Advertisement

A Digital Map as a Representational Tool Implications for the Instructional Design Process

  • Laura FedeliEmail author
  • Valentina Pennazio
  • Maila Pentucci
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 919)

Abstract

The dimension of designing is one of the essential skills included in the professional teacher’s profile. Nowadays the complexity of the classrooms requires a specific competence in the design of learning disciplinary paths that take into account the different students’ needs. The article describes a prototype of a graphic organizer designed within the European DEPIT project, to support teachers and the need of an inclusive approach in the design process and students who can take advantage of a full visualization of the whole learning path.

Keywords

Design Inclusion App Graphical organizer Primary school 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The app prototype presented in the paper is framed in the research developed within the Erasmus + project DEPIT (Designing for Personalization and Inclusion with Technologies - 2017-1-IT02-KA201-036605).

References

  1. Alshatti S, Watters J, Kidman G (2011) Enhancing the teaching of family and consumer sciences: the role of graphic organizers. J Fam Consum Sci Educ 28(2):14–35. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/41227/
  2. Bos CS, Vaughn S (2002) Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems, 5th edn. Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark JM, Paivio A (1991) Dual coding theory and education. Educ Psychol Rev 3(3):149–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Connelly J (2016) Effect of Wh-question graphic organizer on reading comprehension in students with autism spectrum disorders. Marshall University, Marshall Digital ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Conole G, Wills S (2013) Representing learning designs – making design explicit and shareable. Educ Med Int 50(1):24–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conole G (2013) Designing for learning in an open world. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cope B, Kalantzis M (2009) “Multiliteracies”: new literacies, new learning. Pedagogies Int J 4(3):164–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Damiano E (2013) La mediazione didattica. FrancoAngeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  9. Dexter DD (2010) Graphic organizers and their effectiveness for students with learning disabilities. Thalamus 26:51–67Google Scholar
  10. Dexter DD, Hughes CA (2011) Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: a meta-analysis. Learn Disabil Q 34:51–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dovigo F (2008) L’Index per l’inclusione. Promuovere l’apprendimento e la partecipazione nella scuola. Erickson, TrentoGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis E, Howard P (2005) Graphic organizers: power tools for teaching students with learning disabilities. Graph Organizers Learn Disabil 1:1–5Google Scholar
  13. Falconer I, Littlejohn A (2008) Representing models of practice. In: Lockyer L, Bennett S, Agostinho S, Harper B (eds) Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: issues, applications and technologies, pp 20–40. IGI Global, Hershey, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Gee JP (2008) Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses, 3rd edn. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Giaconi C (2013) Elementos de didática inclusiva em classes com alunos com Dislexia. In: Capellini SA (ed) Dislexia, pp 400–419. WAK EDITORA, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  16. Giaconi C (2015) Qualità della vita e adulti con disabilità. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  17. Giaconi C (2016) Una via per l’inclusione: il Progetto PROPIT tra allineamento e sostenibilità. In: Rossi PG, Giaconi C (eds) Micro-progettazione: pratiche a confronto. Propit, Eas, Flipped Classroom, pp 39–49. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodyear P, Yang DF (2008) Patterns and pattern languages in educational design. In: Lockyer L, Bennett S, Agostinho S, Harper B (eds) Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: issues, applications and technologies, pp 167–187. IGI Global, Hershey, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Houssayé J (1988) Théorie et pratiques de l’éducation. Peter Lang, BerneGoogle Scholar
  20. Hyerle D (1996) Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Association for Curriculum and Development, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  21. Joannert P (2011) Curriculum, entre modèle rationnel et irrationalité des sociétés. Revue internationale d’éducation - Sèvres 56:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keri S, Bethune C, Wood L (2013) Effects of Wh-question graphic organizers on reading comprehension skills of students with autism spectrum disorders. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil 48(2):236–244Google Scholar
  23. Kim AH, Vaughn S, Wanzek J, Wei S (2004) Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: a synthesis of research. J Learn Disabil 37(2):105–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kress G (2015) Multimodalità. Progedid, BariGoogle Scholar
  25. Laurillard D (2012) Teaching as a design science: building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge, New York, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyons CA (2003) Teaching struggling readers: how to use brain-based research to maximize learning. Heinemann, PortsmouthGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayer J (2014) Visual literacy across the disciplines. In: Keeran P, Levine-Clark M (eds) Research within the disciplines, 2nd edn. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, pp 277–299Google Scholar
  28. Mor Y, Ferguson R, Wasson B (2015) Learning design, teacher inquiry into student learning and learning analytics: a call for action. Br J Educ Technol 46(2):221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paivio A (2006) Dual coding theory and education. University of Western Ontario, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Paivio A (1991) Dual coding theory: retrospect and current status. Can J Psychol 45(3):255–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paivio A (1986) Mental representations: a dual-coding approach. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Rivera DP, Smith D (1997) Teaching students with learning and behavior problems, 3rd edn. Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  33. Rivoltella PC (2014) La previsione. Neuroscienze, apprendimento, didattica. La Scuola, BresciaGoogle Scholar
  34. Rossi PG (2014) Le tecnologie digitali per la progettazione didattica. ECPS J 10:113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rossi PG (2016) Progettazione didattica e professionalità docente. PROPIT: l’artefatto progettuale come mediatore didattico. In: Rossi PG, Giaconi C (eds) Micro-progettazione: pratiche a confronto. PROPIT, EAS, Flipped Classroom, pp 13–38. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  36. Rossi PG (2017) Visible design. Revista Fuentes 19(2):23–38Google Scholar
  37. Rossi PG, Giaconi C (eds) (2016) Micro-progettazione: pratiche a confronto. Propit, Eas, Flipped Classroom. Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  38. Starling JM (2017) The effects of graphic organizers on the comprehension of expository text: examining individual differences for the multimedia principle based on visuospatial abilities. Ball State University, MuncieGoogle Scholar
  39. Vygotskij LS (1990) Pensiero e linguaggio. Ricerche psicologiche. Laterza, BariGoogle Scholar
  40. Zakas TL, Browder DM, Ahlgrim-Delzell LA, Heafner TL (2013) Teaching social studies content to students with autism using a graphic organizer intervention. Res Autism Spectr Disord 7(9):1075–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Fedeli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Valentina Pennazio
    • 1
  • Maila Pentucci
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione, Beni Culturali e TurismoUniversità degli Studi di MacerataMacerataItaly

Personalised recommendations