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

L’analisi delle pratiche discorsive come strumento a servizio dell’innovazione didattica nella Higher Education: un’esperienza nella legal education

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/exioa0-2021oa11127
Inviata
25 gennaio 2021
Pubblicato
25-01-2021

Abstract

Più ancora che in altre aree della higher education, all’interno della legal education l’innovazione didattica è oggi finalizzata a supportare lo sviluppo di competenze riflessive, di pensiero critico e di problem solving, requisiti fondamentali per poter affrontare una professione in cui il grado di complessità è in netto aumento. A tale scopo, il Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche e il Teaching and Learning Center (TaLC) dell’Università di Verona hanno avviato percorsi di innovazione didattica adottando la prospettiva dell’educational evaluation, e in particolare della valutazione trasformativa, attuata attraverso l’osservazione fra pari e l’analisi delle pratiche discorsive. L’obiettivo dei dispositivi etero-valutativi era la promozione nei docenti di processi riflessivi e metacognitivi finalizzati all’acquisizione di una maggiore consapevolezza rispetto ai punti di forza e di debolezza delle proprie pratiche didattiche, nonché un miglioramento delle pratiche stesse.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. American Bar Association (1992). Legal Education and Professional Development – An Educational Continuum. Chicago: American Bar Association.
  2. Austin, J.L. (1955). How to do things with words. The William James Lectures, Harvard University. In J.O. Urmson & M. Sbisà (Eds.), How to do things with words (2nd ed., 1975). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  3. Beach, A., Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A., & Rivard, J. (2016). Faculty development in the age of evidence. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
  4. Barton, T.D. (2016). Re-Designing Law and Lawering for the Information Age. Notre Dame JL Ethics & Pub. Policy, 30(1), 1-36.
  5. Bennett, S. & Santy, J. (2009). A window on our teaching practice: Enhancing individual online teaching quality though online peer observation and support. A UK case study. Nurse Education in Practice, 9(6), 403-406.
  6. Bloom, E. M. (2017). Creating Desirable Difficulties: Strategies for Reshaping Teaching and Learning in the Law School Classroom. U. Det. Mercy L. Rev., 95(2), 115-151.
  7. Blumer, H. (1969). The methodological position of symbolic interactionism. Sociology. Thought and Action, 2(2), 147-156.
  8. Carasik, L., Renaissance or Retrenchment: Legal Education at a Crossroads (2011). Indiana Law Review, 44, 735, Western New England University School of Law Legal Studies Research, Paper No. 11-3.
  9. Carroll, C. & O’Loughlin, D. (2014). Peer observation of teaching: enhancing academic engagement for new participants, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(4), 446-456.
  10. Denvir, C. (Ed.) (2020). Modernising legal education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Denzin, N.K. (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  12. Domenici, G. (2018). Quando la Valutazione diventa risorsa aggiuntiva nei processi di istruzione. In A. Marzano & R. Tammaro (a cura di). Azioni formative e processi valutativi. Scritti in onore di Achille Maria Notti (pp. 65-76). Lecce: PensaMultimedia.
  13. Felisatti, E. (2019). La valutazione all’Università: riflessioni dal passato e prospettive per il futuro. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, XII – numero speciale – maggio, pp. 15-28.
  14. Heidegger, M. (1947). Brief über den Humanismus, [Lettera sull’umanesimo]. In Platons Lehre von der Wahrheit, [La dottrina di Platone sulla verità], Bern, trad. it. di F. Volpi, Segnavia, Adelphi, Milano, 1987.
  15. Jones, E. (2017). One size fits all? Multiple intelligences and legal education. The Law Teacher, 51(1), 56-68.
  16. Knauer, N.J. (2015). Learning communities: A new model for legal education. Elon L. Rev., 7, 193-224.
  17. Lane, J.E. (Ed.) (2014). Building a smarter university: Big data, innovation, and analytics. critical issues in higher education. State University of New York, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  18. Mortari, L. (2002). La Grounded Theory: Una via per la formazione alla ricerca educative. In D. Orlando Cian (a cura di). Didattica universitaria tra teorie e pratiche (pp. 115-128). Lecce, Italy: Pensa Multimedia Editore.
  19. Mortari, L. (2003). Apprendere dall’esperienza: il pensare riflessivo nella formazione. Roma: Carocci.
  20. Mortari L. (2007). Cultura della ricerca e pedagogia. Prospettive epistemologiche. Roma: Carocci.
  21. Mortari, L. (2009). Ricercare e riflettere. Roma: Carocci.
  22. Mortari, L. & Silva, R. (2018). Words Faithful to the Phenomenon: A Discursive Analysis Method to Investigate Decision-Making Processes in the Intensive Care Unit. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1-14.
  23. Niedwiecki, A. (2012). Teaching for lifelong learning: Improving the metacognitive skills of law students through more effective formative assessment techniques. Cap. UL Rev., 40, 149.
  24. Patton, M.Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation practice, 15(3), 311-319.
  25. Patton, M.Q. (2006). Evaluation for the way we work. Nonprofit Quarterly, 13(1), 28-33.
  26. Patton, M.Q. (2016). What is essential in developmental evaluation? On integrity, fidelity, adultery, abstinence, impotence, long-term commitment, integrity, and sensitivity in implementing evaluation models. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(2), 250-265.
  27. Rhode, D.L. (2012). Legal Education: Rethinking the Problem, Reimagining the Reforms. Pepp. L. Rev., 40(2), 437.
  28. Rorty, R. (1967). Introduction: Metaphilosophical Difficulties of Linguistic Philosophy. In R. Rorty (ed.), The Linguistic Turn: Recent Essays in Philosophical Method (pp. 1-41). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
  29. Ryan, E., Shuai, X., Ye, Y. & Haomei, L. (2013). When Socrates meets Confucius: Teaching creative and critical thinking across cultures through multilevel Socratic method. Neb. L. Rev., 92(2), 289-348.
  30. Sheriff, K. (2015). The Empathetic Lawyer's Training Ground: Fostering Resilience to Vulnerability in Legal Education Through Transformation of Reactive Institutions to Reflective Institutions and Waking the Sleepy Responsive State. Recuperato da SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2676473 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2676473.
  31. Stake, R.E. (1975). Evaluating the Arts in Education: A Responsive Approach. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.
  32. Stuckey, R. et al. (2007) The Best Practices Report for Legal Education. United States: Clinical Legal Education Association.
  33. Sullivan, W.M. (2018). After Ten Years: The Carnegie Report and Contemporary Legal Education. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 14(2), 331-344.
  34. Sullivan, W.M., & Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2007). Educating lawyers: Preparation for the profession of law. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

Metriche

Caricamento metriche ...