The school as a place learning ecosystem – Participatory evaluation of the boundary conditions: the case of the IIS Amaldi.

Carlo Giovannella, Maria Rosaria Autiero
pp.  59 – 84, download


The community pact is a tool potentially capable of fostering the development of place 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, investigated in this paper through a participatory evaluation process. The outcomes of such an evaluation process show that teachers and parents tend to develop different visions of how schools can act as a territorial presidium, although both expect that it is exclusively focused on the needs of the students, rather than those of the territory. The perception of an increased 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 community capable of interacting in a capillary manner with all components of a territory that is characterized by elements of strong degradation. Even the establishment of a territorial presidium having the school as a pole of attraction requires a long work of confrontation, sharing, co-planning, and assumption of co-responsibility to integrate the different points of view emerging from the participatory evaluation process.

Keywords: smart learning ecosystems, place learning ecosystems, school community pact, learning community, participatory evaluation.


1. Wikipedia (n.d.): Factory Model School. Retrieved on November 30th, 2023 from
2. Robinson K.: Changing Education paradigms. TED talk (2010), Retrieved on Novem-ber 30th, 2023 from
3. CEDEFOP: The skill matching challenge: analyzing skill mismatch & policy implica-tions (2010).
4. McGuinness S., Ortiz L.: Skill gaps in the workplace: Measurement, Determinants and Impacts, IZA DP no. 9278 (2015).
5. UNICEF (n.d.): Inclusive Education:. Retrieved on November 30th, 2023 from
6. Kauffman JM, Hornby G.: Inclusive Vision Versus Special Education Reality. Educa-tion Sciences. no. 10(9): 258 (2020).
7. Leijen Ä., Arcidiacono F. and Baucal A.: The Dilemma of Inclusive Education: Inclu-sion for Some or Inclusion for All, Front. Psychol. no. 12: 633066 (2021). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633066
8. as examples of the huge amount of grey literature on this topic see: Villegas T.: 4 Common Arguments Again Inclusive Education and Why They are Wrong (2019). Re-trieved October 3, 2023 from; Secret teacher (n.d.). I am all for inclusion in principle, but it doesn’t always work. Retrieved November 30th, 2023 from The Guardian
9. Giovannella C.: At the Root of the Smart Cities: Smart Learning Ecosystems to train Smart Citizens, Building on Smart Cities Skills and Competences, Springer publisher, pp. 217 – 228 (2022)
10. Giovannella C.: ‘Learning by being’: integrated thinking and competencies to mark the difference from AIs, Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Journal – IxD&A, 57, pp. 8–26 (2023)
11. Urbanetti I., Giovannella C., Baraniello V. and Autiero M.R.: Community pacts and we4SLE as tools to support the implementation of Smart Learning Ecosystems, in SLERD 2022: towards the polyphonic construction of a new normality, Springer, pp. 115-128 (2022)
12. Giovannella C.: Smartness as complex emergent property of a process. The case of learning eco-systems. ICWOAL 2014, IEEE publisher, pp. 1—5 (2014)
13. Giovannella C., Andone D., Dascalu M., Popescu E., Rehm M., Roccasalva G.: Evaluat-ing the Resilience of the Bottom-up Method used to Detect and Benchmark the Smart-ness of University Campuses. ICS2 2016, IEEE publisher, pp. 341–345 (2016)
14. Fuster M., Polchar J., Burns T.: Back to the Future of Education. Four OECD Scenarios for Schooling (2020) ated/document/en/178ef527-en.pdf, retrieved on November 30th, 2023
15. (in Italian), retrieved on Novem-ber 30th, 2023
16. =1593201965918, retrieved on No-vember 30th, 2023
17. United Nations (n.d.): The 17 goals. Retrieved on November 30th, 2023 from
18. (in Italian) re-trieved on November 30th, 2023
19. (in Italian) retrieved on November 30th, 2023
20. (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, 31, pp. 9–18 (2016)
22. Giovannella C.: Participatory evaluation as starting point to design for smarter learn-ing ecosystems: the UTOV case history, in “Citizen, Territory and Technologies: Smart Learning Contexts and Practices”, Springer publisher, pp. 64-74 (2017)
