This contribution illustrates the results of a case study involving 4th-grade children, a hosting tutor teacher, a student trainee, a coordinating tutor and the educational services of the Museo Egizio in Turin in a Teacher Professional Development Research (Asquini, 2018) on the topic of the school-museum relationship in the context of teaching history. Previous research has revealed how, within the SFP internship at Milan Bicocca University, a relationship between host schools and territory is rarely promoted and has investigated the coordinating tutors’ museum and heritage representations, the learning goals they pursue through dialogue with museums in their classes, and the strengths and weaknesses of this relationship detected in their professional experience. It turns out that co-design in particular is considered a crucial factor for promoting meaningful learning (Fredella, 2021,2022; Mascheroni, 2019). Research questions and methodological framework The case study has a twofold objective: to support the teachers, pre-service and in-service, professional development in co-designing with the museum and to investigate which teaching methodologies promote children's expected skills, with a focus on metacognitive competences (Zecca, 2012) and understanding civilization frameworks (Mattozzi, 2019). The aim of the research guided the methodological choice of Teacher Professional Development Research, which focuses on the relationship issue, the "stance" (Vannini, 2018, p. 21) of the researcher in the context and towards the teachers involved. The goals’ agreement, intended to define a shared framework that underpins the children’s pathway and the teachers’ professional development, was achieved by the detailed explanation of the idea of school and museum, investigated in the first interviews with all the actors involved and emerged during the TPDR sessions. The analysis of the documentation collected by teachers, trainee and researcher (diaries, children's work, transcripts of conversations), intended as "an experience of 'visualisation' and 'verbalisation' of participatory practice" (Bove & Sità, 2016, p. 65) and of taking charge of children's words from a Student Voice perspective (Grion & De Vecchi, 2014), has enabled the identification of strengths and weaknesses of the intervention in the specific context producing "useful, circumscribed and contextualised knowledge" (Cardarello, 2018, p. 45). The research plan involved the use of the following tools in three phases (ex ante, in itinere and ex post) that followed the educational pathway implementation: - semi-structured interviews with hosting tutor (I1), coordinating tutor (I2), student trainee (I3) and museum curator (I4); - monthly meetings with the entire team (RF1, 2, 3, 4, 5); - paper-and-pencil observation during the museum visit and workshop (O); - conversation with children in large groups led by the teacher (C1); - conversations with children in small groups led by the researcher (C2, 3, 4); - closing focus group with the teachers and the trainee (FG). Data analysis and results What emerges in the first interviews is the focus on the children's motivation ("the key aspect is that everything that is submitted to the children is meaningful to them" I1), the use of active teaching and workshop ("my idea of school is very similar to what I have just said about museums, that is, a big workshop" I1; "let the children not only be the users of knowledge [... ] but just also let them participate" I3) and a concept of social learning for knowledge co-construction ("we build knowledge together, we disagree, and thus we grow" I2). In the last focus group three macro-categories were identified: - the awareness of change in practical knowledge ("we have always worked by maps, but I was one of those who underlined the whole book, so I also struggled to find the key words. There's probably my influence there." FG); - TPDR as a connection strategy between initial and in-service education ("I also felt powerful for the traineeship group [...] it was enriching not only for me and you, but also for my university colleagues who didn't have the opportunity to experience certain things" FG); - the sustainability of the co-design between school and museum ("what I think I read were different goals for each person involved" FG). Comparing focus group categories to the children's evaluations, what emerges are both elements of agreement and discrepancies, in particular on: the teacher-student relationship and teacher’s communication ("the teacher's questions made us curious and led us to try to go and find the information" C3) and the critical aspects of the activity proposed in the museum ("the guide's communicative style did not make them feel included or protagonists in the experience they were on" RF 4; "in my opinion she should let us participate more by making us discover the solution and not by giving it straight away" C1; "they were on a schedule, they had to go on like a train" RF 4). Conclusions and follow-up The case study led to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the process and it shows how the TPDR methodology supported the reflectivity, self-analysis and self-assessment that are necessary to promote professional development in the involved teachers, trainee and experts. With regard to disciplinary aspects, the children highlight the difficulty and lack of significance of a mnemonic study of History, a position also supported by the teachers who emphasise the need to promote learning within a research pathway and the critical aspects of the strategies adopted during the museum experience. In order to promote an improvement in the learning processes, the data was supplied as a starting point for redesigning, and co-designing together with the children, a new project during the following school year.

