be associ-
ated an openings to the territory dedicated to, for example, to the training for adults.
The latter is certainly the dominant view in the collective imaginary of parents,
teachers, and students. A result that confirms what has been observed in the past [11]
albeit in a preliminary survey in which also a limited number of stakeholders took part
and showed themselves to be more interested in the development of activities in the
school than in the development of activities carried out on the territory with the school.
An attitude like this one most likely, as already pointed out, could be induced by a sense
of insecurity in operating in a territory that shows clear signs of degradation and social
suffering.
A very positive perception of the school ecosystem as a whole (level of smartness,
e-maturity, and wellbeing induced) and, as well, of the actions that have been imple-
mented in recent years, is certainly an element that can induce a high sense of belonging
to the school community, but on its own, it does not seem enough to determine a com-
munion of intentions among all the actors involved in the establishment of an educating
community. The achievement of such a communion requires a lot of additional work on
the side of communication, confrontation, the development of mutual trust, codesign
activities, and the assumption of co-responsibility, to which the formal stipulation of a
community pact is not sufficient.
For the time being, in fact, despite the existence of a community pact and a high
level of appreciation regarding the school's objectives, there are still quite different
views expressed by parents and teachers on the role of the learning ecosystem as a
promoter of an educating community. This concerns both its nature and the range of
initiatives on offer.
In the teachers' imaginary, as we have seen, the learning ecosystem should promote
the development of a network among peers (schools) and with public bodies and insti-
tutions that can bring prestige to the ecosystem considered as a centralising pole capable
of providing opportunities for its students. Even more centripetal and centralizing is the
vision of parents who imagine a stronger interaction with families and an ability of the
pole to attract stakeholders and expertise to support initiatives to be carried out within
the school.
Parents and teachers have different visions also on the activities that the pole should
offer: on the one hand the parents hope for activities aimed at supporting study, social-
ization, and cultural recreation, with the territory mentioned only for the implementa-
tion of conventions with the few realities that can enrich the pole’s offer (swimming
pools and theatre); on the other hand the teachers who image the pole as a civic center
providing remedial schooling services, but also medical and psychological care to-
gether with support to linguistic and cultural mediation. Both categories of actors seem
to agree that the relationship with residents should be limited to the offer of language
and computer courses for adults.
Teachers’ and parents’ visions, although different, appear, however, integrable and,
maybe, through the few actions aimed at the adults, could represent a starting point also
to eradicate educational poverty and raise the cultural level of the neediest pockets of
the population. In any case, to achieve an integrated and unified vision and, thus, a
higher degree of commonality, it would be necessary to create a stable confrontation
and co-design platform.
The scarce participation of local stakeholders in the participatory evaluation pro-
cesses and the important growth of the parents’ participation, with their desire for con-
frontation and willingness to support - at least for a large part of the time their children
attend the school curricula - makes one speculate that are the parents that may act as
backbone on which to build up a veritable educating community, also thanks to the
competencies they can offer and their system of relationships.
At present, however, there is also a lot of work to be done on the involvement of parents
and the achievement of mutual trust with teachers, while respecting the role that each
category should play within an educating community.
What emerges from the above is that the construction of a veritable educating com-
munity implies a slow process of cultural change that goes far beyond an appreciation
for a specific learning ecosystem and the actions it implements, as well as far beyond
the formalisation of any pact that, while acting as a booster, requires the signatories and
all the players in the ecosystem to rise above their legitimate interests and expectations.
The keystone of the architecture of an educating community is the sharing of intentions
and actions that can be achieved through a slow and constant work of confrontation.
It is certainly useful to treasure all the recommendations and guidelines drawn up in the
studies already mentioned [18-20] but at the root of an educating community that
wishes to become a stable presidium over time, there can only be a sharing of intentions
and the ability to co-design. It seems obvious, thus, that a work that takes a long time
must be structured according to methods and governance that can ensure continuity
through the various generations of students, parents, and teachers that will succeed one
another.
It is also obvious that financial resources are needed for the implementation of the
actions the respondents suggest implementing, but it is also true that a willingness to
contribute both in terms of competencies and financial resources has emerged on the
part of the parents. Crowdsourcing is not, therefore, a hypothesis to be discarded, at
least for the constitution of an economic basis to be increased through the search for
funds of a more structural nature and the participation in competitive calls. Parents vol-
unteering could be transformed into an extremely effective flywheel, if it is well man-
aged (perhaps also with the help of a community manager) and included in a generative
process that must be constantly monitored and assessed - as it has been shown in this
work - to highlight critical issues and make emerge directions to be explored.
