Universal Design for Learning: the relationship between subjective simulation, virtual environments, and inclusive education

Open access


The universality of the educational activities must be in agreement with a series of systems that involve the universality of the subjects who learn and their physical, mental, belief, race and religion differences. The possibilities promoted by an immersive education —made of stimuli aimed at transformation through the use of virtual environments and tools for the use of 3D 360° —are constituted as tools that better interpret the empathic and neurocognitive characteristics of the subjects and therefore the substratum an apprentice on which the cultural dimension is placed, this finding crosses the Universal Design for Learning. Proceeding towards the organization of modular and modular three-dimensional virtual environments responds to all the needs connected to the subject’s formation and constitutes a surprising integrative and inclusive tool in the explanation of the implicit processes of knowledge. We intend to start an experimental phase of study for the possibilities offered verification by this integration, using Federico 3DSU virtual platform to create in its interior, virtual environments involving nine guidelines in CAST in 2008, as well as check out the possibilities pedagogical-didactic.

Aquario, D., Pais, I., &Ghedin, E. (2018). Accessibilità alla conoscenza e Universal Design. Uno studio esplorativo con docenti e studenti universitari. ITALIAN JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR INCLUSION, 5(2), 93-106.

Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1996). Il senso di autoefficacia. Aspettative su di sé e azione. Edizioni Erickson.

CAST (2008). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 1.0.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (2005). L’evoluzione della cultura. Odile Jacob.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Dewey J. (1981), Esperienza e educazione, tr. it., La Nuova Italia, Firenze.

Foster, A. L. (2007). Immersive education’submerges students in online worlds made for learning. Chronicle of HigherEducation, 54(17), A22.

Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: development, validity and applications. Learning EnvironmentsResearch, 1, 7-33.

Frauenfelder, E. Z. (1983). La prospettiva educativa tra biologia e cultura. Liguori.

Gardner, M., Gánem-Gutiérrez, A., Scott, J., Horan, B., & Callaghan, V. I. C. (2011). Immersive education spaces using Open Wonderland from pedagogy through to practice. In Multi-user virtual environments for the classroom: Practical approaches to teaching in virtual worlds (pp. 190-205). IGI Global.

Ghedin, E., &Mazzocut, S. (2017). Universal Design for Learning to value differencies: An explorative reasearch considering teachers’ perceptions. ITALIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, (18), 145-162.

Goldberg, H. R., &McKhann, G. M. (2000). Student test scores are improved in a virtual learning environment. AdvPhysiolEduc, 23(1), 59-66.

Goldin, G. A., Epstein, Y. E., Schorr, R. Y., & Warner, L. B. (2011). Beliefs and engagement structures: behind the affective dimension of mathematical learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 547-560.

Hektner, J. M., &Asakawa, K. (2001). Learning to like challenges. In M. Csikszentmihalyi, & B. Schneider (Eds.), Becoming adult (pp. 95-112). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British journal of educational technology, 41(1), 33-55.

Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition. Neuroimage, 14(1), S103-S109.

Jeannerod, M. (2013). The Functional Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action: Cause or Consequence? A Position Paper. In Brains Top Down: Is Top-Down Causation Challenging Neuroscience? (pp. 103-120). World Scientific.

Jeannerod, M., &Decety, J. (1995). Mental motor imagery: a window into the representational stages of action. Current opinion in neurobiology, 5(6), 727-732.

Luhmann, N., &Schorr, K. E. (1999). Il sistema educativo. Problemi di riflessività. Armando Editore.

Mace, R. (1997). What is universal design. The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University. Retrieved Retrieved November, 19, 2004.

Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of human development, 6(1), 93-117.

Rose, D H, Gravel,J W, (2010), Technology and learning – meeting specialstudents’ needs, Center for Applied Special Technology, Elsevier Ltd.,Wakefield, MA, USA (pp. 119-124)

Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 47-51.

Rose, D. H., Gravel, J. W., & Gordon, D. T. (2013). Universal design for learning. The SAGE Handbook of Special Education: Two Volume Set.

Santoianni, F. (2002). La formazione biodinamica dei sistemi cognitivi: epigenesi e criteri di educabilità. Le scienze bioeducative, 55-69.

Santoianni, F. (2012a). Evoluzione culturale e sviluppo ontogenetico nella formazione situata delle strutture della conoscenza.

Santoianni, F. (2012b). L’approccio bioeducativo alla letto-scrittura. Attività didattiche e laboratoriali per la scuola dell’infanzia e la scuola primaria. Edizioni Erickson.

Santoianni, F. (2014). Modelli di studio. Apprendere con la teoria delle logiche elementari. Edizioni Centro Studi Erickson, Trento.

Santoianni, F. (2017). Lo spazio e la formazione del pensiero: la scuola come ambiente di apprendimento. RESEARCH TRENDS IN HUMANITIES Education & Philosophy, 4, 37-43.

Santoianni, F., &Sabatano, C. (2010). Per una pedagogia dello sviluppo: educabilità e formazione delle strutture della conoscenza. Potenzialeumano e patrimonioterritoriale, 149-164.

Savia, G. (2015). Progettazione Universale per l’Apprendimento: un va-lido approccio per l’inclusione di tutti. Rivista Educare. it, 15(3).

Shernoff, D. J. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement. New York: Springer

Shernoff, D. J., &Bempechat, J. (Eds.). (2014), Engaging youth in schools: Evi- dence-based models to guide future innovations, 113 (1). Columbia University. by Teachers College Record.

Shernoff, D. J., Kelly, S., Tonks, S. M., Anderson, B., Cavanagh, R. F., Sinha, S., & Abdi, B. (2016). Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52-60.

Story, M. F. (1998). Maximizing usability: the principles of universal design. Assistive technology, 10(1), 4-12.

Szaszkiewicz, J. (1988). Filosofia della cultura. Gregorian Biblical BookShop. Universal Design for Learning: Wakefield, MA.

Welch, P. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for teaching universal design. Mig Communications.

World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. World Health Organization.

Journal Information


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 49 49 31
PDF Downloads 22 22 13