Conference Program

In the current pedagogical/didactic debate, participation cannot be reduced to mere “presence” or a set of observable behaviours: rather, it is configured as a relational and cognitive-affective quality of the school experience, articulated in behavioural, emotional and cognitive dimensions (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). In this context, engagement appears to be sensitive both to beliefs of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and to social conditions that support autonomy, competence and belonging (Ryan & Deci, 2000), calling into question concrete teaching choices and classroom management styles. This paper presents ongoing research (academic year 2025/2026) conducted at the 'Pignatelli' lower secondary school in Grottaglie (province of Taranto), in collaboration with three literature teachers, on three second-year classes (N = 67; aged 12–13). The sample includes one student with autism spectrum disorder with high support needs and four students with SLDs. The aim is to explore whether, and to what extent, an integrated teaching device (structured cooperative learning, short authentic tasks, digital micro-narratives and gamification with low technological complexity and high educational intentionality) can affect motivational processes and participation, while preserving accessibility and meaningfulness for heterogeneous profiles. The design is quasi-experimental with pre/post measurements and data triangulation, according to an educational research approach that focuses on consistency between hypotheses, tools and context (Lucisano & Salerni, 2002). On a quantitative level, the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI) is used for the cognitive and psychological component of engagement (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006), accompanied by a brief measure of academic self-efficacy. On a qualitative level, systematic classroom observations, student logbooks and semi-structured interviews with teachers are collected to capture micro-dynamics of participation (turn-taking, quality of cooperation, persistence in the task, experiences of competence). Partial evidence (at mid-term) suggests an increase in dialogic participation in cooperative activities and an improvement in average psychological engagement, with more marked signs in students who were initially 'peripheral' in interactions. Looking ahead, the analysis discusses the conditions and limits of the device's transferability, avoiding 'technological' interpretations: what seems to drive motivation is not only the digital embellishment, but above all the pedagogical and didactic architecture that makes learning a practicable, recognisable and shared experience.