References
1. Wikipedia (n.d.). “Factory Model School”. Retrieved November 30th, 2023 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_model_school
2. Robinson K. (2010). “Changing Education paradigms”. TED talk, Retrieved November 30th,
2023 from https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms
3. CEDEFOP (2010). “The skill matching challenge: analyzing skill mismatch & policy impli-
cations”
4. McGuinness S., Ortiz L. (2015). Skill gaps in the workplace: Measurement, Determinants
and Impacts, IZA DP no. 9278
5. UNICEF (n.d.) “Inclusive Education”. Retrieved November 30th, 2023 from
https://www.unicef.org/education/inclusive-education
6. Kauffman JM, Hornby G. (2020). “Inclusive Vision Versus Special Education Reality”. Ed-
ucation Sciences. no. 10(9): 258. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090258
7. Leijen Ä, Arcidiacono F and Baucal A (2021). “The Dilemma of Inclusive Education: Inclu-
sion for Some or Inclusion for All”. Front. Psychol. no. 12: 633066. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633066
8. as examples of the huge amount of grey literature on this topic see: Villegas T. (2019). 4
Common Arguments Again Inclusive Education and Why They are Wrong. Retrieved Oc-
tober 3, 2023 from https://resources.noodle.com/articles/4-common-arguments-against-in-
clusive-education-and-why-theyre-wrong/ Secret teacher (n.d.). I am all for inclusion in prin-
ciple, but it doesn't always work. Retrieved November 30th, 2023 from The Guardian
9. Giovannella C. (2022). “At the Root of the Smart Cities: Smart Learning Ecosystems to train
Smart Citizens”. Building on Smart Cities Skills and Competences, Springer publisher, p.
217 - 228
10. Giovannella C. (2023) “ ‘Learning by being’: integrated thinking and competencies to mark
the difference from AIs”, Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Journal – IxD&A, no: 57: 8–
26, https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-057-001
11. Urbanetti I., Giovannella C., Baraniello V. and Autiero M.R. (2022). “Community pacts and
we4SLE as tools to support the implementation of Smart Learning Ecosystems”. SLERD
2022: towards the polyphonic construction of a new normality, Springer, p. 115-128,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5240-1_8
12. Giovannella C., Smartness as complex emergent property of a process. The case of learning
eco-systems. ICWOAL 2014, IEEE publisher, 2014, pp. 1-5.
13. Giovannella C., Andone D., Dascalu M., Popescu E., Rehm M., Roccasalva G., Evaluating
the Resilience of the Bottom-up Method used to Detect and Benchmark the Smartness of
University Campuses. ICS2 2016, IEEE publisher, 2016, pp. 341-345
14. Fuster M., Polchar J., Burns T., Back to the Future of Education. Four OECD Scenarios for
Schooling, 2020. https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/sites/default/files/gener-
ated/document/en/178ef527-en.pdf, retrieved on November 30th, 2023
15. https://www.parlamento.it/parlam/leggi/97059l.htm (in Italian), retrieved on November
30th, 2023
16. https://www.miur.gov.it/documents/20182/2467413/Le+linee+guida.pdf/4e4bb411-1f90-
9502-f01e-d8841a949429?version=1.0&t =1593201965918, retrieved on November 30th,
2023
17. United Nations (n.d.).The 17 goals. Retrieved on November 30th, 2023 from
https://sdgs.un.org/goals
18. https://www.labsus.org/2022/02/piccole-scuole-patti-e-comunita/ (in Italian) re-trieved on
April 2022 (in Italian) retrieved on November 30th, 2023
19. https://www.forumdisuguaglianzediversita.org/patti-educativi-territoriali-e-percorsi-abili-
tanti-unindagine-esplorativa/ (in Italian) retrieved on November 30th, 2023
20. https://www.alleanzainfanzia.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/PATTI-EDUCATIVI-RETE-
EDUCAZIONI.pdf (in Italian) retrieved on November 30th, 2023
21. Giovannella C., Participatory bottom-up self-evaluation of schools’ smartness: an Italian case
study, Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Journal – IxD&A, no: 31: 9–18,
https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-031-001
22. Giovannella C., Participatory evaluation as starting point to design for smarter learning eco-
systems: the UTOV case history, in “Citizen, Territory and Technologies: Smart Learning
Contexts and Practices”, Springer publisher, 2017, pp. 64-74
23. Meahla O., Giovannella C., Delgado F., School Smartness augmented by educational com-
munity members: a pilot contribution from K9 students, in D’Andrea Fabio and Baldi Vania
(eds.) "Codice e luoghi. Abitare le relazioni nel reale/digitale", Roma, Meltemi Editore, 2019,
pp. 143-164
24. https://www.liceo-amaldi.edu.it/index.php/patto-educativo-di-comunita-scuole-in-comune-
generiamo-il-cambiamento, retrieved on November 30th, 2023
25. Durando, M., Blamire, R., Balanskat, A. & Joyce, A. (2007). E-mature schools in Europe.In-
sight-Knowledge building andexchange on ICT policy and practice. European Schoolnet.
