Feedback docente e revisione tra pari su compiti di progettazione della ricerca: evidenze empiriche da un corso di Pedagogia sperimentale online

Titolo Rivista EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY
Autori/Curatori Giuseppe C. Pillera
Anno di pubblicazione 2021 Fascicolo 2021/2 Lingua Italiano
Numero pagine 18 P. 309-326 Dimensione file 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/ess2-2021oa12406
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Vedi l'articolo Scarica l'articolo open access

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

La ricerca mira a identificare le tipologie di feedback che gli studenti reputano particolarmente utili per supportare percorsi di formazione universitaria online focalizzati sull’applicazione di conoscenze in compiti di progettazione, studiandone la relazione con alcune dimensioni cognitive dell’apprendimento. Lo studio, basato sull’analisi quantitativa di dati provenienti da un questionario somministrato a un gruppo di studenti e sulle valutazioni loro assegnate nelle diverse fasi del corso, verifica inoltre, all’interno di un disegno quasi-sperimentale, eventuali differenze tra chi ha lavorato in gruppo e chi individualmente e presenta gli esiti di un’analisi correlazionale tra l’utilità percepita delle varie tipologie di feedback indagate e il tasso di frequentazione delle lezioni.;

Keywords:; feedback; revisione tra pari; compiti di progettazione; apprendimento collaborativo; didattica a distanza; apprendimento per padronanza

