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


Vol. 8 No. 2 (2017): ESS - Rethinking the design process, rethinking the curriculum

School, curriculum and technology: the what and how of their connections

dicembre 18, 2017


Technology is, here, meant as an umbrella concept that finds its location in some dimensions of the school governance such as a practice of scrutiny and a means to develop teacher training, but mostly as part of students’ background and expectations to be shared in a co-constructed curriculum.

Technologies, nowadays, have been developing a new “world order” where education can cover some of the gaps students can hardly handle by just “living” the digital reality in which they are fully involved also thanks to a continuous online connection aided by the mobile devices.

Being autonomous in managing online contacts and information doesn’t mean being digitally confident citizens and educational institutions can help identifying personalized and self-regulated learning path where students’ needs and potentialities can find in the collaborative construction of the curriculum a common ground which ensure equity of the educational offer and respect of diversity at the same time.

Keywords: technology, school, curriculum


  1. ACRL (2016). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, American Library Association, Chicago, text available at the website
  2. Baldacci M. (2005)., Personalizzazione o individualizzazione?, Trento: Erickson.
  3. Bocconi, S., Panagiotis, G.K. and Punie, Y. (2012). Innovating Learning: Key Elements for Developing Creative Classrooms in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  4. Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., and Puni, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1. The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, text available at the website
  5. Common Sense Media (2017). The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Kids Age Zero to Eight, text available at the website
  6. European Commission (2017). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, 30.5.2017 COM (2017) 248 final.
  7. Fedeli, L. (2013). Tecnologie e inclusione. In L. Perla (ed), Per una didattica dell’inclusione. Prove di formalizzazione (pp.155-177). Lecce: PensaMultimedia.
  8. Giaconi, C. (2016). Una via per l’inclusione: il Progetto PROPIT tra allineamento e sostenibilità. In P.G. Rossi, C. Giaconi (eds.), Micro-progettazione: pratiche a confronto (pp. 39-49). Milano: Francoangeli.
  9. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH).
  10. Mangione, G.R., Pettenati, M.C., and Rosa, A. (2016) Anno di formazione e prova: analisi del modello italiano alla luce della letteratura scientifica e delle esperienze internazionali. Form@re, Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 2, 16: 47-64.
  11. Mott, V. W., and Lohr, K. D. (2014). Co-Constructed Curricula: An Adult Learning Perspective. In V. Wang, & V. Bryan (Eds.), Andragogical and Pedagogical Methods for Curriculum and Program Development (pp. 81-100). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  12. OECD (2017) How is life?, Paris: OECD publishing.
  13. Petrina, S. (2004). The politics of curriculum and instructional design/theory/form. Interchange, 35, 1: 81-126.
  14. Petrina, S. (2007). Curriculum and Instruction Design. In S. Petrina (Ed.), Advanced Teaching Methods for the Technology Classroom (pp. 251-279). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  15. Pew Research Center (2015). Teens, social media and technology review, text available at the website
  16. Redecker, C., and Punie, Y. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu, text available at the website
  17. Reeve, J., and Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learn¬ing activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218
  18. Rossi, P.G. (2016). Progettazione didattica e professionalità docente. PROPIT: l’artefatto progettuale come mediatore didattico. In P.G. Rossi, C. Giaconi (eds), Micro-progettazione: pratiche a confronto (pp. 13-38). Milano: Francoangeli.
  19. Statista (2016). Social media sites or apps used by children in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2016, text available at the website
  20. Timberlake, W. (1984). An ecological approach to learning. Learning and Motivation, 15, 4: 321-333.


Metrics Loading ...