Salta al menu principale di navigazione Salta al contenuto principale Salta al piè di pagina del sito
FrancoAngeli Journals

Articoli/Articles

V. 14 N. 1 (2023): Didattica universitaria, innovazione e inclusione. Valutazione e feedback

Encourage reflective and self-assessment processes through the automatic processing of personalized feedback

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ess1-2023oa15264
Inviata
23 gennaio 2023
Pubblicato
21-07-2023

Abstract

Technologies in training processes by radically modifying the relationship with (and between) knowledge, have determined the need to experiment with new methodological approaches to innovate didactic action, respond to subjective training needs, satisfy the ever increasing requests coming from the job market. In this paper, we want to deepen a particular action of this process, preliminary to the implementation phase of each training intervention. We refer to the needs analysis (NA) aimed at identifying training needs and requirements of the participants with respect to which to organize and modulate the contents and the didactic action. In the opinion of the author, already the NA, if accompanied by specific actions, can constitute an intentionally structured moment to enhance the effectiveness of training feedback in a diagnostic and self-assessment function and in this work we will describe an automated system designed and developed specifically for this purpose. To examine the application opportunities and to show the potential of the automated system, an experience will be presented that involved students attending the specialization course for educational support activities for pupils with disabilities held at the University of Salerno in the A.Y. 2022/2023.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. Andrade H L., Brookhart S.M. (2020). Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(4): 350-372. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2019.1571992.
  2. Bell, M. (2020). The Fundamentals of Teaching, A Five-Step Model to Put the Research Evidence into Practice. London: Routledge.
  3. Boud D., Soler R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3): 400-413. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133.
  4. Bransford J.D., Brown A.L. and Cocking R.R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academy Press.
  5. Brown G., Harris L. (2018). Methods in Feedback Research. In: Lipnevich A. and Smith J. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781316832134.007.
  6. Calvani A. (2011). Principi dell'istruzione e strategie per insegnare. Criteri per una didattica efficace. Roma: Carocci.
  7. Calvani A. (2014). Come fare una lezione efficace. Roma: Carocci.
  8. Calvani A., Trinchero R. (2019). Dieci falsi miti e dieci regole per insegnare bene. Roma: Carocci.
  9. Calvani A., Marzano A. and Miranda S. (2021). Training of teachers in effective teaching. How to orient the observation and the change of practices in the classroom? Formazione & Insegnamento, 19(1): 599-621. DOI: 10.7346/-fei-XIX-01-21_53.
  10. Calvani A., Marzano A. and Morganti, A. (2021). La didattica in classe. Casi, problemi e soluzioni. Roma: Carocci.
  11. Crandall B., Klein G. and Hoffman, R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/7304.001.0001.
  12. Earl L. (2012). Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximize Student Learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
  13. Gagné R. (1995). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  14. Gagné M., Briggs L.J. (1974). The principles of instructional design. New York Hold. (trad. it.: Fondamenti di progettazione didattica. Torino: SEI, 1990).
  15. Grion V., Serbati A. (2019). Valutazione sostenibile e feedback nei contesti universitari. Prospettive emergenti, ricerche e pratiche. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.
  16. Hattie J. (2009). Visible Learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London & New York: Routledge.
  17. Hattie J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.
  18. Hattie J., Timperley H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1): 81-112. DOI: 110.3102/003465430298487.
  19. Hattie J., Donoghue G.M. (2016). Learning strategies: a synthesis and conceptual model. Science of Learning, 1, 16013. DOI: 10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13.
  20. Lipnevich A.A., Smith J.K. (2009). Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(4): 319-333. DOI: 10.1037/a0017841.
  21. Marzano A. (2022). The customization of feedback to support teachers training: the COFACTOR system. Italian Journal of Educational Research, 28: 48-60. DOI: 10.7346/sird-012022-p48.
  22. Marzano A., Calvani A. (2020). Evidence based education and effective teaching: How to integrate methodological and technological knowledge into teacher training. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 22: 125-141. DOI: 10.7358/ecps-2020-022-maca.
  23. Mayer R.E. (2005). Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. In: Mayer R.E., editor, The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge: University Press.
  24. Menichetti L., Pellegrini M. and Gola G. (2019). Mind frames and misconceptions in teacher’e training. Formazione & Insegnamento, 17(1): 351-74. DOI: 10.7346/-fei-XVII-01-19_29.
  25. Merrill M.D. (2002). First principles of instruction. ETR&D, 50: 43-59. DOI: 10.1007/BF02505024.
  26. Miranda S. (2022). Orienting the attitudes of future teachers towards effective interventions: restructuring misconceptions and naïve didactic points of view. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 25: 141-160. DOI: 10.7358/ecps-2022-025-mira.
  27. Pereira D., Flores M.A. and Niklasson L. (2016). Assessment revisited: a review of research in assessment and evaluation in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(7): 1008-1032. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1055233.
  28. Reigeluth C.M. (1999). What is Instructional Design Theory and How Is it Changing? In: Reigeluth C.M., editor, Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Vol. 2. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  29. Rosenshine B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research based principles that all teachers should know. American Educator, Spring: 12-39. http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2012/Rosenshine.pdf.
  30. Shute V.J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1): 153-189. DOI: 10.3102/0034654307313795.
  31. Vegliante R., Marzano A. and Miranda S. (2022). Evidence-informed didactic mediation: from training needs to effective planning. MEDIA EDUCATION, 13(2): 141-150. DOI: 10.36253/me-13270.

Metriche

Caricamento metriche ...