Il presente contributo illustra i risultati di uno studio di caso che ha coinvolto i bambini di una classe quarta primaria, un’insegnante tutor accogliente, una studentessa in tirocinio, una tutor coordinatrice e i servizi educativi del Museo Egizio di Torino in un percorso di Ricerca-Formazione (Asquini, 2018) sul tema del rapporto scuola-museo nell’ambito della didattica della storia. Precedenti ricerche hanno rilevato come, nella cornice del tirocinio di SFP dell’Università di Milano Bicocca, venga raramente attivata una relazione tra scuole accoglienti e territorio e hanno indagato le rappresentazioni di museo e patrimonio culturale delle tutor coordinatrici, gli obiettivi d’apprendimento che perseguono attraverso il dialogo con i musei nelle loro classi, le declinazioni di questa relazione incontrate nel loro vissuto professionale. Emerge in particolare come la co-progettazione sia considerata una variabile determinante per promuovere apprendimenti significativi (Fredella 2021, 2022; Mascheroni, 2019). Domande di ricerca e quadro metodologico Lo studio di caso si pone un duplice obiettivo: sostenere lo sviluppo professionale degli insegnanti, in formazione e in servizio, nella co-progettazione con il museo e indagare quali metodologie didattiche promuovano le competenze attese nei bambini, con un focus sulle competenze metacognitive (Zecca, 2012) e di comprensione dei quadri di civiltà (Mattozzi, 2019). Lo scopo della ricerca ha orientato la scelta metodologica della Ricerca-Formazione, che pone come centrale il problema della relazione, del «modo di porsi» (Vannini, 2018, p. 21) del ricercatore nei confronti del contesto e degli insegnanti coinvolti. La comunione d’intenti, funzionale a definire una cornice di senso condivisa nella quale collocare il percorso con i bambini, si è concretizzata attraverso l’esplicitazione delle rappresentazioni di scuola e museo, indagate nelle prime interviste con tutti gli attori coinvolti ed esplicitate durante gli incontri di R-F. L’analisi della documentazione (diari, lavori dei bambini, trascrizioni delle conversazioni), intesa come «un’esperienza di “visualizzazione” e “verbalizzazione” della pratica partecipata» (Bove & Sità, 2016, p. 65) e di presa in carico delle parole dei bambini nell’ottica Student Voice (Grion, De Vecchi, 2014), ha permesso l’individuazione di punti di forza e criticità dell’intervento nello specifico contesto producendo «un sapere utile, circoscritto e contestualizzato» (Cardarello, 2018, p. 45). Il piano della ricerca ha previsto l’utilizzo dei seguenti strumenti in tre fasi (ex ante, in itinere e post) che hanno accompagnato l’implementazione del percorso didattico: - interviste semi-strutturate a tutor accogliente (I1), tutor coordinatrice (I2), studentessa tirocinante (I3) e curatrice del museo (I4); - incontri con tutta l’equipe fissati con cadenza mensile (RF1, 2, 3, 4, 5); - osservazione carta/matita durante la visita e il laboratorio al museo (O); - conversazione con i bambini in grande gruppo condotta dall’insegnante (C1); - conversazioni con i bambini in piccoli gruppi condotte dalla ricercatrice (C2, 3 e 4); - focus group conclusivo con le insegnanti e la tirocinante (FG). L’analisi delle trascrizioni è stata effettuata con un sistema di codifica ispirato all’approccio costruttivista della Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 2016; Tarozzi, 2008), attribuendo in un primo momento etichette molto aderenti al testo e quindi riorganizzando e raggruppando i temi emersi in macrocategorie. All’approccio bottom up si è quindi è affiancata anche una codifica top down guidata dalle domande della ricerca (Krippendorff, 2004). In questa sede ci si concentrerà sull’analisi delle interviste e del focus group in dialogo con le parole dei bambini. Le categorie individuate sono esemplificate tramite una selezione di stralci di conversazione. Analisi dei dati Nelle prime interviste emerge l’attenzione alla motivazione dei bambini (“la cosa fondamentale è che tutto quello che viene proposto ai bambini abbia senso per loro” I1), l’utilizzo di una didattica attiva e laboratoriale (“la mia idea di scuola è molto simile a quella che ho appena detto di museo, cioè di un grande laboratorio” I1; “mettere i bambini nelle condizioni di non essere semplicemente i fruitori della conoscenza […] ma proprio renderli partecipi” I3) e un’idea di apprendimento sociale per la co-costruzione dei saperi (“costruiamo insieme le conoscenze, confliggiamo, e quindi cresciamo” I2). Nel focus group conclusivo sono state identificate tre macrocategorie: - la consapevolezza del cambiamento del proprio sapere pratico (“abbiamo sempre lavorato per mappe, però io ero una che sottolineava tutto il libro, quindi faccio fatica anche io a trovare le parole chiave. Probabilmente lì c’è una mia influenza.” FG); - la R-F come strategia di connessione tra formazione iniziale e formazione permanente (“mi sono sentita anche un punto di forza per il gruppo di tirocinio […] è stato arricchente non solo per me qui dentro o per voi, ma anche con le mie colleghe universitarie che non hanno avuto la possibilità di viversi certe cose” FG); - la sostenibilità della co-progettazione tra scuola e museo (“quello che mi sembra di aver letto erano obiettivi diversi per ogni persona coinvolta” FG). Dal confronto tra le categorie del focus group e le valutazioni dei bambini si rilevano sia elementi di accordo, sia discrepanze in particolare su: la modalità di relazione dell’insegnante, la sua comunicazione (“le domande della maestra ci hanno fatto incuriosire e cercare di andare a trovare le informazioni” C3) e le criticità dell’attività proposta in museo (“lo stile comunicativo della guida non li ha fatti sentire inclusi o protagonisti del percorso che stavano vivendo” RF4, “secondo me doveva farci partecipare di più facendoci scoprire la soluzione e non dandocela subito” C1, “avevano la loro scaletta, dovevano andare avanti come un treno” RF 4). Conclusioni e futuri sviluppi Lo studio di caso ha permesso di identificare punti di forza e criticità del percorso si rileva come la Ricerca-Formazione abbia sostenuto l’attitudine alla riflessività, all’autoanalisi e autovalutazione necessarie per promuovere sviluppo professionale negli insegnanti coinvolti, sia in formazione sia esperti. In merito agli aspetti disciplinari, i bambini mettono in luce la difficoltà e la scarsa significatività di uno studio mnemonico della Storia, posizione sostenuta anche dagli insegnanti che sottolineano la necessità di promuovere l’apprendimento all’interno di un percorso di ricerca e le criticità delle strategie adottate durante l’uscita al museo. Con l’intento di promuovere un miglioramento dei processi formativi questi dati sono stati proposti quale un punto di partenza per riprogettare, co-progettando insieme con i bambini, un nuovo percorso durante il successivo anno scolastico.

Fredella, C. (2022). Il rapporto scuola-museo per la costruzione del sapere storico: insegnanti e bambini in ricerca [The school-museum relationship for building historical knowledge: inquirers teachers and children]. In F. Batini, G. Agrusti, I. Vannini, F. Falcinelli, R. Salvato (a cura di), La ricerca educativa per la formazione degli insegnanti (pp. 66-68). Lecce : Pensa MultiMedia.

