Educate the respect of differences. A research on school curriculum

Journal title EDUCATIONAL REFLECTIVE PRACTICES
Author/s Loredana Perla, Laura Sara Agrati
Publishing Year 2018 Issue 2018/1
Language English Pages 27 P. 25-51 File size 349 KB
DOI 10.3280/ERP2018-001003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The article addresses the theme of education the respect of differences from the didactic perspective of the school curriculum. The basic questions are: how schools educate to respect differences; how schools transform into teaching practice one of the most urgent priorities of national and international policies, but also, one of the most ethically complex and easily exploitable topics - from the ideological point of view - of the last years? The article starts by clarifying some terms in question and describes the priority character that education the respect of differences assumes in the most recent na-tional and international intervention policies (Law 15/10/2013, No. 119, UNESCO, 2016; OECD, 2017). After having sketched the current scenario of the c.d. ‘Gender mainstreming’ (UN, 1995; EIGE, 2016; Moser & Moser, 2005), two documents will be focused - the recent ‘MIUR Guidelines’ (2017) and the UNESCO Recom-mendation ‘Connect with respect’ (2016) - which offer concrete indications to work of managers and teachers (Salisburry & Riddeil, 2000; Wrigley, 2003; Laza-rus Stewart, 2015).-The work enters then into the specifics of the respect of differences ‘teaching making’, describing the work of elaborating and implementing a possible school curriculum (He et al., 2015). Resuming the complex construct of ‘curriculum’ (Scurati, 1997, 2008; Perla, 2014) and welcoming the cues offered by the most re-cent curriculum studies (He et al., 2015; Krindel et al., 2010), attention will be fo-cused on the design and the first outcomes of a collaborative research-formation, ‘We choose non-violence’, at the University of Bari and aimed at deriving possible constants in the work of curriculation, on the specific level of interdisciplinary in-terventions. The aim is to suggest to the didactic research some evidence based discussion contents in order to corroborate or refute the sometimes surreptitious statements (Peeters, 2012) on the topic; to schools, educational and didactic intervention crite-ria consistent with general policies, scientifically founded but above all humanly useful.

  1. Agazzi E. (1994). Cultura scientifica e interdisciplinarità. Brescia: La Scuola.
  2. Agostinelli S. (2007). L’approccio orientativo agli artefatti, un nuovo modo di gestione delle conoscenze per l’e-learning. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 3(3): 9-18.
  3. Agrati L. (2015). Il sapere appreso del bambino. Verso una nuova lettura del disegno. Barletta: Cafagna.
  4. Agrati L. (2016). La competenza metodologico-didattica del Coordinatore per l’inclusione. Un esempio di UDA ‘inclusiva’. In: Bellino A. (a cura di). Il Coordinatore per l’inclusione. Indicazioni operative per dirigenti e docenti (pp. 133-150). Barletta: Cafagna.
  5. Agrati L., Massaro S. & Vinci V. (2017). Il bene comune come ‘sapere da insegnare’. La ricerca-formazione. cittadinanza, costruzione identitaria e cultura del rispetto. MeTis. Mondi educativi. Temi, indagini, suggestioni, 7(2): 600-637.
  6. Anderson T., & Shattuck J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational researcher, 41(1): 16-25.
  7. Baldacci M. (2006) (Ed.). Unità di apprendimento e programmazione. Napoli: Tecnodid.
  8. Barab S., & Squire K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1): 1-14.
  9. Biemmi I. (2010). Educazione sessista. Stereotipi di genere nei libri delle elementari. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.
  10. Biemmi I. & Leonelli S. (2017). Gabbie di genere. Retaggi sessisti e scelte formative. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.
  11. Bird L. (2015). A matter of right and reason: Gender equality in educational planning and management. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.
  12. Bowen G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method, Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2): 27-40.
  13. Butler J. (1990). Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
  14. Carlucci Aiello L. & Pirri F. (2005). Strutture Logica Linguaggi. Milano: Pearson.
  15. Castoldi M. (2016). Valutare e certificare le competenze. Roma: Carocci.
  16. Castoldi M. (2017). Costruire unità di apprendimento. Guida alla progettazione a ritroso. Roma: Carocci.
  17. Charmaz K. (2012). Mixing or Adding Methods? An Exploration and Critique. In: Denzin N. K. & M. Giardina (Eds.). Qualitative Inquiry and the Politics of Advocacy. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
  18. Chatti M. A. (2012). Knowledge management: A personal knowledge network perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5): 829-844.
