Getting up to SpEED: Special Education Embodied Design for Sensorially Equitable Inclusion
Autori/Curatori: Sofia Tancredi, Rachel Chen, Christina Krause, Dor Abrahamson, Filippo Gomez 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2021 Fascicolo: 1  Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  23 P. 114-136 Dimensione file:  0 KB
DOI:  10.3280/ess1-2021oa11818
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 


Articolo Open Access
Clicca qui per vederlo.

We present the implications of a novel approach to design-based research, Special Education Embodied Design (SpEED), for inclusive education. SpEED is a new way of thinking about how Special Education students can learn through whole-body participation (Tancredi et al., in press). The goal of SpEED is to update our thinking about special education and inclusion based on the latest developments in cognitive science. We illustrate the utility of embodied design to teaching and research on issues affecting learners in Special Education through examples centering different Special Education populations, including Deaf learners, learners on the autism spectrum, and sensory-seeking learners. Each project focuses on deepening the learning opportunities we offer students by using learners’ existing embodied resources. We conclude with a commentary on considerations for implementing SpEED within the Italian educational system.

Keywords: embodied cognition, design, special education, inclusion, accessibility Copyright © FrancoAngeli This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - No Derivatives License. For terms and conditions of usage please see:

  1. Abrahamson D. (2014). Building educational activities for understanding: An elaboration on the embodied design framework and its epistemic grounds. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(1): 1-16.
  2. Abrahamson D., & Trninic D. (2015). Bringing forth mathematical concepts: Signifying sensorimotor enactment in fields of promoted action. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(2): 295-306.
  3. Abrahamson D., Flood V. J., Miele J. A., & Siu Y.-T. (2019). Enactivism and ethnomethodological conversation analysis as tools for expanding Universal Design for Learning: The case of visually impaired mathematics students. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(2): 291-303.
  4. Abrahamson D., Nathan M. J., Williams-Pierce C., Walkington C., Ottmar E. R., Soto H., & Alibali M. W. (2020). The future of embodied design for mathematics teaching and learning [Original Research]. Frontiers in Education, 5(147).
  5. Antle A. N., Corness G., & Bevans A. (2013). Balancing justice: Comparing whole body and controller-based interaction for an abstract domain. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 6(4): 388-409., DOI: 10.1504/IJART.2013.058285
  6. Ashburner J., Ziviani J., & Rodger S. (2008). Sensory processing and classroom emotional, behavioral, and educational outcomes in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(5): 564-573.
  7. Bakker A. (2018). Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers. London: Routledge., DOI: 10.4324/9780203701010
  8. Barsalou L.W. (2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Cognitive Science, 2(4).
  9. Berthoz A. (1998). Il senso del movimento. Milano: McGraw-Hill Companies.
  10. CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. --
  11. Chen R. S. Y., Ninh A., Yu B., & Abrahamson D. (2020). Being in touch with the core of social interaction: Embodied design for the nonverbal. In M. Gresalfi & I. S. Horn (Eds.). The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, Proceedings of the 14th meeting of the International Society of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2020) (Vol. 3, pp. 1681-1684). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  12. Circolare Ministeriale n. 8, Indicazioni operative sulla Direttiva ministeriale “Strumenti d’intervento per alunni con bisogni educativi speciali e organizzazione territoriale per l’inclusione scolastica”. prot. 561/6.3.2013, Roma, marzo 2013.
  13. Cobb P., Confrey J., diSessa A., Lehrer R., & Schauble L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1): 9-13., DOI: 10.3102/0013189X032001009
  14. D. Lgs 13 aprile 2017, n. 66, Norme per la promozione dell'inclusione scolastica degli studenti con disabilità, a norma dell'articolo 1, commi 180 e 181, lettera c), della legge 13 luglio 2015, n. 107, Gazzetta Ufficiale n.112 del 16-5-2017 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 23.
  15. de Freitas E., & Sinclair N. (2014). Mathematics and the body: Material entanglements in the classroom. Cambridge University Press., DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139600378
  16. Decreto Legislativo 7 agosto 2019, n. 96 Disposizioni integrative e correttive al decreto legislativo 13 aprile 2017, n. 66, recante: «Norme per la promozione dell'inclusione scolastica degli studenti con disabilità, a norma dell'articolo 1, commi 180 e 181, lettera c), della legge 13 luglio 2015, n. 107». Gazzetta Ufficiale n.201 del 28-8-2019.
  17. Decreto Interministeriale 29 dicembre 2020, n.182, Adozione del modello nazionale di piano educativo individualizzato e delle correlate linee guida, nonché modalità di assegnazione delle misure di sostegno agli alunni con disabilità, ai sensi dell’articolo 7, comma 2-ter del decreto legislativo 13 aprile 2017, n. 66.
