Main Article Content


The paper presents the results of a survey conducted with teachers of lower and upper secondary schools who attended, in e-Learning mode, the specialization course for support in 2020 at the University of Macerata (Italy). The purpose of the survey was to: (1) extrapolate the teachers' point of view on the inclusive use of technologies at the beginning of the laboratory, (2) highlight the presence or absence of an inclusive logic underlying the teaching approach generally chosen in the use of tools and technological applications and finally, (3) analyze teachers in training perception about the skills they think they have learned at the end of the laboratory. Referring to the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), the inclusive logic underlines the importance of knowing how to design educational interventions mediated by technologies that can be used by all students (not only those with Special Educational Need) therefore the presence/absence of the design aspect in teachers in training was considered fundamental to set up the laboratory path. In addition, the creation of the laboratory on the Teams platform has allowed teachers in training to learn and experience the inclusive potential that e-Learning can have if supported by a good design framework. In the contribution, the results of the investigation and the organization of the laboratory will be presented.


TIC Inclusion Teaching Active Participation

Article Details

How to Cite
Pennazio, V., & Bochicchio, F. (2022). From technologies for a few to technologies for all: analysis of inclusive technologies perception in teachers in training. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 18(1), 23-33.


  1. Antonietti, A. (2003). Contesti di sviluppo-apprendimento come scenari di scuola. In: C. Scurati (ed.), Infanzia scenari di scuola. Brescia: La Scuola, 31–56.
  2. Antonietti, A., Colombo, B., & Nuzzo, C. (2015). Metacognition in self-regulated multimedia learning: integrating behavioural, psychophysiological and introspective measures. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(2),187-209, DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2014.933112
  3. Baldiris Navarro, S., Zervas, P, Fabregat Gesa, R., & Sampson, D.G. (2016). Developing Teachers’ Competences for Designing Inclusive Learning Experiences. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 17-27.
  4. Bochicchio, F. (ed.). (2017). L’agire inclusivo della scuola. Logiche, metodologie e tecnologie per insegnanti ed educatori. Lecce: Libellula, Tricase.
  5. Bonaiuti, G., Calvani, A., & Piazza, D. (2013). Increasing classroom engagement and student comprehension through the use of clickers: an Italian Secondary School Experience. REM Reasearch on Education and Media, V,1, 95-107.
  6. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2014). Nuovo Index per l’inclusione. Percorsi di apprendimento e partecipazione a scuola. Roma: Carocci.
  7. Bhroin, Ó.N., & King, F. (2020). Teacher education for inclusive education: a framework for developing collaboration for the inclusion of students with support plans. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (1), 38–63, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2019.1691993.
  8. Bush, A., & Grotjohann, N. (2020). Collaboration in Teacher Education: A cross-sectional study on future teachers’ attitudes towards collaboration, their intentions to collaborate and their performance of collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88, 7–24.
  9. Calvani, A. (2010). La competenza digitale: un modello di riferimento per la scuola. In: A. Calvani, A., Fini, & M., Ranieri, La competenza digitale nella scuola. Modelli e strumenti per valutarla e svilupparla Trento: Erickson, 35 – 63.
  10. Calvani, A. (2013). L’innovazione tecnologica nella scuola: come perseguire un’innovazione tecnologica sostenibile ed efficace. LEA – Lingue e letterature d’Oriente e d’Occidente, 2, 567– 584.
  11. Calvani, A. (2014). Come fare una lezione efficace, Roma: Carocci.
  12. Calvani, A. (2020). Tecnologie per l’inclusione. Roma: Carocci.
  13. Calvani, A., & Vivanet, G. (2014). Tecnologie per apprendere: quale il ruolo dell’Evidence Based Education? Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, ECPS Journal, 10, 83– 12.
  14. Cañas, A. J., Carff, R., Hill, G., Carvalho, M., Arguedas, M., Eskridge, T., (2005). Concept maps: Integrating knowledge and information visualization. In S.O., Tergan & T., Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization: Searching for synergies, Heidelberg/NY: Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 205 – 219.
  15. Carruba, M.C. (2018). Accessibility and well-being in the classroom, Boston: Tojsat.
  16. Chiappini, G., Dini, S., & Ferlino, L. (2004). Tecnologie didattiche e disabilità. In D. Parmigiani (ed), Tecnologie per la didattica. Dai fondamenti dell’antropologia multimediale all’azione educativa. Milano: Franco Angeli, 233-248.
  17. Cook, A.M., & Hussey, S.M. (2002). Assistive technologies. Principles and Practice. St. Louis: Mosby.