Retrieved on November 30th, 2023 from http://www.eun.org/docu-
ments/411753/817341/emature_schools_in_europe_final.pdf/e5d4
b90e-24ff-454f-9722-167b402ce7f4 Accessed 2022/04/10
26. Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P., Dillon, G., Farrington-Flint, L., Hayes, M., ... &
Selwood, I. (2010). Understanding the impact of technology: Learner and school level fac-
tors. Retrieved on November 30th, 2023 from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1434/1/becta_2010_un-
derstandingimpacttechnology_report.
27. Sergis S., Zervas P., Sampson D. G. (2014). “A Holistic Approach for Managing School ICT
Competence Profiles towards Supporting School ICT Uptake”. International Journal of Dig-
ital Literacy and Digital Competence no. 5(4): 33-46
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijdldc.2014100103
28. Kampylis, P., Punie, Y. and Devine, J. (2015). Promoting Effective Digital-Age Learning: A
European Framework for Digitally-Competent Educational Organisations, EUR 27599 EN,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2791/54070,
JRC98209.
29. Giovannella C., Cianfriglia L., Giannelli A., The Italian School Ecosystems two years after
the lockdown: an overview on the “digital shock” triggered by the pandemic in the percep-
tions of schools’ principals and teachers, in “SLERD 2022: towards the polyphonic construc-
tion of a new normality”, Springer, 2022, pp. 47-76, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-
5240-1_4
30. Giovannella C., Cianfriglia L., Giannelli A., The Italian School Ecosystems two years after
the pandemic in the perceptions of schools' principals and teachers -part 2 (a segmented anal-
ysis), Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal - IxD&A, 55, 2022, pp. 83 - 108, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-055-004
31. Giovannella C.: From simplex to complex: designing for wellbeing at scale, Interaction De-
sign & Architecture(s) – IxD&A Journal, N.55, 2022, pp. 123–138, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-055-006
32. Giovannella C., Andone D., Dascalu M., Popescu E., Rehm M., Roccasalva G., Smartness of
Learning Ecosystems and its bottom-up emergence in six European Campuses, Interaction
Design and Architecture(s) Journal - IxD&A, N. 27, 2015, pp. 79-92,
https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-027-005
33. Giovannella C., The ASLERD Pyramid of Smartness: A Study on the Stability of Indices and
Indicators in Schools in Project and Design Literacy as Cornerstones of Smart Education,
Springer, 2020, pp. 81-91, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9652-6
34. Desmet P. MA and Pohlmeyer A. E (2013). “Positive design: An introduction to design for
subjective well-being”. International journal of design. no. 7, 3: 5–19 Retrieved on Novem-
ber 30th, 2023 from https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A06ec60ac-0363-
43ea-9ccd-8426ef0d6b64.
35. Jolliffe, I.T.: Principal Component Analysis, Springer Series in Statistics, 2nd ed., Springer,
NY (2002)
36. Hotelling, H.. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 24, 417–441, and 498–520 (1933)
Appendix A
The table in this appendix lists the average values of the factors that contribute to define the
smartness of the IIS Amaldi learning ecosystem measured during the 2016 (M16), 2017 (M17)
and 2023 (M23) participatory evaluation campaigns, calculated based on the opinion expressed
by students (S), teachers (T) and parents (P). In the case of the mean values calculated in 2023,
their dispersion is also shown. The Wilcoxon test shows the significance of the changes detected
in 2023 with respect to the values measured in 2017 (in green if positive and significant, in bold
green if positive and highly significant, in red if negative and significant, in bold red if negative
and highly significant).