  18. Direttiva Ministeriale 27 dicembre 2012, Strumenti d’intervento per alunni con bisogni educativi speciali e organizzazione territoriale per l’inclusione scolastica.
  19. Dunn W. (1997). The impact of sensory processing abilities on the daily lives of young children and their families: A conceptual model. Infants and Young Children, 9(4), 23-35., DOI: 10.1097/00001163-199704000-00005
  20. Fincher-Kiefer R. (2019). How the body shapes knowledge: Empirical support for embodied cognition. American Psychological Association., DOI: 10.1037/0000136-000
  21. Gallese V. (2003). The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: The quest for a common mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 358 (1431): 517-528.
  22. Gallese V. (2005). Embodied simulation: From neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4: 23-48.
  23. Gallese V. (2014) Bodily selves in relation: embodied simulation as second person perspective on intersubjectivity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 369: 20130177.
  24. Gernsbacher M.A. (2017). Editorial perspective: The use of person-first language in scholarly writing may accentuate stigma. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(7): 859-861.
  25. Glenberg A.M. (2008). Embodiment for education. In: Calvo P. & Gomila A. (Eds.). Handbook of Cognitive Science: An Embodied Approach. San Diego: Elsevier.
  26. Glenberg A. M., Gutierrez T., Levin J. R., Japuntich S., & Kaschak M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children's reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3): 424-436., DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.424
  27. Grote K. (2013). ‘Modality Relativity?‘ The Influence of Sign Language and Spoken Language on Semantic Categorization. Dissertation. Retrieved 01/15/2017 from:
  28. Goldsmith S. (1997). Designing for the disabled: The new paradigm. London: Routledge.
  29. Gomez Paloma F., Damiani P. (2015). Cognizione corporea, competenze integrate e formazione dei docenti. I tre volti dell’Embodied Cognitive Science per una scuola inclusiva. Trento: Erickson.
  30. Gomez Paloma F., Borrelli M., Buondonno E. (2019). Scuole innovative. L’Embodied Cognition Design come paradigma dei nuovi spazi scolastici. Roma: Nuova cultura.
  31. Gomez Paloma F. (a cura di) (2020). Embodiment & School. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.
  32. Gomez Paloma F., & Damiani P. (2021). Manuale delle Scuole ECS. The Neuroeducational Approach. Brescia: Scholè.
  33. Goodwin M. H. (2017). Haptic sociality. Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction, 73-102.
  34. Hall M. L., & Bavelier D. (2010). Working memory, Deafness, and sign language. In: M. Marschark, P. E. Spencer (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of Deaf Studies, language, and education, Vol. 2. (pp. 457-472). Oxford University Press.
  35. Hitier M., Besnard S., & Smith P. (2014). Vestibular pathways involved in cognition. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 8(59).
  36. Hutto D. D., Kirchhoff M. D., & Abrahamson D. (2015). The enactive roots of STEM: Rethinking educational design in mathematics. In: P. Chandler & A. Tricot (Eds.). Human movement, physical and mental health, and learning [Special issue]. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3): 371-389.
  37. Hutto D. D., & Myin E. (2012). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. Cambridge: M.I.T Press.
  38. Kelton M. L., & Ma J. Y. (2018). Reconfiguring mathematical settings and activity through multi-party, whole-body collaboration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 98(2): 177-196.
  39. Krause C.M. (2019). What you see is what you get? – Sign language in the mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50(1): 84-97.
  40. Krause C. M., & Abrahamson D. (2020). Modal continuity in Deaf students’ signed mathematical discourse. In: A. Isabel Sacristán & J. Carlos Cortés (Eds.). “Entre Culturas / Across Cultures” – Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the North-American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA) (pp. 1448-1449). PME-NA.
  41. Krause C.M. & Wille A. M. (to appear). Sign language in light of mathematics education: an exploration within semiotic and embodiment theories of learning mathematics. American Annals of the Deaf - Special Issue on ‘Critical Topics in Mathematics Education: Research to Practice with Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Students’.
  42. Kurz C. & Pagliaro C.M. (2020). Using L1 sign language to teach mathematics. In: R. S. Rosen (Ed.). The Routledge handbook of sign language pedagogy (pp. 85-99). Routledge.
  43. Legge 5 febbraio 1992, n. 104, Legge-quadro per l’assistenza, l’integrazione sociale e i diritti delle persone handicappate, Gazzetta Ufficiale Serie Generale n.39 del 17-02-1992 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 30.
  44. Legge 8 ottobre 2010, n. 170, Nuove norme in materia di disturbi specifici di apprendimento in ambito scolastico, Gazzetta Ufficiale N. 244 del 18 Ottobre 2010.
  45. Legge 13 luglio 2015, n. 107, Riforma del sistema nazionale di istruzione e formazione e delega per il riordino delle disposizioni legislative vigenti, Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale n.162 del 15-07-2015.