  18. Covelli, A. (2016). Inclusion Quality Indicators in the Training of teachers. In L. de Anna, Teaching accessibility and inclusion. Roma: Carocci, 130– 142.
  19. de Anna, L. (2012). Progetto Firb “ret@ccessibile. Insegnamento-apprendimento insieme e per tutti in un progetto di vita”. L’integrazione scolastica e sociale, 11(3), 225–228.
  20. de Anna, L. (2016). Teaching accessibility and inclusion. Roma: Carocci.
  21. de Anna, L., Gaspari, P., & Mura, A. (2015). L’insegnante specializzato. Itinerari di formazione per la professione. Milano: Franco Angeli.
  22. D.M. del 30 settembre 2011
  23. Fedeli, L., & Pennazio, V. (2019). An explorative study on teacher training. The use and impact of technologies within a specializing course for special needs. In B.M., Rice, & A., Threlkeld (ed), Global Perspectives on Inclusive Teacher Education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 58–81.
  24. Felder, F. (2018). The Value of Inclusion. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(1), 54–70.
  25. Fraser, B.J., Goh, S.C. (2003). Classroom Learning Environments. In: J.P., Keeves (eds). International Handbook of Educational Research in the Asia-Pacific Region. Springer International Handbooks of Education, 11, 463–475. Dordrecht: Springer,
  26. Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441-449.
  27. Goh, S. C., and Khine, M. S. (Eds.) (2002). Studies in educational learning environments: An international perspective. Singapore: World Scientific.
  28. Hamburg, I., & Bucksch, S. (2015). ICT-based approaches to support learners with disabilities. Journal of educational policy and entrepreneurial research, JEPER, 6, 1–12.
  29. Heafner, T. (2004). Using technology to motivate students to learn social studies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(1), 42-53.
  30. Jonassen, D.H. (2010). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.
  31. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012), New Learning: Elements of a Science of Education (2nd ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. King-Sears, M. (2009), Universal design for learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 199–201.
  33. Kiuppis, F. & Hausstӓtter, R.S. (ed.). (2014). Inclusive Education twenty years after Salamanca. New York: Peter Lang.
  34. Koutsouri, G., Anglin-Jaffe, H., & Stentiford, L. (2019). How well do we understand social inclusion in education? British Journal of Educational Studies, 1-18.
  35. Moricca, C. (2016). L’innovazione tecnologica nella scuola italiana. Per un’analisi critica e storica. Form@re. Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 1 (16), 177–187.
  36. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or appropriate propositional hierarchies (liphs) leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548-571.
  37. Pagliara, S.M. (2016). Use of Different Media and Technologies in the Inclusive Educational Didactis. In L., de Anna, Teaching accessibility and inclusion. Roma: Carocci, 7 – 83.
  38. Pennazio, V. (2017a). Formarsi a una cultura inclusiva. Un’indagine dei bisogni formativi degli insegnanti nel corso di specializzazione per il sostegno. Milano: Franco Angeli.
  39. Pennazio, V. (2017b). Tecnologie inclusive. In F., Bochicchio (ed), L’agire inclusivo della scuola. Logiche, metodologie e tecnologie per insegnanti ed educatori. Lecce: Libellula, Tricase, 281-322.
  40. Ranieri, M. (2010). La competenza digitale: quali definizioni e politiche per conseguirle? In A., Calvani, A., Fini, & M., Ranieri, La competenza digitale nella scuola. Modelli e strumenti per valutarla e svilupparla. Trento: Erickson, pp. 13-31.
  41. Rose, D., Meyer, A. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 39–43.
  42. Sánchez Utgé, M., Mazzer, M., Pagliara, S.M., & de Anna, L. (2017). La formazione degli insegnanti di sostegno sulle TIC. Analisi dei prodotti multimediali del corso di specializzazione per le attività di sostegno. Italian Journal of Special Education for Inclusion, V, 1, 133–146.
  43. Schreier, N. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice, London: Sage.
  44. Scherer, MJ. (2005). Assessing the benefits of using assistivetechnologies and other supports for thinking, rememberingand learning. Disabil Rehabil, 27, 731–739.
  45. Tipton, K. (2020). Curriculum Developers’ Experiences Adopting Assistive Technology. In An Educator Preparation Program. All Theses And Dissertations. 314.
  46. Vinci, V. (2012). Ambienti Tecnologici inclusivi. In P.C., Rivoltella, P.G., Rossi (a cura di), L’agire didattico. Brescia: La Scuola
  47. WHO World Health Organization (2001). The International Classificationof Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: WHO.
  48. Zayyad, M. (2019). Incorporating Assistive Technology for students with disabilities. In M., Shelley & S.A., Kiray (eds.). Education Research Highlights in Mathematics, Science and Technology. ISRES Publishing, 271–285
  49. Zascavage, V., Winterman, KG. (2009). What middle school educators should know about assistive technology and universal design for learning. Middle School Journal, 40 (4), 46-52.