Table 1A.
Factors
Mean S
Wilcoxon
t17
Mean T
Wilcoxon
t17
Mean P
Wilcoxon
t17
Technological resources and infrastructures
School Techno-
logical Ade-
quacy (STA)
M23 = 6.30
[5.83, 6.76]
M17 = 5.73
M16 = 5.53
V = 3161
p = .009
Cohen’s d =
0.24
M23 = 7.70
[7.41, 8.00]
M17 = 5.98
M16 = 5.98
V = 2923
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
1.33
M23 = 7.06
[6.86, 7.27]
M17 = 6.23
M16 = 6.00
V = 25247
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.50
School Spaces
Adequacy
(SSA)
M23 = 6.87
[6.48, 7.25]
M17 = 6.41
M16 = 6.51
V = 3491
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.24
M23 = 7.29
[6.97, 7.60]
M17 = 6.79
M16 = 7.10
V = 2212
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.35
M23 = 7.43
[7.24, 7.61]
M17 = 6.69
M16 = 7.23
V = 24201
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.49
Competences
School profes-
sional compe-
tences (SPC)
M23 = 6.88
[6.52, 7.23]
M17 = 7.05
M16 = 7.11
M23 = 7.65
[7.35, 7.95]
M17 = 7.73
M16 = 7.59
M23 = 7.55
[7.36, 7.74]
M17 = 7.17
M16 = 7.38
V = 20132
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.25
Student Social
& Civic Com-
petences
(SSCC)
(also social in-
teraction)
M23 = 6.32
[5.95, 6.69]
M17 = 6.02
M16 = 6.43
M23 = 7.06
[6.82, 7.31]
M17 = 6.67
M16 = 6.64
V = 2059
p =.004
Cohen’s d =
0.37
M23 = 7.18
[6.98, 7.37]
M17 = 6.52
M16 = 7.11
V = 20206
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.43
Quality of Life
Long Training
(QLLT)
-
-
M = 7.04
[6.66, 7.42]
M16 = 6.77
-
-
Organizational factors
Administrative
Practices
Friendliness
(APF)
-
-
M23 = 6.80
[6.40, 7.20]
M17 = 6.71
M16 = 6.79
M23 = 7.19
[6,98, 7.39]
M17 = 6.58
M16 = 6.66
V = 21188
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.37
Agreement on
School Objec-
tives (ASO)
M23 = 6.65
[6.19, 7.10]
M17 = 6.32
M16 = 6.82
M23 = 7.43
[7.09, 7.77]
M17 = 7.18
M16 = 7.12
M23 = 7.42
[7.25, 7.60]
M17 = 6.52
M16 = 7.31
V = 23699
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.65
Sharing of Ob-
jectives and Ac-
tions (ShOA)
-
-
M23 = 7.18
[6.84, 7.51]
M17 = 6.67
M16 = 6.88
V = 1833
p = .02
Cohen’s d =
0.35
-
-
Funds Usage
Adequacy
(FUA)
-
-
M23 = 6.49
[6.06, 6.92]
M17 = 6.20
-
-
M16 = 6.98
Responsibilities
and Working
Load Sharing
Adequacy
(RWLSA)
-
-
M23 = 7.03
[6.65, 7.40]
M17 = 6.55
M16 = 6.67
-
-
Human Re-
sources Valori-
zation (HRV)
-
-
M23 = 6.91
[6.54, 7.27]
M17 = 6.56
M16 = 6.70
-
-
Support to Co-
Working
(SCoW)
-
-
M23 = 6.96
[6.57, 7.34]
M17 = 6.66
M16 = 6.52
-
-
Impact of Co-
Working
(ICoW)
-
-
M23 = 7.16
[6.79, 7.52]
M17 = 6.76
M16 = 6.86
V = 1691
p = .008
Cohen’s d =
0.26
-
-
Support to Co-
Design (SCoD)
-
-
M23 = 7.15
[6.81, 7.50]
M17 = 6.62
V = 1637
p = .04
Cohen’s d =
0.36
-
-
Support to Par-
ticipatory Eval-
uation and Self-
Evaluation
SPESE
M23 = 5.64
[5.19, 6.08]
M17 = 5.42
M16 = 5.16
M23 = 6.99
[6.63, 7.34]
M17 = 6.57
-
-
School Organi-
zation Appreci-
ation (SOA)
M23 = 6.65
[6.19, 7.10]
M17 = 6.07
M16 = 6.20
V = 3385
p = .03
Cohen’s d =
0.26
M23 = 7.73
[7.44, 8.01]
M17 = 7.20
M16 = 7.67
V = 1960
p =.002
