Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Articles/Articoli

Vol. 12 No. 2 (2021): Evaluation, feedback, equity: a challenge in education

The neuro-docimological challenge: Critical issues and possible tools

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ess2-2021oa12431
Submitted
settembre 1, 2021
Published
2021-12-21

Abstract

Docimology has faced several challenges that have involved revolutions and rearrangements. After briefly outlining the path taken by the science of evaluation of learning/teaching processes towards what is called formative evaluation, the paper focus on some critical aspects put in place by neuro-educational research and which arise, therefore, as new challenges for the Docimology: (1) the evaluative distortions generated by the spread of neuro-myths; (2) the danger of the teacher’s unconscious bias that affect the evaluation processes. Where these processes are made aware, it is possible to turn to an evaluative idea based on equity and the pedagogical ideal of democracy and the authentic enhancement of the individual. This is made possible above all thanks to the aid of tools, techniques, or methods capable of guiding the docimological action of educators. For this reason, some of them are analyzed such as systematic observation, spoken reflection, the competency assessment rubric, reality tasks.

References

  1. Barbosa E. Y. (2021). A Neurodidactic Model for Teaching Elementary EFL Students in a College Context. English Language Teaching, 14(3): 42-58. DOI: 10.5539/elt.v14n3p42.
  2. Benvenuto G. (2018). Stili e metodi della ricerca educativa. Roma: Carocci Editore.
  3. Block J. H. (1980). Promoting excellence through mastery learning. Theory into practice, 19(1): 66-74. DOI: 10.1080/00405848009542874.
  4. Bloom B.S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
  5. Boeris C. (2018). Il Patto Educativo di Corresponsabilità: uno strumento per educare al Bene Comune nei percorsi di educazione alla cittadinanza. MeTis-Mondi educativi. Temi indagini suggestioni, 8(1): 234-248. DOI: 10.30557/mt000017.
  6. Brophy J. E. (1982). How teachers influence what is taught and learned in class-rooms. The elementary school journal, 83(1): 1-13. DOI: 10.1086/461287.
  7. Calenda M., & Milito F. (2020). L'attualità degli studi docimologici. Italian Journal of Educational Research, 24: 102-119. DOI: 10.7346012020-P102.
  8. Calonghi L. (1983). Valutare: risultati docimologici e indicazioni per la scheda, No-vara: Istituto geografico De Agostini.
  9. Calonghi L. (1994). Valutazione, Brescia: La Scuola.
  10. Capperucci D. (2018). Valutazione e certificazione delle competenze attraverso le rubriche: triangolazione per migliorare la validità e affidabilità dei risultati. Life-long Lifewide Learning, 14(31): 140-155. DOI: 10.19241/lll.v14i31.112.
  11. Cappuccio G., & Cravana E. (2014). Progettare l’osservazione sistematica nella scuola dell’infanzia. Form@re-Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 14(4): 93-104. DOI: 10.1312815800.
  12. Cappuccio G., Albanese M. & Maniscalco L. (2020). Il dialogo tra Capability Approach e la formazione delle competenze digitali. Education Sciences And Society, 11(2): 395-409. DOI: 10.3280/ess2-2020oa9494.
  13. Cardarello R. (2010). Libri e pratiche di lettura: la comprensione nell’infanzia. In: F. Bacchetti & F. Cambi (Eds.), Attraversare boschi narrativi. Tra didattica e formazione. Napoli: Liguori Editore.
  14. Castoldi M. (2016). Valutare e certificare le competenze, Roma: Carocci.
  15. Chiosso G. (2009). I significati dell’educazione. Teorie pedagogiche e della formazione contemporanee. Milano: Mondadori Università.
  16. Cozolino L. (2013). The Social Neuroscience of Education: Optimizing Attachment and Learning in the Classroom (The Norton Series on the Social Neuroscience of Education). Manhattan: WW Norton & Company.
  17. De Landsheere G. (1988). Storia della pedagogia sperimentale. Roma: Armando.
  18. Dekker S., Lee N. C., Howard-Jones P., & Jolles J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in psychology, 3: 1-8. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429.
  19. Falcinelli F. (1999). La valutazione dell’azione formativa. Intelligenza pedagogica e intervento didattico. Roma: Seam.
  20. Gardner H. (1992). Assessment in Context: The Alternative to Standardized Testing. In: B. R. Gifford, & M. C. O’Connor (Eds.), Changing Assessments. Alternative Views of Aptitude, Achievement and Instruction (pp. 77-119). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  21. Geake J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational research, 50(2): 123-133. DOI: 10.1080/00131880802082518.
  22. Gilmore C. K., McCarthy S. E., Spelke E. S. (2007). Symbolic arithmetic knowledge without instruction. Nature, 447: 589-592. DOI: 10.1038/05850.
