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

Articles/Articoli

Vol. 9 No. 1 (2018): ESS - Technologies and inclusion

Il progetto MUSE. Migliorare l'accesso, la partecipazione e l'apprendimento degli studenti disabili nelle università dell'America Latina

Submitted
marzo 26, 2018
Published
2018-06-08

Abstract

Il contributo intende presentare le attività svolte nell'ambito del Progetto europeo MUSE, con particolare riguardo al Work Package "Modernizzazione e rafforzamento del capitale umano", condotto dall'Università di Bologna. Uno dei principali obiettivi di questo progetto è la creazione - in Cile, Messico e Argentina - di Servizi di supporto per gli studenti con disabilità e relative strategie - a lungo termine - per favorire il loro accesso e permanenza nel sistema di istruzione superiore. Al fine di progettare e implementare questi Servizi di supporto, l'Università di XXX ha formato 30 amministrativi e accademici, dell'America Latina, sulle principali questioni strategiche relative a: l'Approccio inclusivo, la progettazione universale dell'apprendimento, le TIC per l'inclusione, la progettazione pedagogica di ambienti di apprendimento attivo. La formazione intende promuovere l'acquisizione di competenze pedagogiche e didattiche - in particolare sull'uso delle TIC - per sostenere l'inclusione di studenti con disabilità all'università.

References

  1. Armstrong F., Barton L. (eds.) (1999). Disability, human rights and education: Cross- cultural perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  2. Biggeri M., Ferrannini A. (2014). Opportunity gap analysis: Procedures and methods for applying the capability approach in development initiatives. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 15(1): 60-70.
  3. Biggeri M., Ciani F. (2015). Emancipatory Research Process and Methods. Unpublished Report, Action Research for Co-development.
  4. Brooks D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5): 719-726. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2010.01098.x
  5. Caldin R. (2013). Current pedagogic issues in inclusive education for the disabled. Pedagogia Oggi, 1: 11-25.
  6. Caldin R., Guerra L. (2017). Università e Cooperazione Educativa Internazionale. I motivi di un impegno condiviso. L’integrazione scolastica e sociale, 2: 129-131.
  7. CAST. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author. Text available at the website: http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines (23.03.2018).
  8. Conferenza Nazionale Universitaria Delegati per la Disabilità. (2014), Linee Guida. Text available at the website: http://www.cnudd.it (23.03.2018).
  9. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2015). Guidelines for Accessible Information. ICT for Information Accessibility in Learning (ICT4IAL). Text available at the website: http://www.ict4ial.eu/sites/default/files/Guidelines%20for%20Accessible%20Information_EN.pdf (23.03.2018).
  10. Ferri P. Moriggi S. (2016). Destrutturare l’aula, ma con metodo: spazi e orizzonti epistemologici per una didattica aumentata dalle tecnologie. ECPS Journal, 13: 143-161. DOI: 10.7358/ecps-2016-013-ferr
  11. Gardou C. (2006). Diversità, vulnerabilità e handicap: Per una nuova cultura della disabilità. Trento: Erickson.
  12. Guidelines for Accessible Information. ICT for Information Accessibility in Learning (ICT4IAL). Text available at the website: http://www.ict4ial.eu/sites/default/files/Guidelines%20for%20Accessible%20Information_EN.pdf (23.03.2018).
  13. Hattie J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers, Maximizing impact on learning. London and New York: Routledge.
  14. Italian Ministry for Development Cooperation. (2013). Italian Development Cooperation Disability Action Plan.
  15. Mitchell D. (2008). What really Works in Special and Inclusive Education. London: Routledge.
  16. Mosa E., Tosi L. (2016). Ambienti di apprendimento innovativi – Una panoramica tra ricerca e casi di studio. BRICKS, 6(1): 9-19. Retrived from: http://www.rivistabricks.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/02_Mosa.pdf
  17. Oliver M. (1992). Changing the Social Relations of research Production?. Disability, Handicap and Society, 2: 101-114.
  18. Perks T., Orr D., Alomari E. (2016). Classroom Re-design to Facilitate Student Learning: A Case Study of Changes to a University Classroom. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(2): 53-68. DOI:10.14434/josotl.v16i1.19190
  19. Sloan K. (2006). Teacher Identity and Agency in School Worlds: Beyond the All-Good/All-Bad Discourse on Accountability-Explicit Curriculum Policies. Journal Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2): 119–152. DOI: 0.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00350.x
  20. Steelcase Education (2014). How Classroom Design Affects Engagement. Text available at the website: https://www.steelcase.com/content/uploads/2015/03/Post-Occupancy-Whitepaper_FINAL.pdf (25/03/2018)
  21. Stoltzfus R.J., Libarkin J. (2016). Does the Room Matter? Active Learning in Traditional and Enhanced Lecture Spaces. CBE Life Sci Educ December, 15(2):1-10. DOI:10.1187/cbe.16-03-0126
  22. Temple P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: An under-researched topic. London Review of Education, 6(3): 229-241. Text available at the website: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ioep/clre/2008/00000006/00000003/art00004?crawler=true (25/03/2018)
  23. Trinchero R. (2014). Sappiamo davvero come far apprendere? Credenza ed evidenza empirica. Form@re - Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 13(2): 52-67. Text available at the website: http://www.fupress.net/index.php/formare/article/view/13256/12512 (25/03/2018)
  24. UN. (2008). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Text available at the website: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html (ver. 23.03.2018).
  25. UNESCO. (2000). The Dakar framework for action. Text available at the website: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf (23.03.2018).
  26. Walker J., Christopher B.D., Baepler, P. (2011). Pedagogy and Space: Empirical Research on New Learning Environments. Educase Review. Text available at the website: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2011/12/pedagogy-and-space-empirical-research-on-new-learning-environments (25/03/2018)
  27. Wenmoth D. (2014). Trend 1: Learner Agency. Text available at the website: http://core-ed.org/legacy/thought-leadership/ten-trends/ten-trends-2014/learning-agency (25/03/2018)
  28. Wiggins B. L., Eddy L.S., Wener-Fligner L., Freisem K., Grunspan D.Z., Theobald E.J., Timbrook J., Crowe A.J. (2016). ASPECT: A Survey to Assess Student Perspective of Engagement in an Active-Learning Classroom. CBE Life Science Education, 16(2): DOI: 10.1187/cbe.16-08-0244
  29. World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health - ICF. Geneva: Switzerland.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...