New Perspectives in Science Education

The experimental research of the Flipped Inclusion model [1], conducted by the University of Salerno, following the conceptual paradigm of anthropocentrism, of human-centered design [2], declines the concept of inclusion in a micro-meso-and macro systemic perspective [3], using recursive cyclical modular paths of cooperative interdependence [4] focusing on flipped [5] and non-linear teaching actions aimed at solving the narcissistic cultural and existential tendencies [6] connected to mobile [7] and disoriented [8] post-modern society [9]. Starting from the needs and the involvement of the person, an immediate co-founded unity [10], also making use the ergonomic participatory action research [11], the Flipped Inclusion translates the human-centered design approach [2], a process of evaluation of multi-level problems. Through the immersion and framing of problematic conceptual issues, the development and implementation of solutions [12], the HCD follows the four sequential-transformative design phases [13] of the Flipped Inclusion (Exploring-Conceiving -Designing-Testing). The aim is to provide critical interpretation tools (in the Heideggerian philosophical sense), including technological ones, capable of promoting inclusive prosocial profiles that don’t make knowledge objective, ergonomically redesigning the operating procedures and inclusive socio-relational contexts. In the years of research 2014/2019, the data collected on 2260 learners, the result of tabulation of evaluation questionnaires and structured self-assessments, developed a positive trend in the area of ​​knowledge and skills, communicative, cognitive and metacognitive, social and prosocial skills, in the optics of the promotion of anthropocentric co-constructed processes.

Keywords: inclusion; learning;human-centred design; ergonomy.

References:
[1] Corona, F.,De Giuseppe, T. (2017) La didattica flipped for inclusion. In Limone P. P.e Parmigiani D. Modelli pedagogici e pratiche didattiche per la formazione iniziale e in servizio degli insegnanti. p.p. 132-154.
[2] Buchanan, R. (2001). Human dignity and human rights: Thoughts on the principles of human-centered design. Design issues, 17(3), 35-39.
[3] Bronfenbrenner, U. (2002). Ecologia dello sviluppo umano. Bologna: Il Mulino.
[4] Jonassen D.H. (1994).Thinking technology, toward a costructivistic design model, in "Educational technology" 34(4), 34-37.
[5] Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your Classroom Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day, International Society for Technology in Education.
[6] Nussbaum, N. C (1999). Coltivare l'umanità. I classici, il multiculturalismo, l'educazione contemporanea. Roma:Carrocci.
[7] Dewey J. (2012). Democrazia e educazione. Milano: Sansoni
[8] Brezinka W. (2011). Educazione e pedagogia in tempi di cambiamento culturale. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.
[9] Lyotard, J.F. (1981) La condizione postmoderna. Milano:Feltrinelli, p. 6.
[10] Scheler, M.(1995) Il formalismo nell’etica e l’etica materiale dei valori, a cura di G. Caronelli. Milano: ed. San Paolo, p. 473.
[11] Orefice, P. (2006). La Ricerca Azione Partecipativa (RAP). Napoli:Liguori Editore
[12] Normann, D. (2014). The Design of Everyday Things. Cambridge: Mit Press.                                                                              
[13] Mezirow, J. (2003). Apprendimento e trasformazione. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.