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

Saggi e ricerche

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

Co-epistemological modeling for academic development: The Prodid Uniba project

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/exioa0-2021oa11125
Submitted
gennaio 25, 2021
Published
2021-01-25

Abstract

The academic professional development represents a strategic way to improve students’ learning outcomes and contribute to social progress. Universities are responsible to support teaching innovation and teaching qualification processes through Faculty Development actions. One of the key skills to be fostered in university training courses is teaching and syllabus design. It is the careful syllabus drafting that assures the alignment and internal consistency between objectives, learning outcomes and assessment strategies. The results of a comparative analysis between syllabi in the pedagogical area and subjectspecific area (N: 94) are presented, specifically from four degree courses of the University of Bari: two in the pedagogical area (L19, LM85); two in subjectspecific areas (LMG/01, L30). The comparative analysis was carried out to understand the degree of clarity, consistency and heterogeneity in the
University documents and to identify critical elements and areas for possible improvement. The analysis revealed some results useful to guide future improvement strategies both at research level as well as in staff development initiatives: among all, the strategy of structuring, within the Teaching and Learning Centers, interdisciplinary teams composed of by teachers belonging to different epistemological perspectives who can cooperate in syllabus design and in peer learning practices.

References

  1. Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittroch, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
  2. Beach, A.L., Sorcinelli, D.M., Austin, A.E., & Rivard, J.K. (2016). Faculty Development in the Age of Evidence: Current Practices, Future Imperatives. Sterlin (VA): Stylus Pub Llc.
  3. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd edition). Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & OU Press.
  4. Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
  5. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  6. Damiano, E. (2013). La mediazione didattica. Per una teoria dell’insegnamento. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  7. Denzin, N. (2010). Moments, Mixed Method, and Paradigms Dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 419-427.
  8. DeZure, D., Van Note Chism, N., Sorcinelli, M.D., Cheong, G., Ellozy, A.R., Holley, M., Kazem, B. & Atrushi, D. (2012). Building International Faculty-Development Collaborations: The Evolving Role of American Teaching Centers. The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(3), 24-33.
  9. European Commission (2013). High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. Report to the European Commission on Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  10. European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) (2015). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Educa-tion Area (ESG). Brussels, Belgium: ENQA.
  11. Felisatti, E., & Serbati, A. (2015). Apprendere per imparare: formazione e sviluppo professionale dei docenti universali. Un progetto innovativo dell’Università di Padova. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 14, 323-339.
  12. Felisatti, E., & Serbati, A. (Eds.) (2017). Preparare alla professionalità docente e innovare la didattica universitaria. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  13. Gaebel, M., & Zhang, T. (2018). Trends 2018: Learning and Teaching in the European Higher Education Area. European University Association.
  14. Hussein, A. (2009). The use of triangulation in social sciences research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined? Journal of Comparative Social Work, 1(1), 1-12.
  15. Moon, J. (2002). The module & programme development handbook: a practical guide to linking levels, learning outcomes & assessment. London: Routledge.
  16. Newell, W.H. (1994). Designing Interdisciplinary Courses. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 58, 35-51.
  17. O’Brein, J.G., Millis, B.J., & Cohen, M.W. (2008). The Course Syllabus: A Learning-Centered Approach, second edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  18. Perla, L. (2004). Valutazione e qualità in Università. Roma: Carocci.
  19. Perla, L. (2011). L’eccellenza in cattedra. Dal saper insegnare alla conoscenza dell’insegnamento. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  20. Perla, L. (2018). Formare il docente alla didattica universitaria: il cantiere dell’innovazione. In M. Michelini (a cura di). Riflessioni sull’innovazione didattica universitaria. Interventi alla tavola rotonda GEO (79-88). Udine: Forum.
  21. Perla, L., Brusa, A., & Vinci, V. (2018). Insegnare il paesaggio storico. Tratteggio didattico co-epistemologico. Italian Journal of Educational Research, 9(20), 77-101.
  22. Perla, L., & Vinci, V. (2018a). Dall’analisi dei bisogni formativi dei docenti universitari all’organizzazione del Teaching Learning Laboratory: la ricerca PRODID presso l’Università di Bari. Education Sciences & Society, 2, 120-140.
  23. Perla, L., & Vinci, V. (2018b). TLL (Teaching Learning Laboratory) e formazione dialettica dei docenti universitari alla didattica: primi passi verso la certificazione della competenza pedagogica in Uniba. Lifelong Lifewide Learning, 15(32), 68-88.
  24. Perla, L., & Vinci, V. (2020). Follow up del progetto PRODID per lo sviluppo professionale dei docenti universitari: l’innovazione curricolare nel TLL e l’analisi dei Syllabi di insegnamento. In A. Lotti, & P.A. Lampugnani (Eds.). Faculty Development e valorizzazione delle competenze didattiche dei Docenti nelle Università Italiane. Genova: GUP.
  25. Saryon, A., & Frenay, M. (Eds.) (2010). Building teaching capacities in higher education: A comprehensive international model. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
  26. Serbati, A., & Zaggia, C. (2012). Allineare le metodologie di insegnamento, apprendimento e valutazione ai learning outcomes: una proposta per i corsi di studio universitari. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 5(9), 11-26.
  27. Serbati, A. (2019). Come definire i traguardi dell’apprendimento degli studenti: dagli obiettivi educativi alle competenze e Learning Outcomes. In A. Dipace & V. Tamborra (Eds.). Insegnare in Università. Metodi e strumenti per una didattica efficace (37-54). Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  28. Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A., Eddy, P. & Beach, A. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  29. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
  30. Varma-Nelson, P., & Turner, R. (2017). Faculty engagement with scholarly teaching and the culture and organization of a teaching and learning center. In E., Felisatti, A., Serbati (Eds.) Preparare alla professionalità docente e innovare la didattica universitaria (116-125). Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  31. Villa Sanchez, A., & Poblete Ruiz, M. (2008). Competence-based learning. Tuning Project, Bilbao: University of Deusto.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...