  46. Liebowitz C. (2015, March 2015). I am disabled: on identity-first versus people- first language. The body is not an apology. --
  47. Marschark M., Spencer P. E., Adams J., & Sapere P. (2011). Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Teaching to their cognitive strengths and needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(1): 3-16., DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2011.543540
  48. Meyer A., Rose D.H., & Gordon D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST.
  49. Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione (1975). Relazione conclusiva della commissione Falcucci concernente i problemi scolastici degli alunni handicappati. Consultato il 12.01.2011 su --
  50. Ministero dell’Istruzione dell’Università e della Ricerca (2012). Indicazioni Nazionali per il Curricolo della Scuola dell’Infanzia e del Primo Ciclo d’Istruzione.
  51. Ministero dell’Istruzione dell’Università e della Ricerca (2018). Indicazioni Nazionali e nuovi scenari.
  52. Nathan M. (2014). Grounded mathematical reasoning. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition (pp. 171-183). Routledge.
  53. Nemirovsky R., Tierney C., & Wright T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2): 119-172.
  54. Newen A., Bruin L.D., & Gallagher S. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of 4e cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  55. Ottmar E. R., Landy D., Weitnauer E., and Goldstone R. (2015). Graspable mathematics: using perceptual learning technology to discover algebraic notation. In: M. Meletiou-Mavrotheris, K. Mavrou, and E. Paparistodemou (Eds.). Integrating Touch-enabled and Mobile Devices into Contemporary Mathematics Education (pp. 24-28). IGI Global.
  56. Paas F., & Sweller J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educ Psychol Rev, 24: 27-45.
  57. Rose D. H., & Meyer A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  58. Sarver D. E., Rapport M. D., Kofler M. J., Raiker J. S., & Friedman L. M. (2015). Hyperactivity in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): impairing deficit or compensatory behavior?. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(7): 1219-1232.
  59. Scherr R. E., Close H. G., Close E. W., Flood V. J., McKagan S. B., Robertson A. D., et al. (2013). Negotiating energy dynamics through embodied action in a materially structured environment. Phys. Rev. Special Topics Phys. Educ. Res., 52: 291-294., DOI: 10.1119/1.4872412
  60. Shapiro L. (Ed.). (2014). The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition. London: Routledge.
  61. Shimizu V. T., Bueno O. F. A., & Miranda M. C. (2014). Sensory processing abilities of children with ADHD. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 18(4): 343-352. Epub July 25.
  62. Sinclair N., & Heyd-Metzuyanim E. (2014). Learning number with TouchCounts: The role of emotions and the body in mathematical communication. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1-2): 81-99.
  63. Lambert R. (2019). Political, relational, and complexly embodied; experiencing disability in the mathematics classroom. ZDM Mathematics Education.
  64. Stokoe W. C. (1963). Sign Language structure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9: 365-390.
  65. Tancredi S., Chen R. S. Y., Krause C., & Siu Y. T. (in press). The need for SpEED: Reimagining accessibility through Special Education Embodied Design. In: S. L. Macrine, & J. M. Fugate (Eds.). Movement matters: How embodied cognition informs teaching and learning. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  66. Tomchek S. D., & Dunn W. (2007). Sensory processing in children with and without autism: a comparative study using the short sensory profile. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(2): 190-200.
  67. Toro J., Kiverstein J., & Rietveld E. (2020). The Ecological-Enactive model of disability: Why disability does not entail pathological embodiment [Hypothesis and Theory]. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1162).
  68. Varela F. J., Thompson E., & Rosch E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
  69. Vanacore R., Gomez Paloma F. (2020). Progettare gli spazi educativi. Un approccio interdisciplinare tra architettura e pedagogia. Anicia.
  70. Vogelstein L., Brady C., & Hall R. (2019). Reenacting mathematical concepts found in large-scale dance performance can provide both material and method for ensemble learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(2): 331-346.
  71. Wilson A.D., Golonka S. (2013). Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(58): 1-13.
  72. World Health Organization (2001). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO.
  73. World Health Organization (2007). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, Children and Youth version (ICF-CY). Geneva: WHO.
  74. Vygotsky L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press (original work published 1934).
  75. Yeh C., Ellis M., & Mahmood D. (2020). From the margin to the center: A framework for rehumanizing mathematics education for students with dis/abilities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 58, 100758.

Sofia Tancredi, Rachel Chen, Christina Krause, Dor Abrahamson, Filippo Gomez, in "EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY" 1/2021, pp. 114-136, DOI:10.3280/ess1-2021oa11818


FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche