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

Saggi e ricerche

2021: Special Issue - Faculty Development e Digital Scholarship: questioni di ricerca nell’istruzione superiore

Innovare la didattica universitaria con il feedback formativo in itinere

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/exioa0-2021oa11129
Inviata
25 gennaio 2021
Pubblicato
25-01-2021

Abstract

Questo contributo presenta una riprogettazione dell’insegnamento universitario che mira a integrare le strategie di apprendimento sostenute dai media digitali. I tradizionali momenti del processo di insegnamento-apprendimento (lezione, studio, esame), sono stati trasformati attraverso il coinvolgimento in itinere degli studenti per assicurare un feedback formativo lungo tutto lo sviluppo dell’insegnamento. A questo scopo sono state introdotte pratiche di social annotation e di peer- and self-assessment condotte utilizzando due ambienti online: Perusall[1] e Peergrade[2]. Vengono presentate le funzionalità e l’uso in contesto universitario dei due strumenti. Il contributo termina con una ricerca condotta sull’applicazione della riprogettazione proposta ad un insegnamento universitario.


[1] Perusall (https://perusall.com/), è un sistema gratuito di social annotation sviluppato da un team di docenti dell’università di Harvard specificatamente progettato per innovare i processi di insegnamento – apprendimento in ambito universitario.