Cohen’s d =
0.43
M23 = 7.57
[7.39, 7.75]
M17 = 6.88
M16 = 6.90
V = 25198
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.47
External Com-
munication of
School Objec-
tives (ECSO)
M23 = 6.01
[5.58, 6.45]
M17 = 6.30
M16 = 5.86
M23 = 7.04
[6.67, 7.42]
M17 = 7.09
M16 = 7.41
M23 = 7.15
[6.96, 7.34]
M17 = 6.29
M16 = 6.77
V = 24917
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.57
Interaction with
Principal (IwP)
-
-
M23 = 7.65
[7.26, 8.05]
M17 = 7.36
M16 = 7.79
M23 = 6.89
[6.64, 7.13]
M17 = 6.88
M16 = 6.38
Interaction with
DSGA
(IDSGA)
-
-
M23 = 7.27
[6.81, 7.74]
M17 = 6,49
V = 2095
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.39
-
-
Interaction with
ATA (IATA)*?
-
-
M23 = 7.00
[6.56, 7.44]
M17 = 7.16
-
-
Personal factors
School Chal-
lenge Quality
(SCQ)*[also
organizational
factor]
M23 = 6.22
[5.75, 6,69]
M17 = 6.07
M16 = 5.83
M23 = 7.15
[6,77, 7.52]
M17 = 6.78
M16 = 6.83
V = 1852
p =.02
Cohen’s d =
0.23
M23 = 7.13
[6,91, 7.36]
M17 = 6.46
M16 = 5.93
V = 24053
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.37
Appreciation by
Peers (AbP)
M23 = 7.23
[6.82, 7.64]
M17 = 7.34
M16 = 7.41
-
-
-
-
Individual
Competences
-
-
M23 = 7.43
[7.06, 7.79]
M17 = 6.84
V = 2194
p < .001
-
-
Appreciation
(ICA)
M16 = 6.83
Cohen’s d =
0.37
Individual Re-
sults Valoriza-
tion (IRA)
-
-
M23 = 7.11
[6.73, 7.49]
M17 = 6.56
M16 = 6.62
V = 2532
p = .024
Cohen’s d =
0.33
-
-
Individual
Opinions Con-
sideration (IOC)
Students (SOC)
Parents Advice
Consideration
(PAC)
M23 = 6.24
[5.78, 6.70]
M17 = 5.91
M16 = 6.06
M23 = 7.13
[6.74, 7.52]
M17 = 6.36
M16 = 6.45
V = 2243
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.46
M23 = 6.49
[6.25, 6.72]
M17 = 5.71
V = 21226
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.42
School Support
to Individual
Development
(SSID)
M23 = 6.29
[5.80, 6.79]
M17 = 6.81
M16 = 6.77
M23 = 7.36
[6.99, 7.74]
M17 = 6.89
M16 = 6.99
V = 2023
p = .002
Cohen’s d =
.28
M23 = 7.33
[7,13, 7.52]
M17 = 6.17
M16 = 6.63
V = 25525
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.73
Educational process related factors
Collaborative
Work Support
& Stimulation
(CWSS)
M23 = 5.81
[5.37, 6.26]
M17 = 6.66
M16 = 6.52
V = 1155
p < .001
Cohen’s d = -
0.40
M23 = 7.58
[7.21, 7.95]
M17 = 5.94
M16 = 6.07
V = 2775
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
1.02
-
-
LIFE Compe-
tence & PCTO
(LCaP)
M23 = 7.19
[6.73, 7.66]
M17 = 6.89
M16 = 7.18
-
-
-
-
PCTO Satisfac-
tion/Quality
(PCTOQ)
M23 = 6.21
[5.65, 6.76]
M17 = 3.9
M16 = 3.89
V = 2469
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.96
M23 = 7.59
[7.29, 7.89]
M17 = 6.18
V = 2490
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
1.08
M23 = 7.18
[6.93, 7.42]
M17 = 4.55
V = 21130
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
1.48
PCTO Manage-
ment (PCTOM)
M23 = 6.53
[5.98, 7.09]
M17 = 4.03
V = 1761
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
1.14
M23 = 7.45
[7.14, 7.76]
M17 = 6.61
V = 2181
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.64
M23 = 7.03
[6.77, 7.30]
M17 = 4.59