  1. Carless D. (2009). Trust, distrust and their impact on assessment reform. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1): 79-89. DOI: 10.1080/02602930801895786.
  2. Anderson T., Howe C., Soden R., Halliday J. and Low. J. (2001). Peer interaction and the learning of critical thinking skills in further education students. Instructional Science, 29: 1-32. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026471702353.
  3. Arbaugh J.B. (2007). An empirical verification of the Community of Inquiry frame-work. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1): 73-85. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v11i1.1738.
  4. Arbaugh J.B., Cleveland-Innes M., Diaz S.R., Garrison D.R., Ice P., Richardson J.C. and Swan K. P. (2008). Developing a Community of Inquiry Instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4): 133-136. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003.
  5. Biasutti M. (2019). Forum e wiki a confronto come strumenti per l’apprendimento collaborativo online. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 12(numero spe-ciale): 267-290. DOI: 10.7346/SIRD-1S2019-P267.
  6. Bloom B.S. (1971). Mastery Learning and its Implications for Curriculum Development. In Block J.H., editor, Mastery Learning. Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  7. Boud D., Ajjawi R., Dawson P. and Tai J., editors (2018). Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: assessment for knowing and producing quality work. London: Routledge.
  8. Boud D., Soler R. (2015). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment and Evaluationn in Higher Education, 41(3): 400-413. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133.
  9. Bose J., Rengel Z. (2009). A model formative assessment strategy to promote student-centered self-regulated learning in higher education. US-China Education Review, 6(12): 29-35. DOI: 10.17265/2161-623X/2009.12A.004.
  10. Brown E., Gibbs G. and Glover C. (2003). Evaluation Tools for investigating the impact of assessment regimes on student learning. Bioscience Education, 2(1): 1-7. DOI: 10.3108/beej.2003.02000006.
  11. Laurillard D. (2012). Teaching as design science. Abingdon-New York: Routledge.
  12. Lipnevich A.A., McCallen L.N., Pace Miles K. and Smith J.K. (2014). Mind the gap! Students’ use of exemplars and detailed rubrics as formative assessment. Instructional Science, 42(4): 539-559. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9299-9.
  13. Lipnevich A.A., Smith J.K., editors (2018). The Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Marcuccio M., Silva L. (2019). Peer feedback as assessment practice in doctoral pro-grams: a systematic review of empirical research. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 12(numero speciale): 85-100. DOI: 10.7346/SIRD-1S2019-P85.
  15. Marzano A., Miranda S. (2019). Dynamic concept maps to support e-learning and evaluation processes. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 12(numero spe-ciale): 241-256.
  16. Nicol D. (2009). Assessment for learner self-regulation: enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Educa-tion, 34(3): 335-352. DOI: 10.1080/02602930802255139.
  17. Nicol D. (2019). Reconceptualising feedback as an internal not an external process. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 12(numero speciale): 71-83.
  18. Nicol D., Macfarlane-Dick D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2): 199-218. DOI: 10.1080/03075070600572090.
  19. Nicol D., Thomson A. and Breslin C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1): 102-122. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.
  20. Orsmond P., Merry S. (2011). Feedback alignment: Effective and ineffective links between tutors’ and students’ understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2): 125-126. DOI: 10.1080/02602930903201651.
  21. Panciroli C., Macauda A. (2019) Images-feedback in university teaching. Form@re, 19(3): 234-246. DOI: 10.13128/form-7730.
  22. Petrucco C. (2019). Student Response Systems as a successful tool for formative assessment: students’ perceptions in a university pilot study. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 12(numero speciale): 257-266.
  23. Pillera G.C. (2020a). Collaborare online per apprendere: l’esperienza di studenti uni-versitari in un laboratorio di progettazione pedagogica. Form@re, 20(1): 203-219. DOI: 10.13128/form-8188.
  24. Pillera G.C. (2020b). Enhancing design competence in education: reflections on the model of an experience in the field. Form@re, 20(2): 268-275. DOI: 10.13128/form-8451.
  25. Poce A., Re M.R., Amenduni F., De Medio C. and Valente M. (2019a). Developing a web App to provide personalised feedback for museum visitors: a pilot research project. Form@re, 19(3): 48-59. DOI: 10.13128/form-7703.
  26. Poce A., Amenduni F., De Medio C. and Re M.R. (2019b). Road to Critical Thinking automatic assessment: a pilot study. Form@re, 19(3): 60-72. DOI: 10.13128/form-7705.
  27. Rivoltella P.C., Rossi P.G. (2019). Il corpo e la macchina. Brescia: Morcelliana.
  28. Serbati A., Grion V. (2019). IMPROVe: Six research-based principles to realise peer assessment in educational contexts. Form@re, 19(3): 89-105. DOI: 10.13128/form-7707.
  29. Serbati A., Grion V. and Fanti M. (2019). Caratteristiche del peer feedback e giudizio valutativo in un corso universitario blended. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, XII(numero speciale): 115-137. DOI: 10.7346/SIRD-1S2019-P115.
  30. Shute V.J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1): 153-189. DOI: 10.3102/0034654307313795.
  31. Sweller J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4(4): 295-312. DOI: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.
  32. Tuckman B.W. (1988). Conducting Educational Research. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Janovich.
  33. Truffelli E., Rosa A. (2019). Peer feedback individuale e di gruppo: uno studio empirico sull’utilità percepita in un corso universitario sulla valutazione. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 12(numero speciale): 157-176. DOI: 10.7346/SIRD-1S2019-P157.
  34. Van Dalen D.B. (1979). Understanding Educational Research. An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  35. Velázquez B.B., Gil-Jaurena I. and Encina J.M. (2019). Validation of the Spanish version of the ‘Community of Inquiry’ survey. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 59(4): 1-26. DOI: 10.6018/red/59/04.
  36. Vial M. (1997). Essai sur le processus de référenciation. In Bonniol J.J., Vial M., editors, Les modèles de l’évaluation. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
  37. Wiggins G. (1990). The Case for Authentic Assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 2: article 2. DOI: 10.7275/ffb1-mm19.
  38. Wiggins G. (1998). Educative Assessment. Design Assessment to Inform and Improve Student Performance. S. Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass.
  39. Yang M., Carless D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, (18)3: 285-297. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2012.719154.
  40. Jensen L.X., Bearman M. and Boud D. (2021). Understanding feedback in online learning – A critical review and metaphor analysis. Computers & Education, 173, 104271. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104271.
  41. Kluger A. N., DeNisi A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on perfor-mance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2): 254-284. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.
  42. Ibarra-Sáiz M.S., Rodríguez-Gómez G. and Boud D. (2020). Developing student competence through peer assessment: the role of feedback, self-regulation and evaluative judgement. Higher Education, 80: 137-156. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-019-00469-2.
  43. Huisman B., Saab N., van den Broek P. and van Driel J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-Analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6): 863-880. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896.
  44. Hughes G., Smith H. and Creese B. (2015). Not seeing the wood for the trees: developing a feedback analysis tool to explore feed forward in modularised programmes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(8): 1079-1094. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2014.969193.
  45. Henderson M., Phillips M., Ryan T., Boud D., Dawson P., Molloy E. and Mahoney P. (2019). Conditions that enable effective feedback. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(7): 1401-1416. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807.
  46. Hattie J., Gan M. and Brooks C. (2017). Instruction based on feedback. In Mayer R.E., Alexander P.A., editors, Handbook of research on learning and instruction. London: Routledge.
  47. Hattie J., Timperley H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1): 81-112. DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487.
  48. Hattie J., Shirley S. (2019). Visible learning: Feedback. Abingdon-New York: Routledge.
  49. Hattie J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.
  50. Harks B., Rakoczy K., Hattie J., Besser M. and Klieme E. (2014). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: the role of feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology, 34(3): 269-290. DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2013.785384.
  51. Gasparini S. (2019). The utility of written corrective feedback in L2 learning: Analysis of an experience with Erasmus Incoming Students. Form@re, 19(3): 73-88. DOI: 10.13128/form-7706.
  52. Garrison D.R., Anderson T. and Archer W. (2001). Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1): 7-23. DOI: 10.1080/08923640109527071.
  53. Galliani L. (2015). Epistemologia della valutazione educativa. In Galliani L., a cura di, L’agire valutativo, Brescia: Editrice La Scuola.
  54. Ferro Allodola V. (2020). Apprendimento, feedback del docente e revisione tra pari: limiti e potenzialità. Form@re, 20(1): 379-387. DOI: 10.13128/form-8139.
  55. Di Stasio M., Ranieri M. and Bruni I. (2019). Assessing is not a joke. Alternative as-sessment practices in higher education. Form@re, 19(3): 106-118. DOI: 10.13128/form-7488.
  56. Dawson P., Henderson M., Mahoney P., Phillips M., Ryan T., Boud D. and Molloy E. (2018). What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1): 25-36. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877.
  57. Coggi C., Ricchiardi P. (2013). Progettare la ricerca empirica in educazione. Roma: Carocci editore.
  58. Chetwynd F., Dobbyn, C. (2011). Assessment, feedback and marking guides in distance education. Open Learning, 26(1): 67-78. DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2011.538565.
  59. Cesareni D., Sansone N. (2019). Il peer-feedback collaborativo per il miglioramento continuo dei prodotti. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 12(numero speciale): 139-155. DOI: 10.7346/SIRD-1S2019-P139.
  60. Carless D. (2020). Longitudinal perspectives on students’ experiences of feedback: a need for teacher-student partnerships. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3): 425-438. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2019.1684455.
  61. Carless D., Salter D., Yang M. and Lam J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4): 395-407. DOI: 10.1080/03075071003642449.
  62. Carless D. (2019). Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5): 705-714. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1531108.
  63. Carless D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning teaching. Abington (PA): Routledge.

Giuseppe C. Pillera, Feedback docente e revisione tra pari su compiti di progettazione della ricerca: evidenze empiriche da un corso di Pedagogia sperimentale online in "EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY" 2/2021, pp 309-326, DOI: 10.3280/ess2-2021oa12406