Il rapporto scuola-museo per la costruzione del sapere storico: insegnanti e bambini in ricerca [The school-museum relationship for building historical knowledge: inquirers teachers and children]

Fredella, C
2022

Abstract

This contribution illustrates the results of a case study involving 4th-grade children, a hosting tutor teacher, a student trainee, a coordinating tutor and the educational services of the Museo Egizio in Turin in a Teacher Professional Development Research (Asquini, 2018) on the topic of the school-museum relationship in the context of teaching history. Previous research has revealed how, within the SFP internship at Milan Bicocca University, a relationship between host schools and territory is rarely promoted and has investigated the coordinating tutors’ museum and heritage representations, the learning goals they pursue through dialogue with museums in their classes, and the strengths and weaknesses of this relationship detected in their professional experience. It turns out that co-design in particular is considered a crucial factor for promoting meaningful learning (Fredella, 2021,2022; Mascheroni, 2019). Research questions and methodological framework The case study has a twofold objective: to support the teachers, pre-service and in-service, professional development in co-designing with the museum and to investigate which teaching methodologies promote children's expected skills, with a focus on metacognitive competences (Zecca, 2012) and understanding civilization frameworks (Mattozzi, 2019). The aim of the research guided the methodological choice of Teacher Professional Development Research, which focuses on the relationship issue, the "stance" (Vannini, 2018, p. 21) of the researcher in the context and towards the teachers involved. The goals’ agreement, intended to define a shared framework that underpins the children’s pathway and the teachers’ professional development, was achieved by the detailed explanation of the idea of school and museum, investigated in the first interviews with all the actors involved and emerged during the TPDR sessions. The analysis of the documentation collected by teachers, trainee and researcher (diaries, children's work, transcripts of conversations), intended as "an experience of 'visualisation' and 'verbalisation' of participatory practice" (Bove & Sità, 2016, p. 65) and of taking charge of children's words from a Student Voice perspective (Grion & De Vecchi, 2014), has enabled the identification of strengths and weaknesses of the intervention in the specific context producing "useful, circumscribed and contextualised knowledge" (Cardarello, 2018, p. 45). The research plan involved the use of the following tools in three phases (ex ante, in itinere and ex post) that followed the educational pathway implementation: - semi-structured interviews with hosting tutor (I1), coordinating tutor (I2), student trainee (I3) and museum curator (I4); - monthly meetings with the entire team (RF1, 2, 3, 4, 5); - paper-and-pencil observation during the museum visit and workshop (O); - conversation with children in large groups led by the teacher (C1); - conversations with children in small groups led by the researcher (C2, 3, 4); - closing focus group with the teachers and the trainee (FG). Data analysis and results What emerges in the first interviews is the focus on the children's motivation ("the key aspect is that everything that is submitted to the children is meaningful to them" I1), the use of active teaching and workshop ("my idea of school is very similar to what I have just said about museums, that is, a big workshop" I1; "let the children not only be the users of knowledge [... ] but just also let them participate" I3) and a concept of social learning for knowledge co-construction ("we build knowledge together, we disagree, and thus we grow" I2). In the last focus group three macro-categories were identified: - the awareness of change in practical knowledge ("we have always worked by maps, but I was one of those who underlined the whole book, so I also struggled to find the key words. There's probably my influence there." FG); - TPDR as a connection strategy between initial and in-service education ("I also felt powerful for the traineeship group [...] it was enriching not only for me and you, but also for my university colleagues who didn't have the opportunity to experience certain things" FG); - the sustainability of the co-design between school and museum ("what I think I read were different goals for each person involved" FG). Comparing focus group categories to the children's evaluations, what emerges are both elements of agreement and discrepancies, in particular on: the teacher-student relationship and teacher’s communication ("the teacher's questions made us curious and led us to try to go and find the information" C3) and the critical aspects of the activity proposed in the museum ("the guide's communicative style did not make them feel included or protagonists in the experience they were on" RF 4; "in my opinion she should let us participate more by making us discover the solution and not by giving it straight away" C1; "they were on a schedule, they had to go on like a train" RF 4). Conclusions and follow-up The case study led to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the process and it shows how the TPDR methodology supported the reflectivity, self-analysis and self-assessment that are necessary to promote professional development in the involved teachers, trainee and experts. With regard to disciplinary aspects, the children highlight the difficulty and lack of significance of a mnemonic study of History, a position also supported by the teachers who emphasise the need to promote learning within a research pathway and the critical aspects of the strategies adopted during the museum experience. In order to promote an improvement in the learning processes, the data was supplied as a starting point for redesigning, and co-designing together with the children, a new project during the following school year.
Capitolo o saggio
RTeaching history, teacher education, Student voice, Inquiry based learning
Ricerca Formazione, Didattica della storia, Formazione insegnanti, Student voice, Inquiry based learning
English
Italian
La ricerca educativa per la formazione degli insegnanti
Batini, F; Agrusti, G; Vannini, I; Falcinelli, F; Salvato, R
2022
9788867609611
Pensa MultiMedia
66
68
Fredella, C. (2022). Il rapporto scuola-museo per la costruzione del sapere storico: insegnanti e bambini in ricerca [The school-museum relationship for building historical knowledge: inquirers teachers and children]. In F. Batini, G. Agrusti, I. Vannini, F. Falcinelli, R. Salvato (a cura di), La ricerca educativa per la formazione degli insegnanti (pp. 66-68). Lecce : Pensa MultiMedia.
none
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/396330
Citazioni
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
Social impact