  19. Corbetta P. (1999). Metodologia e tecniche della ricerca sociale. Bologna: il Mulino.
  20. Corbetta P. (2003). La ricerca sociale: metodologia e tecniche. II. Le tecniche quantitative. Bologna: il Mulino.
  21. Dafina-Lazarus S., Kristen A.R. & Blue Brazelton G. (2015) (Eds.). Gender and Sexual Diversity in U.S. Higher Education: Contexts and Opportunities for LGBTQ College Students: New Directions for Student Services: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  22. Damiano E. (2007). Il sapere dell’insegnare. Introduzione alla didattica per concetti con esercitazioni. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  23. Damiano E. (2013). La mediazione. Per una teoria dell’insegnamento. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  24. Davies J. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? High Education, 62: 279-301.
  25. De Mennato P. (2003). Il sapere personale: un’epistemologia della professione docente. Milano: Guerini.
  26. Develay M. (1995). Savoirs scolaires et didactique des disciplines. Issy-les-Moulineaux: ESF Editeur.
  27. Gamberi C., Maio M.A., Selmi G. (2010) (Eds.). Educare al genere. Riflessioni e strumenti per articolare la complessità. Roma: Carocci.
  28. EIGE - European Institute for Gender Equality (2016). Gender Equality Training. Gender Mainstreaming Toolkit. -- http://eige.europa.eu/rdc/eige-publications.
  29. Feingold A. (1992). Sex differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A new look at an old controversy. Review of Educational Research, 62: 61-84.
  30. Flood M. & Pease B. (2006). The factors influencing community attitudes in relation to violence against women: A critical review of the literature. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth).
  31. Foucault M (1976). La volonté de savoir. Paris: Gallimard.
  32. Foucault M. (1969). L’Archéologie du Savoir. Paris: Gallimard.
  33. Frabboni F. (2015). Riflessioni su curricolo verticale e continuità educativa. Trento: Erickson.
  34. Gallelli R. (2016). Il sapere (educativo) delle ‘differenze’. In: Perla L., Riva M.G. (Eds.). L’agire educativo: manuale per educatori e operatori socio-assistenziali (pp. 145-159). Brescia: La Scuola.
  35. Gauthier C., et al. (1997). Pour une théorie de la pédagogie. Recherches contemporaines sur le savoir des enseignants. Presses de l’Université Laval: Québec.
  36. Glaser B.G. & Strauss A. L. (1967). The discovery of Grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
  37. Grace S. & Gravestock P. (2009). Inclusion and diversity: Meeting the needs of all students. New York: Routledge.
  38. He M. F., Schultz B. D., & Schubert W. H. (Eds.) (2015). Guide to Curriculum in Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
  39. Kaneklin C. L., Piccardo C., Scaratti G. (2010) (eds.). La ricerca-azione: cambiare per conoscere nei contesti organizzativi. Milano: Cortina.
  40. Karkehabadi S. (2013). Using Rubrics to Measure and Enhance Student Performance. -- https://www.nvcc.edu/assessment.
  41. Koper R. & Olivier B. (2004). Representing the Learning Design of Units of Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3): 97-111.
  42. Kridel C. (Ed.) (2010). Encyclopedia of curriculum studies. London: Sage.
  43. Legge 15 ottobre 2013, n. 119 Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 14 agosto 2013, n. 93, recante disposizioni urgenti in materia di sicurezza e per il contrasto della violenza di genere, nonché in tema di protezione civile e di commissariamento delle province.
  44. Mazzocchi F. (2016). Complexity, network theory, and the epistemological issue. Kybernetes, 45(7): 1158-1170.
  45. McGowen M. A. & Tall D. O. (2013). Flexible thinking and met-befores: Impact on learning mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3): 527-537.
  46. Medeghini R., D’Alessio S., Marra A.D. (2013). Disability studies. Emancipazione, inclusion scolastica e sociale, cittadinanza. Trento: Erickson.
  47. MIUR (2012). Indicazioni nazionali per il curricolo della scuola dell'infanzia e del primo ciclo d’istruzione. http://www.indicazioninazionali.it.
  48. MIUR (2017). Linee Guida Nazionali – Educare al rispetto: per la parità tra i sessi, la prevenzione della violenza di genere e di tutte le forme di discriminazione. http://www.miur.gov.it/documents.
  49. Moser C., & Moser A. (2005). Gender Mainstreaming since Beijing: A Review of Success and Limitations in International Institutions. Gender and Development, 13(2): 11-22.