V = 12415
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
1.43
PCTO Rele-
vance (PCTOR)
M23 = 6.08
[5.50, 6.65]
M17 = 3.99
V = 1372
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.25
M23 = 7.48
[7.13, 7.82]
M17 = 6.16
V = 2128
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.91
M23 = 6.99
[6.68, 7.30]
M17 = 4.88
V = 11330
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
1.08
Orientation Ini-
tiative Quality
(OIQ)
M23 = 6.20
[5.66, 6.74]
M17 = 5.33
M16 = 5.93
V = 1832
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.92
M23 = 7.55
[7.25, 7.85]
M17 = 7.36
M16 = 7.26
M23 = 6.98
[6.74, 7.21]
M17 = 6
M16 = 6.48
V = 10257
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.58
Personalized
Learning (PL)
M23 = 5.14
[4.65, 5.63]
M17 = 5
M23 = 7.14
[6.81, 7.48]
M23 = 6.57
[6.33, 6.82]
M17 = 4.56
V = 19720
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
1.12
Support to Ex-
cellence Devel-
opment (SED)
M23 = 6.44
[5.96, 6.92]
M17 = 5.74
V = 2707
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.33
M23 = 7.49
[7.13, 7.86]
M17 = 6.21
V = 2486
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.81
M23 = 7.10
[6.85, 7.35]
M17 = 5.48
V = 18192
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.92
Efficacy of
Support to Stu-
dents with
Learning Diffi-
culties (ESSLD)
M23 = 6.18
[5.68, 6.68]
M17 = 6.16
M16 = 6.62
M23 = 7.35
[7.02, 7.68]
M17 = 7.28
M16 = 7.02
M23 = 7.12
[6.89, 7.35]
M17 = 6.61
M16 = 6.28
V = 12479
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.31
Learning Conti-
nuity Assurance
(LCA)
-
-
M23 = 7.61
[7.33, 7.88]
M23 = 7.32
[7.11, 7.52]
M17 = 6.38
V = 20722
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.61
Smartness: Social interaction
Classroom So-
cial Climate
(CSC)
M23 = 6.94
[6.51, 7.37]
M17 = 6.84
M16 = 7.05
M23 = 7.52
[7.20, 7.84]
M17 = 7.27
M16 = 7.11
M23 = 7.29
[7.08, 7.51]
M17 = 7.65
M16 = 7.13
V = 12006
p < .001
Cohen’s d = -
0.20
Students-Teach-
ers Relation-
ships (STR);
M23 = 6.83
[6.20, 7.06]
M17 = 6.47
M16 = 6.45
M23 = 8.44
[8.17, 8.81]
M17 = 8.15
-
-
Students/Teach-
ers-ATA Rela-
tionships
(SATAR/TATA
R)
M23 = 7.36
[6.99, 7.73]
M17 = 6.82
M16 = 7.06
V = 3400
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.29
M23 = 8.09
[7.79, 8.39]
M17 = 7.97
M16 = 7.06
-
-
Teachers-Par-
ents Relation-
ships (TPR)
-
-
M23 = 7.45
[7.09, 7.80]
M17 = 7.28
M16 = 7.43
M23 = 7.49
[7.29, 7.70]
M17 = 6.96
M16 = 8.04
V = 29755
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
1.18
School Initia-
tive about Di-
versity (SiD)
M23 = 6.69
[6.28, 7.10]
M17 = 6.04
M16 = 6.25
V = 2898
p = .01
Cohen’s d =
0.32
M23 = 7.61
[7.31, 7.92]
M17 = 7.07
M16 = 7.09
V = 1811
p = .04
Cohen’s d =
0.41
M23 = 7.36
[7.17, 7.55]
M17 = 6.38
M16 = 6.81
V = 26117
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.63
School Inclu-
sion Action
(SIA)
M23 = 6.98
[6.57, 7.39]
M17 = 6.38
M16 = 6.18
V = 3246
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.30
M23 = 7.58
[7.23, 7.93]
M17 = 7.46
M16 = 7.20
M23 = 7.65
[7.47, 7.83]
M17 = 7.17
