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


N. 3 (2021)

Transparency in higher education: An investigation of University students’ perceptions in Italy and Russia

2 November 2021


The primary purpose of this research is to investigate students’ perceptions of the presence of transparency in their university teaching/learning processes.
Effects of transparency in achievement, motivation, and anxiety were explored from the perspective of teachers’, one’s own, and peers’ behaviour. The secondary objective of the study was to create a valid tool for investigating “transparency” perception in university educational practices, based on the theoretical assumption that transparency reduces performance anxiety, stimulates study motivation, and represents a universal construct across universities, countries, cultures and courses of study. A sample of 439 undergraduates from leading research universities in Russia and Italy completed self-report scales and reported demographic data. The scales showed internal consistency and structural invariance in both countries. Research results confirmed the hypothesis from which the investigation originated. Based on the findings, essential tips for future investigations of transparency perception at universities have been developed.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. Bologna Declaration (1999). The European Higher Education Area.
  2. Byl, E., Struyven, K., Meurs, P., Abelshausen B., Vanwing T., Engels N., & Lombaerts, K. (2016). The value of peer learning for first-year postgraduate university students’ social and academic integration. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228, 299-304. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.044.
  3. Çetin, F. H., & Askun, D. (2018). The effect of occupational self-efficacy on work performance through intrinsic work motivation. Management Research Review, 41(2), 186-201.
  4. Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: A meta-analysis of findings. Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 321-41. DOI: 10.1007/BF00976252.
  5. Core Team, R. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
  6. De Hei, M., Admiraal, W., Sjoer, E., & Strijbos, J-W. (2018). Group learning activities and perceived learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2354-2370. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1327518.
  7. Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnel, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 111-127. DOI: 10.1177/0162353214529042.
  8. Duchatelet, D., & Donche, V. (2019). Fostering self-efficacy and self-regulation in higher education: A matter of autonomy support or academic motivation? Higher Education Research & Development, 38(4), 733-747. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2019.1581143.
  9. Dunbar, R. L., Dingel, M. J., Dame, L. F., Winchip, J., & Petzold, A. M. (2016). Student social self-efficacy, leadership status, and academic performance in collaborative learning environments. Studies in Higher Education, 43(9), 1507-1523. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1265496.
  10. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  11. Ellis, S., & Tod, J. (2014). Promoting behaviour for learning in the classroom. New York, NY: Routledge.
  12. Epskamp, S., & Stuber, S. (2017). SemPlot: Path diagrams and visual analysis of various SEM packages’ output. R package version 1(1).
  13. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2018). The European Higher Education Area in 2018.
  14. Gavrilyuk, O. A., Nosova, L. G., Susloparova, R., & Lakhno, A. V. (2015). University autonomy and teacher’s academic freedom in modern Russia: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE), 2(10), 8-15.
  15. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
  16. Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. New York, NY: Routledge.
  17. Howard, T. O., Winkelmes, M-A., & Shegog, M. (2020). Transparency teaching in the virtual classroom: Assessing the opportunities and challenges of integrating transparency Teaching methods with online learning. Journal of Political Science Education, 16(2), 198-211. DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2018.1550420.
  18. HRV Transparency index (2010). Our world in data.
  19. Hu, L-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
  20. Jones, B. D., & Carter, D. (2019). Relationships between students’ course perceptions, engagement, and learning. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 22(4), 819-839.
  21. Jönsson, A., & Balan, A. (2017). Effects on student motivation and performance by increased transparency in assessment: EARLI-konferensen [Paper presentation]. Tampere, Finland: Biennial Conference of the EARLY,
  22. Jönsson, A., & Prins, F. (2019). Editorial: Transparency in assessment-exploring the influence of explicit assessment criteria. Frontiers in Education, 3(119). DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2018.00119.
  23. Jurkowski, S., & Hänze, M. (2015). How to increase the benefits of cooperation: Effects of training in transactive communication on cooperative learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 357-371. DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12077.
  24. Karavaeva, E., & Zapryagaev, E. (2015). Integration of Russian higher education system in EHEA. Problems and achievements. EIRP Proceedings, Vol. 10.
  25. Karpouza, E., & Emvalotis, A. (2019). Exploring the teacher-student relationship in graduate education: A constructivist grounded theory. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(2), 121-140. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2018.1468319.
  26. Lennon, S., Riley, T., & Monk, S. (2018). The uncomfortable teacher-student encounter and what comes to matter. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(5), 619-630. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2018.1458711.
  27. Ligozat, F., & Almqvist, J. (2018). Conceptual frameworks in didactics and teaching: Trends, evolutions and comparative challenges. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 3-16. DOI: 10.1177/1474904117746720.
  28. Loes, C. N., & Pascarella, E. T. (2017). Collaborative learning and critical thinking: Testing the link. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(5), 726-753. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2017.1291257.
  29. Pandero, E., & Jönsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129-144. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002.
  30. Pasupathy, R., & Siwatu, K. O. (2014). An investigation of research self-efficacy beliefs and research productivity among faculty members at an emerging research university in the USA. Higher Education Research and Development, 33(4), 728-41. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2013.863843.
  31. Peseta, T., & Amani, B. (2020). “Seeing institutionally”: A rationale for ’teach the university’ in student and staff partnerships. Higher Education Research and Development, 39(1), 99-112. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2019.1676200.
  32. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F. T., Duncan, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
  33. Revelle, W. R. (2017). Procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University. Version = 1.7.8.
  34. Romanova, G., Romanov, M., Maznichenko, M., & Oborin, M. (2018). Realization of student academic rights towards the Bologna Process: Challenges and solutions. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 324-336. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2018.12.02.35.
  35. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modelling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.
  36. SemTools Contributors. (2016). SemTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R Package Version 0.4-14.
  37. Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., & Imai, K. (2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5), 1-38.
  38. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd.ed). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  39. Vanstone, D. M., & Hicks, R .E. (2019). Transitioning to university: Coping styles as mediators between adaptive-maladaptive perfectionism and test anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 68-75. DOI: 10.1016/J.-paid.2018.12.026.
  40. Winkelmes, M.-A., Copeland, D. E., Jorgensen, E., Sloat, A., Smedley, A., Pizor, P., Jhnson, K., & Jalene, S. (2015). Benefits (some unexpected) of transparently designed assignments. National Teaching & Learning Forum, 24(4), 4-7. DOI: 10.1002/ntlf.30029.
  41. Winkelmes, M.-A. (2016). Helping faculty use assessment data to provide more equitable learning experiences. University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
  42. Winkelmes, M.-A., Boye, A., & Tapp, S. (2019). Transparent design in higher education teaching and leadership: A guide to implementing the transparency framework institution-wide to improve learning and retention. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
  43. Wollenschläger, M., Hattie, J., Macths, N., Möller, J., & Harms, U. (2016). What makes rubrics effective in teacher feedback? Transparency of learning goals is not enough. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44-45, 1-11. DOI: 10.1016/J.cedpsych.2015.11.003.
  44. Won, S., Hensley, L. C., & Wolters, C. A. (2019). Brief research report: Sense of belonging and academic help-seeking as self-regulated learning. The Journal of Experimental Education. DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2019.1703095.
  45. Yefimov, V. S. (2012). The future of the higher school in Russia: Expert opinion. Foresight research – 2030. Krasnojarsk: Siberian Federal University.


Caricamento metriche ...