  50. Nicolosi S. (2017). Dall’interdisciplinarità alla co-disciplinarità: l’integrazione del curricolo in educazione fisica. In: Lipoma M. (a cura di), La Cultura del Movimento e dello Sport negli attuali scenari educativi e formativi. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  51. O’Leary Z. (2014). Essential guide to doing research. London: Sage.
  52. OECD, (2017). Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris.
  53. ONU (1979). Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women – CEDAW. -- http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/.
  54. ONU (1995). Platform for Action of the Fourth World Women’s. Conference in Beijing. -- http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/.
  55. Perla L. (2010). Didattica dell’implicito. Ciò che l’insegnante non sa. Brescia: La Scuola.
  56. Perla L. (2012). Scritture professionali. Metodi per la formazione. Bari: Progedit.
  57. Perla L. (2013) (a cura di). Per una didattica dell'inclusione. Prove di formalizzazione. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.
  58. Perla L. (2014) (Ed.). I Nuovi Licei alla prova delle competenze. Per una progettazione nel biennio. Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia.
  59. Peeters M. (2012). Il Gender: una questione politica e culturale. Cinisello Balsamo (MI): Edizioni San Paolo.
  60. Poidimani N. (2006). Oltre le monoculture del genere. Milano: Mimesis. 
  61. Polanyi M. (1959). The study of man. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  62. Rossi P.G. & Pezzimenti L. (2012). La trasposizione didattica. In: Rossi P.G. & Rivoltella P. C. (Eds.). L’agire didattico. Manuale per l’insegnante (pp.167-183). Brescia: La Scuola.
  63. Rossi P.G. & Toppano E. (2009). Progettare nella società della conoscenza. Roma: Carocci.
  64. Rossi P.G., Giannandrea L., Magnoler P. (2010). Mediazione. dispositivi ed eterotopia. Dal situated learning al post costruttivismo. Education Sciences & Society, 101: 116. 52.
  65. Salisbury J. & Riddell S. (2000) (Eds.). Gender, Policy and Educational Change: Shifting Agendas in the UK and Europe. London: Routledge.
  66. Schubauer-Leoni M.L & Leutenegger F. (2005). Une relecture des phénomènes transpositifs à la lumière de la didactique comparée. Revue suisse des sciences de l’éducation, 27(3): 407-429.
  67. Schubauer-Leoni M.L., Leutenegger F., Forget A. (2007). L’accès aux pratiques de fabrication de traces scripturales convenues au commencement de la forme scolaire. Éducation et didactique, 1(2): 9-35.
  68. Scott E., & McCollum H. (1993). Making it happen: Gender equitable classrooms. In: Biklen S. K. & Pollard D. (Eds.). Gender and education (pp.174-190). Chicago: NationalSociety.
  69. Scurati C. (1997). Pedagogia della scuola. Breschia: La Scuola.
  70. Scurati C. (2008). Nuove didattiche. Linee di ricerca e proposte formative. Brescia: La Scuola.
  71. Sibilio M. (2014). La didattica semplessa. Napoli: Liguori.
  72. Sibilio M. (2017). Vicarianza e didattica. Brescia: La Scuola.
  73. Stenhouse L. (1979). Dal programma al curricolo: politica, burocrazia e professionalità. Tr. it. Roma: Armando.
  74. UNESCO (2004). Gender Sensitivity: A Training Manual. A training manual for sensitizing education managers, curriculum and material developers and media professionals to gender concerns.
  75. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001376/137604eo.pdf.
  76. UNESCO (2012). Education for Sustainable Development. -- http://unesdoc.unesco.org.
  77. UNESCO (2015). A Guide for Gender Equality document in Teacher Education Policy and Practices. -- http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002316/231646e.pdf.
  78. UNESCO (2016). Leaving no one behind: How far on the way to universal primary and secondary education? -- http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002452/245238E.pdf
  79. UNESCO (2016a). Education 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is an ambitious, aspirational and universal agenda to wipe out poverty through sustainable development by 2030 – ED-2016/WS/28.
  80. UNESCO (2016b). Connect with Respect: Preventing gender-based violence in schools. -- http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002432/243252E.pdf.
  81. Woolley S. W., Quinn T. & Meiners E. R. (2015). The gender, sexuality and queer milieu (pp. 351-357). In: Schultz M. F., He, B. D., & Schubert W. H. (Eds.). (2015). Guide to Curriculum in Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
  82. Wrigley J. (2003). Education and Gender Equality. London: Routledge.

Loredana Perla, Laura Sara Agrati, Educate the respect of differences. A research on school curriculum in "EDUCATIONAL REFLECTIVE PRACTICES" 1/2018, pp 25-51, DOI: 10.3280/ERP2018-001003