M16 = 6.88
V = 20452
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.33
Support to Stu-
dent Social In-
teraction (SSSI)
M23 = 6.35
[5.92, 6.79]
M17 = 6.25
M16 = 6.39
M23 = 7.58
[7.33, 7.83]
M17 = 7.27
V = 1919
p = .02
Cohen’s d =
0.28
M23 = 7.02
[6.81, 7.22]
M17 = 5.36
V = 28962
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
1.01
Peer Relation-
ships Quality
(PRQ)/
Affinity for Stu-
dents/Parent
(PeA)
M23 = 7.01
[6.60, 7.42]
M17 = 7.20
M16 = 6.93
M23 = 7.74
[7.40, 8.08]
M17 = 7.29
M16 = 7.19
V = 2053
p = .005
Cohen’s d =
0.30
M23 = 6.97
[6.78, 7.16]
M17 = 6.68
M16 = 7.17
Social interaction: Community Pact Related Factors
Support to Ter-
ritorial Social
Interaction
(STSI)
M23 = 6.34
[5.94, 6.74]
M17 = 5.82
M16 = 5.76
V = 3284
p = .002
Cohen’s d =
0.28
M23 = 7.73
[7.44, 8.02]
M17 = 7.22
M16 = 7.11
V = 2838
p = .004
Cohen’s d =
0.41
M23 = 7.12
[6.92, 7.33]
M17 = 6.05
M16 = 5.68
V = 24756
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.65
Utility of Terri-
torial Virtual
Community De-
velopment
(UTVCD)
M23 = 6.09
[5.66, 6.51]
M17 = 6.09
M16 = 6.23
M23 = 6.95
[6.58, 7.31]
M17 = 6.47
M16 = 6.51
V = 2159
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.30
M23 = 7.22
[7.02, 7.42]
M17 = 6.50
M16 = 6.74
V = 21225
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.46
Parents Involve-
ment in School
Activities
(PISA)*[also
organizational
factor]
M23 = 5.52
[5.05, 5.98]
M17 = 5.51
M16 = 5.17
M23 = 6.87
[6.46, 7.27]
M17 = 6.51
M16 = 6.58
M23 = 6.85
[6.60, 7.10]
M17 = 5.40
M16 = 6.86
V = 18059
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.81
Smartness: Safety
Internal Safety
at Work (ISeW)
-
-
M23 = 7.38
[7.03, 7.73]
M17 = 5.69
V = 2711
p < .001
-
-
Cohen’s d =
1.11
Internal Safety
(generic) (ISe)
M23 = 7.98
[7.63, 8.32]
M17 = 7.19
M16 = 7.22
V = 3601
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.46
M23=7.47*
[7.12, 7.82]
M17 = 6.91
M16 = 7.52
V = 2223
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
1.17
M23 = 8.27
[8.10, 8.44]
M17 = 7.64
M16 = 7.85
V = 23185
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.46
External Safety
(ESe)
M23 = 6.23
[5.76, 7.70]
M17 = 5.77
M16 = 5.61
V = 3030
p = .02
Cohen’s d =
0.19
M23 = 6.54
[6.12, 6.96]
M17 = 6.91
M16 = 6.15
M23 = 6.37
[6.13, 6.62]
M17 = 5.65
M16 = 5.23
V = 22666
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.36
Smartness: Food
Food Service
Adequacy
(FSA)
M23 = 6.87
[6.42, 7.31]
M17 = 5.79
M16 = 5.83
V = 3717
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.48
M23 = 6.50
[6.07, 6.94]
M17 = 4.75
M16 = 6.04
V = 2610
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.91
-
-
Smartness: Mobility
Internal mobil-
ity (IMo)
External for
parents (Emo)
M23 = 7.47
[7.05, 7.89]
M17 = 7.37
M23 = 7.56
[7.22, 7.90]
M17 = 7.38
M23 = 7.50
[7.27, 7.73]
M17 = 6.99
V = 24020
p < .001
Cohen’s d =
0.28
Smartness: Environment
Environmental
Care (EnC)
M23 = 5.89
[5.53, 6.45]
M16 = 6.04
M17 = 5.64
M23 = 6.26
[5.85, 6.68]
M16 = 6.54
M17 = 6.19
M23 = 6.89
[6.69, 7.09]
M16 = 6.90
M17 = 6.08