23. Meahla O., Giovannella C., Delgado F.: School Smartness augmented by educational community 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, pp. 143-164 (2019)
24., retrieved on November 30th, 2023
25. Durando, M., Blamire, R., Balanskat, A. & Joyce, A.: E-mature schools in Eu-rope.Insight-Knowledge building andexchange on ICT policy and practice, European Schoolnet (2007) retrieved on November 30th, 2023 from
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.: Understanding the impact of technology: Learner and school level factors (2010) retrieved on November 30th, 2023 from
27. Sergis S., Zervas P., Sampson D. G.: A Holistic Approach for Managing School ICT Competence Profiles towards Supporting School ICT Uptake, International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence no. 5(4), pp. 33-46 (2014)
28. Kampylis, P., Punie, Y. and Devine, J.: Promoting Effective Digital-Age Learning: A European Framework for Digitally-Competent Educational Organisations, EUR 27599 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. (2015), 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 perceptions of schools’ principals and teachers, in “SLERD 2022: towards the polyphonic construction of a new normality”, Springer, pp. 47-76 (2022)
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 seg-mented analysis), Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal – IxD&A, 55, pp. 83 – 108 (2022) DOI:
31. Giovannella C.: From simplex to complex: designing for wellbeing at scale, Interaction Design & Architecture(s) – IxD&A Journal, N.55, pp. 123–138 (2022) DOI:
32. Giovannella C., Andone D., Dascalu M., Popescu E., Rehm M., Roccasalva G.: Smart-ness of Learning Ecosystems and its bottom-up emergence in six European Campuses, Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal – IxD&A, 27, pp. 79-92 (2015)
33. Giovannella C.: The ASLERD Pyramid of Smartness: A Study on the Stability of Indi-ces and Indicators in Schools in Project and Design Literacy as Cornerstones of Smart Education, Springer, pp. 81-91 (2020)
34. Desmet P. MA and Pohlmeyer A. E .: Positive design: An introduction to design for subjective well-being”. International journal of design, 7, 3 pp. 5–19 (2013) retrieved on November 30th, 2023 from
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 compo-nents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, pp. 417–441, and pp. 498–520 (1933)
37. Bellefontaine T., & Wisener R.: The evaluation of place-based approaches. A report prepared for Policy Horizons Canada (2011) retrieved on March 2024 from
38. Kania J., & Kramer M.: Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter, pp. 36–41 (2011)
39. Dewey, J.: The school and society. The University of Chicago Press (1915)
40. Fry R.: Simple rules for place-based approaches addressing disadvantage. Thesis, Uni-versity of Melbourne (2019). retrieved on March 2024 from
41. Cleveland B., Backhouse S., Chandler P., McShane I., Clinton J.M., Newton C. (Eds): Schools as Community Hubs, Springer, (2023),
42. Jacobson R.: Community schools: A place-based approach to education and neighbor-hood change. A series of discussion papers on building healthy neighborhoods (2016) retrieved on March 2024 from, 2016
43. Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., & Lam, L.: Community schools as an effective school improvement strategy: A review of the evidence. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Insti-tute (2017) retrieved on March 2024 from
44. Black, R., Lemon, B., & Walsh, L.: Literature review and background research for the National Collaboration Project: Extended service school models (2010)
45. Cleveland B: A school but not as we know it! Towards schools for networked com-munities. Australian Association of Research in Education, Melbourne (2016) re-trieved on March 2024 from
46. Dewey J.: The school as social centre. The Elementary School Teacher, 3(2), pp. 73-86 (1902)
47. Rogers J.: Community Schools: Lessons from the Past and Present, Los Angeles: UCLA IDEA (1998)
48. Paproth H., Clinton J.M., Aston R.: The Role of Evaluative Thinking in the Success of Schools as Community Hubs in Cleveland B. et al. (Eds), Schools as Community Hubs, Springer, pp. 309-321 (2023)

back to Table of Contents