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

Co-evaluation processes and agentic equity in the transformative pandemic and post-pandemic education

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ess2-2021oa12506
Submitted
settembre 12, 2021
Published
2021-12-21

Abstract

The issues related to the transformative learning for sustainability require a deep new reappraisal of the evaluation processes, just as the international research authorities demand, even by the light of the peculiar democratic applications and within the education joint-responsibility which represent the most functional and fruitful answers to the pandemic emergency. “Agentic equity”, as it is proposed in the transdisciplinary search scope, according to the neuroscientific basis, traces a noteworthy value to the co-built educational paths into the learning micro-communities which germinate in the educational systems indeed. Authentic co-evaluating processes represent a fundamental element of the teaching and learning bond because they redefine self-awareness, the relationship with each other and with the ecosystem. Although the situated and informal learning have greatly contributed as methodologies, they actually gain generative consistency in the structured transitional context, where the action is led by active listening and proactive transformative dynamics 

References

  1. Apps M.A., Ramnani N. (2014). The anterior cingulate gyrus signals the net value of others’ rewards. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34(1)8: 6190-6200. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2701-13.2014.
  2. Báez-Mendoza R., Schultz W. (2013). The role of the striatum in social behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7: 14 pp. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00233.
  3. Balconi M., Fronda G. (2021). Intra-brain connectivity vs. inter-brain connectivity in gestures reproduction: what relationship?. Brain Sciences 11: 12. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11050577.
  4. Baldacci M. (2014). Per un’idea di scuola. Istruzione, lavoro e democrazia. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  5. Bandura A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 1-26. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
  6. Bateson G. (1976). Verso un’ecologia della mente. Milano: Adelphi.
  7. Baxter M., Murray E. (2002). The amygdala and reward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3-7: 563-73. DOI: 10.1038/nrn875.
  8. Bearzi F. (2020). La DAD al tempo di SARS-CoV-2: una imprescindibile occasione trasformativa. Nuova Secondaria, XXXVIII(1): 10-13.
  9. Bearzi F. e Colazzo S. (2017). New WebQuest. Apprendimento cooperativo, comunità creative di ricerca e complex learning nella scuola di oggi. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  10. Bearzi F., Rodolico D. (in stampa), Rethinking the space-time of learning: a transformative and democratic opportunity for education systems in a time of pandemic. Atti del II Convegno Scuola Democratica, Reinventing Education, 2-3-4-5 Giugno 2021. Bologna: il Mulino.
  11. Bignardi P. e Didoné S., a cura di (2021). Niente sarà più come prima. Giovani, pandemia e senso della vita. Milano: Vita e pensiero.
  12. Boekaerts M., Corno L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2): 199-231. Doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x.
  13. Chomsky N. (2019). Dis-educazione. Perché la scuola ha bisogno del pensiero critico. Milano: Piemme.
  14. Clark I., Dumas G. (2015). Toward a neural basis for peer-interaction: what makes peer-learning tick. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: 12. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00028.
  15. Id. (2016). The regulation of task performance: a trans-disciplinary review. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: 12. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01862.
  16. Coggi C., Ricchiardi P. (2018). Developing effective teaching in higher education. Form@re-Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 18(1): 23-38. Doi: 10.13128/formare-22452.
  17. Deutsch M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In: Coleman P.T., Deutsch M. and Marcus E.C., editors, The handbook of conflict resolution. Theory and practice. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass.
  18. Dewey J. (1961). Come pensiamo. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
  19. Id. (2018). Esperienza e natura. Milano: Mursia.
  20. Dusi P. e Pati L., a cura di (2011). Corresponsabilità educativa. Brescia: La Scuola.
  21. Ellerani P. (2012). Metodi e tecniche attive per l’insegnamento. Creare contesti per imparare ad apprendere. Roma: Anicia.
  22. Id. (2017), Presentazione. In: F. Bearzi e S. Colazzo, New WebQuest, cit., 9-31.
  23. Fareri D.S., Niznikiewicz M.A., Lee V.K., Delgado R.M. (2012). Social network modulation of reward-related signals. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(2)6: 9045-52. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0610-12.2012.
  24. Giannandrea L. (2009). Valutazione come formazione. Percorsi e riflessioni sulla valutazione scolastica. Macerata: EUM.
  25. Id., (2019). Valutazione, feedback, tecnologie. In: Rivoltella P.C. e Rossi P.G., a cura di, Tecnologie per l’educazione. Milano-Torino: Pearson.
  26. Guionnet S., Nadel G., Bertasi E., Sperduti M., Delaveau P., Fossati P. (2012). Reciprocal imitation: toward a neural basis of social interaction. Cerebral Cortex, 22(4): 971-78. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhr177.
  27. Hattie J.A.C. (2009). Visible Learning. A synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. London-New York: Routledge.
  28. Id. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. Maximizing impact on learning. London-New York: Routledge.
  29. International Commission on the Futures of Education [ICFE] (2020). Education in a post-COVID world. Nine ideas for public action. Paris: UNESCO.
  30. Issartel J., Marin L., Cadopi M. (2007). Unintended interpersonal co-ordination: “Can we march to the beat of our own drum?. Neuroscience Letters, 411(3): 174-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2006.09.086.
  31. Jeladze E., Pata K., Quaicoe J.S. (2017). Factors determining digital learning ecosys-tem smartness in schools. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, 35: 32-55.