[2] Peergrade (https://www.peergrade.io/), è un ambiente digitale per il peer- and self- assessment sviluppato da una società con radici presso la Technical University of Denmark e con consulenti dell’Università Strathclyde.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. Armstrong, L. (2016). Barriers to innovation and change in higher education. New York: TIAA-CREF Institute.
  2. Berry, T., Cook, L., Hill, N., & Stevens, K. (2010). An exploratory analysis of text-book usage and study habits: Misperceptions and barriers to success. College Teaching, 59(1), 31-39.
  3. Biggs, J.B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Buckingham: Open University Press/McGraw Hill.
  4. Burchfield, C.M., & Sappington, J. (2000). Compliance with required reading assignments. Teaching of Psychology, 27(1), 58-60.
  5. Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. London: Routledge.
  6. Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in higher education, 36(4), 395-407.
  7. Cecchinato, G., & Foschi, L.C. (2018). Involving students in teaching: analysis of an educational innovation pathway at University. Form@re – Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 18(1), 97-110.
  8. Cecchinato, G., & Foschi, L.C. (2019). Assessment Skills and Validity of Peer-and Self-Assessment in In-Service Teacher Training. In J. Theo Bastiaens (Ed.), Proceedings of EdMedia + Innovate Learning (pp. 86-91). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Recuperato da: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/209993/.
  9. Cecchinato, G., & Foschi, L.C. (2020a). Perusall: University learning - teaching innovation employing social annotation and machine learning., QWERTY, 15(2), 45-67.
  10. Cecchinato, G., & Foschi, L.C. (2020b). Learning-Teaching Innovation of a University E-learning Course. 19th European Conference on e-Learning 29-30 October 2020, Berlin, Germany (ECEL).
  11. Cecchinato, G. & Foschi, L. C. (2020c). Perusall: un’analisi della validità dei processi valutativi basati sul Machine Learning. In G. Cecchinato & V. Grion (Eds.). Proceedings of Conference Dalle Teaching Machines al Machine Learning (pp. 21-28). Padova, Italy: Padova University Press.
  12. Cecchinato, G., & Papa, R. (2020). Insegnare nella società della conoscenza: analisi del processo di innovazione didattica di un insegnamento universitario. Proceedings of Conference SIRD, SIREM, SIPES, SIEMeS. Le società per la società: ricerca, scenari, emergenze. 2019. Roma.
  13. Cecchinato, G., Papa, R., & Foschi, L.C. (2019). Bringing game elements to the classroom: The role of challenge and technology. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 158-173.
  14. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73-84.
  15. Foschi, L.C., & Cecchinato, G. (2019). Validity and reliability of peer-grading in in-service teacher training. Italian Journal of Educational research, 177-194.
  16. Gao, F., Zhang, T., & Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 469-483.
  17. Gee, J. P. (2013). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 20-20.
  18. Grion, V., Serbati, A., & Nicol, D. (2019). Technologies as assessment change agents. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 3-4.
  19. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
  20. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (p. 145). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
  21. Johnson, T.E., Archibald, T. N., & Tenenbaum, G. (2010). Individual and team annotation effects on students’ reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills. Computers in human behavior, 26(6), 1496-1507.
  22. Jonassen, D.H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3) 21-26.
  23. Kalir, J., Morales, E., Fleerackers, A., & Alperin, J. P. (2020). When I saw my peers annotating: Student perceptions of social annotation for learning in multiple courses. Journal of Information and Learning Sciences.
  24. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1). Recuperato da: https://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/handle/2149/717/Online%20Social%20Inter-chang,%20Discord,%20and%20Knowledge%20Construction.pdf?sequence=1.
  25. Kelly, G.E. (2012). Lecture attendance rates at university and related factors. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36(1), 17-40.
  26. Kottasz, R. (2005). Reasons for student non-attendance at lectures and tutorials: an analysis. Investigations in university teaching and learning, 2(2), 5-16.
  27. Li, S.C., Pow, J.W.C., Cheung, W.C. (2015). A delineation of the cognitive processes manifested in a social annotation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 1-13.
  28. Lowenthal, P.R. (2010). Social presence. In Social computing: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 129-136). IGI Global.
  29. Larkin-Hein, T. (2001). On-line discussions: a key to enhancing student motivation and understanding? Frontiers in education conference, 2001. 31st annual. Vol. 2. (pp. F2G-6). IEEE.
  30. Marshall, C.C. (1997). Annotation: From paper books to the digital library.
  31. Massingham, P., & Herrington, T. (2006). Does attendance matter? An examination of student attitudes, participation, performance and attendance. Journal of university teaching & learning practice, 3(2), 82-103.
  32. Mazzolini, M., Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in on-line discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40(3), 237-253.
  33. McAleese, M., Bladh, A., Berger, V., Bode, C., Muehlfeit, J., Petrin, T., ... & Tsoukalis, L. (2013). Report to the European Commission on Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. Luxembourg: Publi-cation Office of the European Union.
  34. Miller, K., Lukoff, B., King, G., & Mazur, E. (2018). Use of a Social Annotation Platform for Pre-class reading assignments in a Flipped introductory Physics class. Frontiers in Education, 3(8), 1-12.
  35. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517.
  36. Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122.
  37. Nokelainen, P., Kurhila, J., Miettinen, M., Floreen, P., & Tirri, H. (2003). Evaluating the role of a shared document-based annotation tool in learner-centered collaborative learning. Paper presented at the Advanced Learning Technologies. The 3rd IEEE International Conference.
  38. Nokelainen, P., Miettinen, M., Kurhila, J., Floréen, P., & Tirri, H. (2005). A shared document-based annotation tool to support learner-centered collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 757-770.
  39. Nonis, S.A., & Hudson, G.I. (2006). Academic performance of college students: Influence of time spent studying and working. Journal of education for business, 81(3), 151-159.
  40. Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879-896.
  41. Romero, C., López, M.I., Luna, J.M., & Ventura, S. (2013). Predicting students’ final performance from participation in on-line discussion forums. Computers & Education, 68(C), 458-472.
  42. Rovai, A.P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(1).
  43. Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of educational psychology, 85(4), 571.
  44. Sun, Y., & Gao, F. (2017). Comparing the use of a Social annotation tool and a threaded discussion forum to support online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 72-79.
  45. Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359-384.
  46. Thomas, M.J. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of on-line discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351-366.
  47. Unsworth, J. (2000). Scholarly primitives: What methods do humanities researchers have in common, and how might our tools reflect this. Symposium on Humanities Computing: Formal Methods, Experimental Practice. King’s College, London. 13, 5-00.
  48. Yang, X., Yu, S., & Sun, Z. (2013). The effect of collaborative annotation on Chinese reading level in primary schools in China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 95-111.
  49. Zhu, X., Chen, B., Avadhanam, R.M., Shui, H., & Zhang, R.Z. (2020). Reading and connecting: using social annotation in online classes. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5-6), 261-271.

Metriche

Caricamento metriche ...