  23. Glaser R., & Resnick L. B. (Ed.) (1989). Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum.
  24. Glatthorn A. A. (1999). Performance standards and authentic learning, Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
  25. Good T. L., Cooper H. M., & Blakey S. L. (1980). Classroom interaction as a function of teacher expectations, student sex, and time of year. Journal of educational Psychology, 72(3): 378-385. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.72.3.378.
  26. Goswami U. (2004). Neuroscience and Education. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 74: 1-14. DOI: 10.1348/000709904322848798.
  27. Guillén J.C. (2021). Neuroeducazione in classe. Dalla teoria alla pratica. Roma: Il Bruco Farfalla.
  28. Heitink M. C., Van der Kleij F. M., Veldkamp B. P., Schildkamp K., & Kippers W. B. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational research review, 17: 50-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.002.
  29. Mari G. (2007). Avvaloramento dell’individuo e istanza comunitaria. In: G. Vico (a cura di), Orientamenti per educare alla cittadinanza (pp. 6786). Milano: Vita e Pensiero.
  30. McClelland D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than intelligence. American Psychologist, 28(1): 1-14. DOI: 10.1037/h0034092.
  31. Nussbaum M. (2012). Creare capacità. Bologna: il Mulino.
  32. Pellerey M. (2007). Sulla ricerca didattica degli ultimi cinquanta anni a partire da alcuni apporti metodologici di Luigi Calonghi. In: A. La Marca (a cura di). Ricerca, educazione, didattica, Brescia: La Scuola.
  33. Piéron H. (1965). Esami e docimologia. Roma: Armando.
  34. Reeve J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. Handbook of self-determination research, 2: 183-204. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7.
  35. Resnick L. B. (1995). Imparare dentro e fuori la scuola. In: C. Pontecorvo, A.M. Ajel-lo, C. Zucchermaglio (a cura di). I contesti sociali dell’apprendimento (pp. 61-84). Milano: LED.
  36. Rivoltella P. C. (2012). Neurodidattica. Insegnare al cervello che apprende. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
  37. Rizzo U., Salmaso F. (2009). L’osservazione. In: Felisatti, E. Clerici, R (a cura di), La formazione dell’insegnante alla ricerca nell’integrazione metodologica, Padova: Cleup.
  38. Rosenthal R., & Jacobson L. (1966). Teachers’ expectancies: Determinants of pupils’ IQ gains. Psychological reports, 19(1): 115-118. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.115.
  39. Santoianni F. (2019). Brain Education Cognition. La ricerca pedagogica italiana. Re-search Trends In Humanities Education & Philosophy, 6: 44-52. DOI: 10.6093/2284-0184/6019.
  40. Scriven M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation (AERA Monograph series on cur-riculum evaluation (No. 1). New York: Rand Mc Nally.
  41. Sen A. (2000). Lo sviluppo è libertà. Perché non c’è crescita senza democrazia, Milano: Mondadori.
  42. Sen A. (1992). Risorse, valori e sviluppo. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
  43. Sousa D. A. (2001). How the brain learns: A classroom teacher’s guide, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  44. Sousa D. A., & Tomlinson C. A. (2011). Differentiation and the brain: How neuro-science supports the learner-friendly classroom. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
  45. Stoecklin D., Bonvin J.M., (2014). Children’s Rights and the Capability Approach. Challenges and Prospects. NY-London: Springer.
  46. Tokuhama-Espinosa T. (2010). Mind, brain, and education science: A comprehensive guide to the new brain-based teaching. Manhattan: WW Norton & Company.
  47. Trouilloud, D., Sarrazin, P., Bressoux, P., & Bois, J. (2006). Relation between teachers’ early expectations and students’ later perceived competence in physical education classes: Autonomy-supportive climate as a moderator. Journal of educational psychology, 98(1): 75-86. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.75.
  48. Tyler R. W. (1934). Techniques for evaluating behavior. Educational Research Bulletin, 13: 1-11.
  49. Wiggins G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 2(1): 1-3. DOI: 10.7275/ffb1-mm19.
  50. Wiggins G. (1998). Educative assessment. Designing assessments to inform and im-prove student performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  51. Winograd P., & Perkins F.D. (1996). Authentic assessment in the classroom. Principles and practices. In: R.E. Blum & J.A. Arter (eds.), A handbook for student performance assessment in an era of restructuring (I-8: 1-11). Alexandria, VA: Associa-tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  52. Zanniello G. (2016). La didattica tra storia e ricerca, Roma: Armando.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...