Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer


Vol. 14 No. 1 (2023): University didactics, innovation and inclusion. Assessment and feedback

Technologies as learning mediators in interactive and conversational teaching approaches: A research study on the lesson's co-construction in the training of special education teachers

gennaio 10, 2023


This paper presents the results of a study aimed at exploring the potential of technologies as learning mediators enabling the adoption of interactive and conversational teaching approaches for nurturing engagement and participation, to the benefit of the learning quality. The study was carried out at the University of Florence, involving 138 teachers attending the course of Special Pedagogy and Integrated Management of the Class Group. The empirical study adopted a mixed approach based on an online survey combined with participant observation. The elaboration of the questionnaire data and the transcribed observations indicate positive aspects such as increased levels of participation in the lessons, a more relevant and meaningful learning experience and increased motivation to follow and learn. Although the results of this study are promising, further investigation should be carried out to understand participants' perspectives and thus improve learners’ engagement, in favour of pedagogical innovation.


  1. Carless D. and Winstone N. (2020) Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372.
  2. Cohen L., Manion L., and Morrison K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). London and New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
  3. Di Palma D., Belfiore P. (2020). La trasformazione didattica universitaria ai tempi del Covid-19: un’opportunità di innovazione?. Formazione & Insegnamento, 18(1): 281-293. DOI: 10.7346/-fei-XVIII-01-20_23.
  4. Di Stasio M., and Messini L. (2021). Formazione alla valutazione e valutazione della formazione: l’esempio virtuoso di eTwinning. In D. Nucci, A. Tosi, M. C. Pettenati (Curr.), eTwinning e la formazione degli insegnanti. Studi, evidenze e prospettive della community italiana (pp. 117-126). Roma: Carocci.
  5. Hattie J., and Shirley S. (2019). Visible learning: Feedback. Abingdon-New York: Routledge.
  6. Hattie J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1): 81-112.
  7. Hattie J., and Yates, G. (2013). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Abingdon-New York: Routledge.
  8. Laurillard D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
  9. Laurillard D. (2012). Teaching as design science. Abingdon-New York: Routledge.
  10. Murai Y., Kim Y. J., Martin E., Kirschmann P., Rosenheck L., and Reich J. (2019). Embedding assessment in school-based making: preliminary exploration of principles for embedded assessment in maker learning. In P. Blikstein, and N. Holbert (Eds.), FabLearn’19: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education (pp. 180-183). New York, NY: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3311890.3311922.
  11. Prince M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3): 223-231.
  12. Ranieri M., Raffaghelli J.E., Bruni I. (2021). Game-based student response system: Revisiting its potentials and criticalities in large-size classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(2): 129-142. DOI: 10.1177/146978741881266.
  13. Ranieri M., Rossi P. G., and Panciroli C. (2021). Active Learning in large size classes. A multiple case study on technology-enhanced feedback in academic contexts. In: EDULEARN21, 5th and 6th of July 2021, IATED Academy, 9154-9159.
  14. Ranieri M., Gaggioli C., and Borges M. K. (2020). La didattica alla prova del Covid-19 in Italia: uno studio sulla Scuola Primaria. Práxis Educativa (Brasil), 15: 1-20. DOI: 10.5212/PraxEduc.v.15.16307.079.
  15. Rossi P.G., and Pentucci M. (2021). La progettazione come azione simulata. Didattica dei processi e degli eco-sistemi. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  16. Rivoltella P. C., and Rossi P. G. (2019). Il corpo e la macchina. Brescia: Morcelliana.
  17. Rossi P.G, Ranieri M., Li I., and Perifanou M. (2019). Interaction, feedback and active learning: where we are and where we want to go. FORM@RE, 19: 1-5. DOI: 10.13128/form-7696.
  18. Smith E. R., Semin G. R. (2004). Socially Situated Cognition: Cognition in its Social Context. In M. P. Zanna (Cur.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 36, pp. 53-117. Elsevier Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36002-8.
  19. Sweller J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4(4): 295-312.
  20. Trinchero R. (2018). Valutazione formante per l’attivazione cognitiva. Spunti per un uso efficace delle tecnologie per apprendere in classe. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3): 40-55. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1013.
  21. Winstone N. E., Nash R. A., Parker M., and Rowntree J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A Systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1): 17-37.


Metrics Loading ...

Most read articles by the same author(s)