The aim of this explorative pilot study is to assess inclusiveness of didactic tools experimented in an Italian school, within a wider action research involving about fifteen teachers focused on giftedness in the national school context. 

framework: To talk about inclusive education in Italy in 2023, there is the need to value the long path done to get to one school for all students. In 1977 with a National Law (L. 517, 4 Agosto 1977, n.d.) the public school welcomed all its students, without any differences based on backgrounds, languages, disabilities or any learning difficulties. This has meant opening wide doors to a pedagogical model that valued education more than curriculum, learning to grow up and develop the self. It is granted nowadays that it is possible to act self-competences within a group and not in loneliness (d’Alonzo, 2008). Integration at school meant a development of new interactions not only in class but also with several professions, psychiatrics and psychologists in the first place, and a development of new teachers, special need teachers, with prior attention to a child with disability but responsible also for the class development as the curricular teacher (d’Alonzo, 2008, 2019b; Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito, 2022). 

To move a step forward towards inclusiveness it is important to look back and focus on milestones that helped Italian schools to become a model (Ianes et al., 2020). Italy started with the integration of students with disability in schools, children used to a different didactic and curriculum and a life project based on oneself. Special education started focusing on the person adding the element of a rich context, trying to fill in the feeling of membership. This need of being part of a group allowed the effort to support the research to find a room for each student within a class and every child in the world. This view is much wider than a simplified didactic to pass content. This process has faced several challenges generated by barriers due to stereotypes, prejudices, fear and impotence, just to mention a few. 

On the side of giftedness education, some key elements have been highlighted as well. Specifically, background studies have been focused on differences with mainstream education and non-negotiables. Some criteria have been extracted by the work of Bruce M. Shore (Shore, 2000), Joyce VanTassel-Baska and Tamra Stambaugh (VanTassel-Baska, 2005; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005). There is a need for attention to metacognition (as monitoring, evaluation and control of thinking strategies) and its connection to flexibility and accuracy (Shore, 2000). VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh mention specifically “barriers” that could occur while addressing differentiation: «a) degree of differentiation required b) need to provide advanced learning opportunities beyond grade level, c) philosophical barriers and antipathy of many teachers towards the gifted learner and their needs, d) lack of understood services for the gifted population, and e) lack of services for gifted learners leading to greater neglect» (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005, p. 212). To stimulate thinking skills, curriculums should reflect complexity, important issues and enough creativity to provoke a variety of feedbacks. Some methodology suggested are: problem/project based learning, the regular usage of rubrics to assess and, possibly, involving the competences within the educational community other than just the teacher (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005).  

There is a parallel journey between gifted education and special needs (referring to disabilities and learning difficulties) in mainstream education that let arise amongst several challenges a main one: heterogeneous classroom, several needs, different pace in learning and interests (d’Alonzo, 2019a; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005). 

Methodology: This research has been developed within wider participatory research about giftedness in an Italian state school in Parma to explore possible didactic feedbacks that could “serve” children with different learning needs and still respecting the right of every child to learn, in a very heterogenous class. Teachers were aware of an unmet need of gifted children in class, but felt uncertain about how to respond to multiple needs in class. Elements that arose from the research team were the need to foster caring, creativity, and critical thinking, allowing room for metacognition and flexibility. This research is a case study (Shaughnessy et al., 2020), that has been proposed to join theory (educational part of this action research) to practice in class. To provide a support and encouragement to teachers but also to pay attention to observation that could arise in class and teachers’ competence to document the learning path (Kanizsa et al., 1998). Population Interventions have been divided according to the school grade: a) Infant school: 2 classes of 5 years old children b) Primary school: a second-grade class (7 years old) and two third-grade classes (8 years old) c) Lower secondary school: individual activity of self-awareness on pupils with gifted profile (about 6 pupils). Teachers of participants classes are team of the participatory research. Intervention explored in action Didactic hypothesis that wanted to be explored and tested in class were: Philosophy for Children (Lipman, 2005), Making Learning and Thinking Visible (Mughini & Panzavolta, 2020; Project Zero & Reggio Children, 2009), Differentiation (d’Alonzo & Monauni, 2021; Tomlinson, 2005; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006) and tools to develop self-awareness of pupils in order to possibly co-construct a personalized individual plan (learning strategy and cognitive- emotionally wise)(Goleman & Senge, 2017; Johnson et al., 2016; La Prova, 2015; Sclavi & Giornelli, 2020; Sunderland, 2013). Instruments: Qualitative semi-structured interviews to teachers, informal dialogues with students and collection of didactic materials created by pupils. Analysis of the above allowed to answer to: 1) Can a practice in class scaffolds teachers to observe and act based on a recently learned topic? 2) How pupils observation and understanding have been improved by a child centered pedagogy? 3)Can tools thought for a specific child’s profile be helpful as inclusive teaching?

