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

Articles/Articoli

Vol. 14 No. 1 (2023): University didactics, innovation and inclusion. Assessment and feedback

A possible dialogue between Accessibility and Assessment in university context. Considerations from a case study

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ess1-2023oa15275
Submitted
January 23, 2023
Published
2023-07-21

Abstract

The subject of this paper is Assessment in university contexts and aims to establish a possible dialogue between the assessment of student learning and Accessibility. The aim is to offer a reflection starting from a case study, which has tried to examine the assessment processes from the point of view of cultures (the values and meanings associated with the process), of policies (the strategic and organizational choices) and practices (tools, procedures used).

The new element is represented by the specific lens that has been chosen to adopt in reading the results of the research: that of accessibility. In university contexts it becomes important to give value to a construct like this, which arises from the philosophy of Universal Design, and which reveals opportunities for rethinking and improvement starting from questions such as: is it possible to think of an assessment process that promotes accessibility for everyone? How to design a universal assessment process?

The research tools used in the study are the analysis of documents (60 documents), questionnaires (156 teachers and 380 students) and Focus Groups (16 students).

References

  1. Ahn R. and Class M. (2011). Student-Centered Pedagogy: Co-Construction of Knowledge through Student-Generated Midterm Exams. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(2): 269-281.
  2. ANVUR (2018). Rapporto biennale sullo stato del sistema universitario e della ricerca 2018. ANVUR, Roma.
  3. Attard A., Di Iorio E., Geven K., and Santa R. (2010). Student-Centred Learning: Toolkit for Students, Staff and Higher Education Institutions. European Students’ Union (NJ1).
  4. Austin A. (2003). Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing new faculty to face changing expectations in a shifting context. Review of Higher Education, 26(2): 119-144.
  5. Black P. and Wiliam D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1): 7-74.
  6. Black P. and Wiliam D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1): 5-31.
  7. Burgstahler S.E. (2008). Universal Design in Higher Education. In: Burgstahler S.E. and Cory R.C. (Eds.), Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice (pp. 3-20). Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9647.2011.00769.x.
  8. Butler D. and Winne P. (1995) Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3): 245-281. DOI: 10.3102/00346543065003245.
  9. Carless D. (2013). Sustainable feedback and the development of student self- evaluative capacities. In S. Merry, M. Price, D. Carless and M. Taras (Eds.), Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: Developing dialogue with students (pp. 113-122). Abingdon: Routledge.
  10. CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2 [Institutional]. The UDL Guidelines. Retrieved April 12, 2021 from https://udlguidelines.cast.org/?utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=none&ut%20m_source=cast-about-%20udl.
  11. Cohen L., Manion L., and Morrison K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203029053.
  12. Denzin N.K. and Lincoln Y.S. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research. 3 ed. Thousand Oaks, CA.
  13. Feuerstein R., Rand Y., and Rynders J.E. (1995). Non accettarmi come sono. Milano: RCS. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-6128-0.
  14. Ketterlin-Geller L.R. (2005). Knowing What All Students Know: Procedures for Developing Universal Design for Assessment. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(2). Retrieved from https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1649 doi: 10.17226/10019.
  15. Li L. and Guo R. (2015). A Student-Centered Guest Lecturing: A Constructivism Approach to Promote Student Engagement. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, v15.
  16. Mazzara B.M. (2002). Metodi qualitativi in psicologia sociale. Prospettive teoriche e strumenti operativi. Roma: Carocci.
  17. Meyer A., Rose D., and Gordon D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. CAST. Retrieved April 12, 2021 from http://udltheorypractice.cast.org/login.
  18. Miles R. (2015). Complexity, representation, and practice: Case study as method and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 25(3): 309. DOI: 10.5040/9781474236966.ch-008.
  19. Nicol D. and Macfarlane-Dick D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2): 199-218. DOI: 10.1080/03075070600572090.
  20. Sambell, K. (2013). Engaging students through assessment. In: E. Dunne and D. Owen (Eds.), The student engagement handbook: practice in higher education (pp. 379-396). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  21. Sambell K. (2016). Assessment and feedback in higher education: considerable room for improvement?. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 1(1).
  22. Sorcinelli M., A. Austin, P. Eddy, and A. Beach (2006). Creating the Future of Faculty Development: Learning From the Past, Understanding the Present. Bolton: Wiley. DOI: 10.1353/rhe.2006.0060.
  23. Stake R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
  24. Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  25. Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a Self- Regulated Learner. Theory into Practice, 21(2): 64-70.
  26. Zhu E., and Kaplan M. (2006). Technology and teaching. In: W.J. McKeachie (Ed.), Teaching tips: Strategies, research and theory for college and university teachers (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...