The role of peer-review workshops in prospective teacher training

Journal title EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY
Author/s Gemma Carotenuto, Cristina Coppola, Michele Fiorentino, Antonella Montone, George Santi
Publishing Year 2023 Issue 2023/1
Language English Pages 16 P. 188-203 File size 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/ess1-2023oa15307
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

View article Download Open Access article

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In this paper we present a model for formative assessment based on peer-review workshops on MOODLE, designed by researchers of te University of Salerno and  the University of Torino. The model has been implemented in the Mathematics and Mathematics education courses in Primary Education at the University of Torino. The peer-review workshops are intended to pursue the following objectives: (1) strengthening the argumentative skills of prospective teachers to direct them towards a relational view of mathematics; (2) provide them with models of formative assessment rooted in peer-review feedback managed by the university lecturer. We present an example of peer-review that intertwines effective feed-back with a relational understanding of mathematical thinking.

Keywords: ; peer-review; argumentation; formative assessment; feedback; relational thinking; digital technology

  1. Albano G., Dello Iacono U., and Pierri A. (2020). Structured online teachers’ collaboration for fostering professional development. In H. Borko, and D. Potari (Eds.), Teachers of Mathematics Working and Learning in Collaborative Groups, ICMI-25 Study Conference Proceedings February 3-7, 2020 (pp. 573-580). National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. http://icmistudy25.ie.ulisboa.pt/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1.6.2020ICMIPreProceedings.pdf.
  2. Aldon G., Cusi A., Morselli F., Panero M., and Sabena C. (2017). Formative assessment and technology: reflections developed through the collaboration between teachers and researchers In G. Aldon, F. Hitt, L. Bazzini and U. Gellert (Eds), Mathematics and technology: a CIEAEM source book. Series ‘Advances in Mathematics Education’. Springer International Publishing.
  3. Ball D.L., Thames M.H., and Phelps G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?. Journal for Teacher Education, 59: 389-408.
  4. Black P., Wiliam D. (2006). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1): 7-74. DOI: 10.1080/0969595980050102.
  5. Black P., Wiliam D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1): 5-31.
  6. Borko H., Potari D. (2018), Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth ICMI Study School Teachers of mathematics working and learning in collaborative groups. University of Lisbon.
  7. Castoldi M. (2012). Valutare la scuola. Dagli appunti alla valutazione di sistema. Carocci Editore.
  8. Cusi A., Morselli F. and Sabena C. (2017). Promoting formative assessment in a connected classroom environment: design and implementation of digital resources. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(5): 755-767.
  9. Dann R. (2014) Assessment as learning: blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2): 149-166. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.898128.
  10. Giannnadrea L. (2009). Valutazione come formazione. Percorsi e riflessioni sulla valutazione scolastica. EUM.
  11. Giannandrea L. (2019). Valutazione, feedback, tecnologie. Pearson.
  12. Hattie J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of 800+ Meta-Analyses on Achievement. Routledge.
  13. Hattie J., Temperley H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1): 81-112.
  14. Hattie J., Zierer K. (2019). Visible Learning Insights. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781351002226.
  15. Higgins M., Grant F., and Thompson P (2010). Formative Assessment: Balancing Educational Effectiveness and Resource Efficiency. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 5(2): 4-24. DOI: 10.11120/jebe.2010.05020004.
  16. Hitt F., Gonzalez-Martin A. (2016). Proof and argumentation in mathematics education research. In A. Gutiérrez, G. C. Leder, P. Boero (eds.), The Second Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 315-351). Sense Publishers.
  17. Ibarra-Sáiz M.S., Rodríguez-Gómez G., Boud D., Rotsaert T., Brown S., Salinas-Salazar M.L., and Rodríguez-Gómez H.M. (2020). The future of assessment in higher education. RELIEVE, 26(1). https://revistaseug.ugr.es/index.php/RELIEVE/article/view/17336.
  18. Laici C. (2021). Il feedback come pratica trasformativa nella didattica universitaria. FrancoAngeli.
  19. McCallum S., Margaret. M. (2021). The effectiveness of formative assessment: student views and staff reflections. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1): 1-16. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1754761.
  20. MIUR (2012). Indicazioni nazionali e nuovi scenari. http://www.miur.gov.it/documents/20182/0/Indicazioni+nazionali+e+nuovi+scenari/3234ab16-1f1d-4f34- 99a3-319d892a40f2.
  21. Radford L. (2003). Gestures, Speech, and the sprouting of signs: a semiotic-cultural approach to students' types of generalization. Mathematical thinking and learning, 5(1): 37-70.
  22. Ramaprasad A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28(1): 4-13.
  23. Rogers C.R., Freiberg H.J. (1994). Freedom to learn (3rd ed.). Macmillan College Publishing Company.
  24. Rossi P.G., Giannandrea L., Gratani F., Laici C., Tarantino A., and Paviotti G. (2021). Assessment as learning: transforming practices with secondary school teachers. In: 14th International conference of education, research and innovation.
  25. Rossi P.G., Pentucci M. (2021). Progettazione come azione simulata. Didattica deoi processi e degli ecosistemi. FrancoAngeli.
  26. Sabena C., Albano G., and Pierri A. (2020). Formative assessment workshops as a tool to support pre-service teacher education on argumentation. Quaderni di Ricerca in Didattica (Mathematics), special issue 7 Proceedings of CIEAEM 71, Braga 22-26 July 2019, 2020, pp. 205-216. http://math.unipa.it/%7Egrim/quaderno_2020_numspec_7.htm.
  27. Sambell K., McDowell L., and Montgomery K. (2013). Assessment for learning innhigher education. Routledge.
  28. Skemp R.R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77: 20-27.
  29. Stylianides A.J., Bieda K.N., and Morselli F. (2016). Proof and argumentation in mathematics education research. In A. Gutiérrez, G. C. Leder, and P. Boero (Eds.), The Second Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 315-351). Sense Publishers.
  30. Wiliam D., Thompson M. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work?. In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53-82). Erlbaum.
  31. Winstone, N., Careless, D. (2019). Designing effective feeback processes in higher education. Routledge.

Gemma Carotenuto, Cristina Coppola, Michele Fiorentino, Antonella Montone, George Santi, The role of peer-review workshops in prospective teacher training in "EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY" 1/2023, pp 188-203, DOI: 10.3280/ess1-2023oa15307