1. Appleton JJ (2012). Systems consultation: Developing the assessment-to-intervention link with the Student engagement instrument. In: Christenson S, Reschly A, Wylie C, editors. Handbook of research on student engagement. Boston: Springer. p. 725-741. [
Link] [
DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_35]
2. Aram F, Gharaei F, Habibi M (2018). A survey on the role of periodical markets in the sociability of neighborhood's residents and social interactions, case study: Hamedan. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development. 11(23):135-145. [Persian] [
Link]
3. Audas R, Williams JD (2001). Engagement and dropping out of school: A life-course perspective. Human Resources and Social Development Canada. [
Link]
4. Azemati HR, Sabahi S, Azemati S (2012). Environmental factors affecting student satisfaction of learning spaces. Naqshejahan. 2(1):31-42. [Persian] [
Link]
5. Azzi V, Catharine D, Roberto J (2007). An evaluation method for school building design at the preliminary phase with optimization of aspects of environmental comfort for the school system of the State São Paulo in Brazil. Building and Environment. 42(2):984-999. [
Link] [
DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.10.020]
6. Barker RG (1969). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. California: Stanford University Press. [
Link]
7. Berman MA (1996). The transportation effects of neo-traditional development. Journal of Planning Literature. 10(4):347-363. [
Link] [
DOI:10.1177/088541229601000401]
8. Blaikie N (2009). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Polity. [
Link]
9. Day C (2007). Environment and children: Passive lessons from the everyday environment. 1st edition. Milton Park: Routledge. [
Link] [
DOI:10.4324/9780080550978]
10. Finn JD (1998). Parental engagement that makes a difference. Educational Leadership. 55(8):20-24. [
Link]
11. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research. 74(1):59-109. [
Link] [
DOI:10.3102/00346543074001059]
12. Hartig T, Evans GW, Jamner LD, Davis DS, Gärling T (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23(2):109-123. [
Link] [
DOI:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3]
13. Jimerson SR, Campos E, Greif JL (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist. 8(1):7-27. [
Link] [
DOI:10.1007/BF03340893]
14. Kamelnia H (2010). A new outlook at design of learning environments. Architecture & Calture. 12(41):6-14. [Persian] [
Link]
15. Khakzad M, Mohammadi M, Jam F, Aghabozorgi K (2014). Identification of factors influencing urban facade's design with an emphasis on aesthetics and ecological dimensions Case study: Valiasr (a.s.) Street -Free Region of Qeshm. Urban Studies. 3(10):15-26. [
Link]
16. Khan S, Kotharkar R (2012). Performance evaluation of school environs: Evolving an appropriate methodology building. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 50:479-491. [
Link] [
DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.052]
17. Lynch K (2016). The image of the city. Translated by Mazini M. Tehran: Tehran University Press. [Persian] [
Link]
18. Montague JW (2015). Destination marketing association international annual conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, July 21-23, 2014. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism. 16(1):5-6. [
Link] [
DOI:10.1080/15470148.2015.1000740]
19. Motalebi Q (2002). Environmental psychology: The new knowledge-based discipline at architecture and urban design's service. Fine Arts. (10):52-67. [Persian] [
Link]
20. Nasar JL (1997). The evaluate image of the city.1st edition. New York: SAGE Publications. [
Link]
21. Rafiian M, Khodaee Z (2010). The study of determining indices and criteria of citizen's satisfaction with urban public spaces. Strategy. 18(53):227-248. [Persian] [
Link]
22. Rahimi L, Rafiyan M, Bagheri M (2017). Evaluation the impacts of spatial scale on the residents' attachment to place in central neighborhoods (Tabriz city). Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning. 9(18):43-58. [Persian] [
Link]
23. Rapoport A (1990). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. Arizona: University of Arizona Press. [
Link]
24. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker AB (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 3:71-92. [
Link] [
DOI:10.1023/A:1015630930326]
25. Seif AA (2015). Educational measurement, assessment and evaluation. Tehran: Doran. [Persian] [
Link]
26. Sharifi HP (2008). Measuring performance in the teaching-learning process. Qom: Tebyan Press. [Persian] [
Link]
27. Tayyebi A, Zekavat K (2017). Exploring Iranian tourists' image of Isfahan using Grounded theory. Soffeh. 27(2):63-78. [Persian] [
Link]
28. Tolman EC (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review. 55(4):189-208. [
Link] [
DOI:10.1037/h0061626]
29. Vaske JJ, Kobrin KC (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education. 32(4):16-21. [
Link] [
DOI:10.1080/00958960109598658]
30. Vahdat S, Sajadzadeh H (2016). The study and evaluation of the role of urban art in increasing the presence of public spaces with an emphasis on urban graphics (case study: Hamadan Mardom Park). Scientific Journal of Pazhuhesh-e Honar. 6(11):25-38. [Persian] [
Link]
31. Whyte WH (1980). Social life of small urban spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces. [
Link]
32. Willms JD (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD. [
Link]
33. Zamani BE, Nasre Isfahani AR (2009). Physical and cultural characteristics of instructional spaces in four developed countries from the viewpoints of Iranian parents and students. Journal of Educational Innovation. 6(5):55-84. [Persian] [
Link]