History of Material for Disabled and Teacher Training on the use of Technologies in a Periodical for Teachers (1985)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Italian school, an explicit recognition of the importance of technology and media for education first appeared in the 1985 “Primary School Educational Programs”. As can be seen from the reading of many contributions published in the 1980s in the didactic and pedagogical periodical entitled "L'Educatore", this attention to technology and the electronic media was prompted by the spread of computers, by their entry into schools, by the heated debate that arose in those years on the effects of computers on children, and on new educational challenges. Mentioning computers and information technology, the 1985 Programs documented, in fact, the profound transformations that took place in the 30 years that separated them from the previous Programs of the 1955, and the challenges of complexity that have been posed to the school in the second half of the twentieth century. \nWithin the most recent theoretical framework of Italian pedagogical historiography, which has begun to study pedagogical tools and teaching materials as historical sources, this contribution will analyze an article published in 1985 in the periodical for teachers “L’Educatore”, that reconstructs the history of pedagogical materials ‒ from historical ones to new technologies ‒ and discusses their implications for teaching. The article has revealed very clearly a lack of knowledge of the teaching materials and a teachers training reshaped, from generation to generation, on generic moral attitudes. As a result, the attitude of teachers towards the technologies was affected by a naive approach, oscillating between deep mistrust and infatuation or miraculous expectation. To renew teacher training, starting from special education teachers, the article proposed a thorough knowledge of all pedagogical materials, both historical and new technologies. \n \n \n \nReferences \n \nBocci F., Una mirabile avventura: storia dell’educazione dei disabili da Jean Itard a Giovanni Bollea, Firenze, Le Lettere, 2011. \nCaldin R., Sulla «storia emancipativa» dei giovani ciechi in Italia, in Sani R., Ascenzi A., a cura di, Inclusione e promozione sociale nel sistema formativo italiano dall’Unità ad oggi, Milano, FrancoAngeli, 2020, pp. 269-287. \nCanevaro A., Gaudreau J., L’educazione degli handicappati: dai primi tentativi alla pedagogia moderna, Roma, La Nuova Italia Scientifica, 1988. \nCanevaro A., Goussot A. (Eds.), La difficile storia degli handicappati. Roma, Carocci, 2000. \nCanevaro A., I materiali, in rubrica Pratica educativa: Per il sostegno, «L’Educatore. Periodico di pedagogia, didattica e problemi professionali per la scuola dell’obbligo», Milano, Fabbri editori, anno XXXII, n. 19, 1° aprile 1985, pp. 16-20. \nChiosso G., La stampa pedagogica e scolastica in Italia tra Otto e Novecento, «Revista História da Educação», 2019, vol. 23, pp. 1-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2236-3459/84270 \nD.P.R. 12 febbraio 1985, n. 104. Programmi didattici per la scuola primaria. (G.U.R.I. n. 76 del 29 marzo 1985). https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1985/03/29/085U0104/sg \nDe Giorgi, F., Grandi, W., Trabalzini, P. (2021). Maria Montessori, her times and our years. History, vitality and perspectives of an innovative pedagogy, «Rivista di Storia dell’Educazione», 2021, vol. 8, n. 2, pp. 3-8. doi: 10.36253/rse-12307 \nDebè A., Orfani dello Stato: le istituzioni assistenziali e rieducative per sordomuti, ciechi e tardomentali nell’Italia liberale, in Sani R., Ascenzi A., a cura di, Inclusione e promozione sociale nel sistema formativo italiano dall’Unità ad oggi, Milano, FrancoAngeli, 2020, pp. 212-215. \nDepaepe M., Simon F., Sources in the Making of Histories of Education: Proofs, Arguments, and Other Forms of Reasoning from the Historian’s Workplace, In P. Smeyers, M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational research: Proofs, arguments, and other reasonings, Dordrecht, Springer, 2009, pp. 23-39. \nDPR 14 giugno 1955, n. 503 Programmi didattici per la scuola primaria. (GU Serie Generale n.146 del 27-06-1955) https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1955/06/27/055U0503/sg \nGenovesi G. (a cura di), Rileggendo Itard. Problemi educativi e prospettive pedagogiche dei Memories, Bologna, Pitagora, 2000. \nGiaconi C., La difficile integrazione degli alunni con disabilità nella scuola italiana dagli anni settanta del Novecento ad oggi: una riflessione di pedagogia e didattica speciale, in Sani R., Ascenzi A., a cura di, Inclusione e promozione sociale nel sistema formativo italiano dall’Unità ad oggi, Milano, FrancoAngeli, 2020, pp. 261-268. \nGoussot A., Storia e handicap: fonti, concetti, problematiche, in Canevaro A., Goussot A., La difficile storia degli handicappati, Roma, Carocci, 2000. \nMichelet M., Les outils de l’enfance 1. The pedagogy of l’action, Neuchâtel, Delachaux et Niestlé Editeurs, 1972a. \nMichelet M., Les outils de l’enfance 2. The conquest of intelligence, Neuchâtel, Delachaux et Niestlé Editeurs, 1972b. \nMontessori M., Montessori method. Scientific pedagogy as applied to child education in “the children's houses” with additions and revisions by the author (tr. By Anne E. George), New York, Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912. \nMorandini M. C., Dall’esclusione all’integrazione: i disabili nel sistema formativo italiano tra Otto e Novecento, in Sani R., Ascenzi A., a cura di, Inclusione e promozione sociale nel sistema formativo italiano dall’Unità ad oggi, Milano, FrancoAngeli, 2020, pp. 193-205. \nPironi T., Gallerani M., Maria Montessori’s thought and work between past and present, «Ricerche di Pedagogia e Didattica. Journal of Theories and Research in Education», 2021, vol. 16, n. 2, pp. 1-22. \nSandri P., L’educazione degli “ineducabili”: i contributi di Jean Itard, Édouard Séguin e Maria Montessori, «MeTis», 2014, vol. 4, n. 2, pp. 67-77. \nSani R., Ascenzi A., Inclusione e promozione sociale nel sistema formativo italiano dall’Unità ad oggi, Milano, FrancoAngeli, 2020. \nSéguin É., Idiocy and its Treatment by the Physiological Method, 1866. \nWeyland B., Didattica sensoriale. Oggetti e materiali tra educazione e design. EDDES/2, Milano, Guerini e Associati, 2017. \nZago G., Protagonisti e itinerari della Pedagogia speciale in Italia dall’Unità al secondo dopoguerra, in Sani R., Ascenzi A., a cura di, Inclusione e promozione sociale nel sistema formativo italiano dall’Unità ad oggi, Milano, FrancoAngeli, 2020, pp. 219-241.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".