The need for inclusive teaching techniques is self-evident when the idea of "norm/average" becomes increasingly thinner (Tomlinson, 2004) The perceived inclusiveness idea of the Italian school is scratched by the evidence that some peculiarities, such as high cognitive ability and twice exceptionality, are often ignored. These allow teachers to increase, even more, motivations with respect to the need to devote oneself to inclusive teaching for the whole class, still respecting everyone. Findings of this explorative study have highlighted importance of teachers’ education, that scaffolding is needed to teachers in order translate theory into practice, that child centered pedagogy allows the adult to observe important and different children reactions and mostly that working together with gifted students they can increase their self-awareness and teachers can better understand them. All didactics experimented had the power to build a solid bridge between learner and teacher, students with labels and without! The participatory research team agreed with Tomlinson: “Teachers modify their practice not by sweeping change but step by step, in small ways, as they reflect on their practice and will themselves to grow”(Tomlinson, 2005, p. 269)

d’Alonzo, L. (2008). Gestire le integrazioni a scuola. La scuola. d’Alonzo, L. (2019a). Gestione della classe. In L. d’Alonzo (Ed.), Dizionario di pedagogia speciale (pp. 248–253). Scholé. d’Alonzo, L. (2019b). Dizionario di pedagogia speciale. Scholè. d’Alonzo, L., & Monauni, A. (2021). Che cos’è la differenziazione didattica (Scholè). Ianes, D., Demo, H., & Dell’Anna, S. (2020). Inclusive education in Italy: Historical steps, positive developments, and challenges. PROSPECTS, 49(3–4), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09509-7 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Holubec, E. J., & Marinelli, L. (2016). Kanizsa, S., Braga, P., Tosi, P., Nigris, E., & Gattico, E. (1998). I metodi qualitativi (S. Mantovani, Ed.). Mondadori. L. 517, 4 Agosto 1977. La Prova, A. (2015). Apprendimento cooperativo in pratica: Proposte operative per attività di gruppo in classe. Centro studi Erickson. Lipman, M. (2005). Educare al pensiero (A. Leghi, Trans.). Vita e pensiero. Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito. (2022). Alunni con Disabilità MIUR. https://www.miur.gov.it/alunni-con-disabilita Mughini, E., & Panzavolta, S. (2020). MLTV: Making learning and thinking visible : rendere visibili pensiero e apprendimento. Carocci. Project Zero, & Reggio Children. (2009). Rendere visibile l’apprendimento: Bambini che apprendono individualmente e in gruppo (C. Giudici, C. Rinaldi, & M. Krechevsky, Eds.; I. Cavallini, Trans.). Reggio Children. Sclavi, M., & Giornelli, G. (2020). La scuola e l’arte di ascoltare: Gli ingredienti delle scuole felici. Feltrinelli. Shaughnessy, J. J., Zechmeister, E. B., Zechmeister, J. S., Amoretti, G., & Chiorri, C. (2020). Metodologia della ricerca in psicologia (Seconda edizione). Mc Graw Hill. Shore, B. M. (2000). Metacognition and flexibility: Qualitative differences in how gifted children think. In R. C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition and development. (pp. 167–187). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10373-008 Sunderland, M. (2013). Disegnare le emozioni: Espressione grafica e conoscenza di sé (12. rist). Erickson. Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). The Möbius Effect: Addressing Learner Variance in Schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 516–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370060601 Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and Differentiation: Paradox or Good Practice? Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_11 Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Gifted Programs and Services: What Are the Nonnegotiables? Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4402_3 VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and Possibilities for Serving Gifted Learners in the Regular Classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5