  32. Jenkins H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture. Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
  33. Johnson D.W., Johnson R.T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131: 285-358. DOI: 10.3200/MONO.131.4.285-358.
  34. Id. (2009). An educational psychology success story. Social interdependence theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5): 365-79. Doi: 10.3102/0013189X09339057.
  35. Kawasaki M., Yamada Y., Ushiku Y., Yamaguchi E. (2013). Inter-brain synchronization during coordination of speech rhythm in human-to-human social interaction. Scientific Reports, 3(1): 8 pp. DOI: 10.1038/srep01692.
  36. Kolb D.A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  37. Krill A.L., Platek S.M. (2012). Working together may be better: activation of reward centers during a cooperative maze task. PLoS ONE, 7(2): 7. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030613.
  38. Laici C., Pentucci M. (2019). Feedback with technology in higher education. A sys-tematic review. Form@re - Open Journal Per La Formazione in Rete, 19(3): 6-25. Doi: 10.13128/form-7698.
  39. Lotz-Sisitka H., Wals A.E., Kronlid D., McGarry D. (2015). Transformative, transgressive social learning: rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16: 73-80. Doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.018.
  40. Maragliano R. (2019). Zona franca: per una scuola inclusiva del digitale. Roma: Armando.
  41. Marta E. (2021). Pronti a ricostruire. In: Bignardi e Didoné, a cura di, Niente sarà più come prima, cit.
  42. Martone V. (2021). Crisi sanitaria ed ecologica. La pandemia come disastro socio-naturale. In: Cuono M., Barbera F. e Ceretta M., a cura di, L’emergenza Covid-19. Un laboratorio per le scienze sociali. Roma: Carocci.
  43. Mezirow J. (2000). Learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  44. Id. (2016). La teoria dell’apprendimento trasformativo. Milano: Cortina.
  45. Michelini M.-C. (2013). La ricerca-azione. In: Baldacci M. e Frabboni F., a cura di, Manuale di metodologia della ricerca educativa. Torino: UTET.
  46. Montague P.R., Berns G.S., Cohen J.D., McClure S.D., Pagnoni G., Dhamala M., Wiest M.C., Karpov I., King R.D., Apple N., Fisher R.E. (2002). Hyperscanning: simultaneous fMRI during linked social interactions. Neuroimage, 16(4): 1159-64. DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1150.
  47. Murray E.A. (2007). The amygdala, reward and emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(11): 489-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.013.
  48. Nam C.S., Choo S., Huang J., Park J. (2020). Brain-to-brain neural synchrony during social interactions: a systematic review on hyperscanning studies. Applied Sciences, 10(19): 23. Doi: 10.3390/app10196669.
  49. OECD CERI (2008). Assessment for Learning. Formative Assessment. Paris: OECD.
  50. Pfeiffer U.J., Schilbach L., Timmermans B., Kuzmanovic B., Georgescu A.L., Bente G., Vogeley K. (2014). Why we interact: on the functional role of the striatum in the subjective experience of social interaction. Neuroimage, 101: 124-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.061.
  51. Popham W.J. (2008). Transformative Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  52. Redcay E., Dodell-Feder D., Pearrow M.J., Mavros P.L., Kleiner M., Gabrieli J.D., Saxe R. (2010). Live face-to-face interaction during fMRI: a new tool for social cognitive neuroscience. Neuroimage, 50(4): 1639-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.052.
  53. Reggio P. (2010). Il quarto sapere. Guida all’apprendimento esperienziale. Roma: Carocci.
  54. Rossi P.G. (2011). Didattica enattiva. Complessità, teorie dell’azione, professionalità docente. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  55. Rossi P.G., Pentucci M., Fedeli L., Giannandrea L., Pennazio V. (2018). Dal feedback informativo, al feedback generativo. Education Sciences & Society, 9(2): 83-107.
  56. Ryan R.M., Deci E.L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1): 54-67. Doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
  57. Id. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1): 68-78. DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
  58. Sakaiya S., Shiraito Y., Kato J., Ide H., Okada K., Takano K., Kansaku K. (2013). Neural correlate of human reciprocity in social interactions. Frontiers in Neuro-science, 7: 12. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00239.
  59. Salamone J.D., Correa M. (2012). The mysterious motivational functions of meso-limbic dopamine. Neuron, 76(3): 470-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.021.
  60. Sambell K., McDowell L. e Montgomery C. (2013). Assessment for learning in higher education. Nuove prospettive e pratiche di valutazione all’università. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.
  61. Schilbach L., Timmermans B., Reddy V., Costall A., Bente G., Schlicht T., Vogeley K. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Science, 36(4): 393-462. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X12000660.
  62. Schön D.A. (1993). Il professionista riflessivo: per una nuova epistemologia della pratica professionale. Bari: Dedalo.
  63. Slavich G.M., Zimbardo P.G. (2012). Transformational Teaching. Theoretical under-pinnings, basic principles, and core methods. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4): 569-608. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-012-9199-6.
  64. Stercal C. (2021). Dai loro frutti li riconoscerete. In: Bignardi e Didoné, a cura di, Niente sarà più come prima, cit.
  65. Tabibnia G., Lieberman M.D. (2007). Fairness and cooperation are rewarding. Evidence from social cognitive neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1118: 90-101. DOI: 10.1196/annals.1412.001.
  66. Tarantino A. (2018). Apprendimento esperienziale e padronanza di sé. Brescia: Morcelliana.
  67. Torrance H. (2012), Formative assessment at the crossroads: conformative, deformative and transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3): 323-42. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2012.689693.
  68. UNESCO (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals. Learning Objectives. Paris: UNESCO.
  69. Winnicott D.W. (1974). Gioco e realtà. Roma: Armando.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...