Learning and teaching processes in university teaching. Between system requirements and didactic innovation

Journal title EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION IN LEARNING AND TEACHING
Author/s Daniela Robasto
Publishing Year 2018 Issue 2018/1
Language Italian Pages 21 P. 38-58 File size 1500 KB
DOI 10.3280/EXI2018-001003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

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.

The national and international pedagogical literature regarding the evaluation and self-evaluation processes of higher education systems, highlighted the possible distortions, in terms of effectiveness of the teaching-learning process, of the use of tools for assessment based on the opinion of students (Feldman, 1986; Rahnema, Kroll, & Jennings, 2007) or on product or result indicators (Jones & Taylor, 1990). Frequently the risk is not to detect what is the teaching provided and what are the expected learning outcomes (and then those achieved). If we take into consideration the R3 indicators adopted by ANVUR in the Italian AVA system, there is a partial confirmation of the roots that are not strictly pedagogical from which the first methodological choices of evaluation and self-evaluation of the university system have taken place, but new openings and new spaces can also be seen, for a joint and interdisciplinary reflection, aimed at improving the teaching/learning processes. In the present paper, after a brief legislative framework concerning the concept of autonomy (including teaching) of the university system, the syllabus is presented as the main documentary source for self-assessment of the subjective and collegial interpretation of the concept of didactic autonomy. In the final part of the paper there is also a pilot project that was launched in the University of Parma and which has continued, at the same time, targeted interventions for teacher training, diagnostic surveys and innovation in teaching processes.

Keywords: University teaching, learning processes, system self-assessment, didactic innovation, syllabus.

  1. Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student Rating Myths Versus Research Facts from 1924 to 1998, Journal of Personal Evaluations in Education, 13 (2), 153-166.
  2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Complete edition. New York: Longman.
  3. Benvenuto, G. (2011). Percorsi di studio universitari. L’ingresso, lo studio e gli esiti, Quaderni di Ricerca, Roma: Nuova Cultura.
  4. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy, Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome. London: Academic Press.
  5. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham: Open University Press/McGraw Hill.
  6. Bloom, B. S. (1963). Testing Cognitive Ability and Achievement. In Gage, N. L., Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Rand Mc Nally.
  7. Bonaiuti, G., Calvani, A., & Ranieri, M. (2016). Fondamenti di didattica. Teoria e prassi dei dispositivi formativi, Roma: Carocci.
  8. Calvani, A. (2000), Elementi di didattica. Roma: Carocci.
  9. Chiappetta Cajola, L. (2015). Didattica inclusiva valutazione e orientamento. ICF-CY, portfolio e certificazione delle competenze degli allievi con disabilità, Roma: Anicia.
  10. Clark, R. C., & Lyons, C. (2010). Graphics for Learning: Proven Guidelines for Planning, Designing, and Evaluating Visuals in Training Materials. San Francisco (CA): John Wiley & Sons.
  11. Coggi, C. (a cura di) (2005a). Per migliorare la didattica universitaria, Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia.
  12. Coggi, C. (a cura di) (2005b). Una Facoltà allo specchio. Contributi di ricerca in una Università che cambia, Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia.
  13. Coggi, C. (a cura di) (2005c). Domande di qualità. Le istanze degli studenti universitari, Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia.
  14. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive Functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168.
  15. Feldman, D. C. (1986). Organizational Behavior. New York: Thomson South-Western.
  16. Felisatti, E. (2011). Didattica universitaria e innovazione. In Galliani, L. (a cura di), Il docente universitario. Una professione tra ricerca, didattica e governance degli Atenei (pp. 137-144). Lecce: PensaMultiMedia.
  17. Felisatti, E., & Rizzo, U. (2007). Progettare e condurre interventi didattici. Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia.
  18. Fondazione CRUI (2014). Insegnare discipline, Apprendere per lavorare, nei contesti universitari. L’esperienza cagliaritana e il modello di qualità pedagogica. Roma: Fondazione CRUI.
  19. Fondazione CRUI (2017). Istituzione, attivazione e accreditamento dei Corsi di Studio. Novità introdotte da AVA 2.0 e dal DM 987/2016. Roma: Fondazione CRUI.
  20. Galliani, L., Zaggia, C., & Serbati, A. (2011). Apprendere e valutare competenze all’università. Progettazione e sperimentazione di strumenti nelle lauree magistrali. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.
  21. Giovannini, M. L., & Rosa, A. (2012). La valutazione di impatto dei progetti di formazione all’insegnamento dei docenti universitari: quali indicazioni dalle rassegne delle ricerche empiriche?. Giornale italiano della ricerca educativa, 5 (8), 93-104.
  22. Giovannini, M. L., & Silva, L. (2014). Le ricerche sui questionari-studenti per la valutazione dell’insegnamento universitario. Quali elementi di problematicità in rapporto all’uso delle risposte? Ricerche di Pedagogia e Didattica. Journal of Theories and Research in Education, 9 (3), 19-51.
  23. Grange, T. (2006). Il laboratorio come luogo di costruzione di competenze. In Paparella, N. (a cura di), Le attività di laboratorio e di tirocinio nella formazione universitaria. Roma: Armando.
  24. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analysis relating to Achievement. London-New York (NY): Routledge.
  25. Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., & Onghena P. (2016). Using Mixed Methods Research Synthesis for Literature Reviews. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.
  26. Johnes, J., & Taylor, J. (1990). Performance Indicators in Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
  27. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: experience as the source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall.
  28. Le Boterf, G. (1994). De la compétence : essai sur un attracteur étrange. Paris: Les Éditions d’Organisation.
  29. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom Instruction that works: Research-based Strategies for increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria (VA): ASCD.
  30. Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2012). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
  31. Moon, J. (2002). The Module and Programme Development Handbook. London: Kogan Page.
  32. OCSE TALIS (2013). TALIS 2013 Results. An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, -- https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/talis-2013-results_9789264196261-en#page1.
  33. Pellerey, M. (2006). Dirigere il proprio apprendimento. Autodeterminazione e autoregolazione nei processi di apprendimento, Brescia: La Scuola.
  34. Pfeiffer, J. W., & Jones, J. E. (1985). A Handbook of Structured Experiences for Human Relations Training, voll. 1-10. San Diego: University Associates, 1974-1985.
  35. Rahnema, S., & Jennings, F. (2003). Kroll Ph. Student perception of the “Student Evaluation of Instruction” Form as a Tool for Assessing Instructor’s Teaching Effectiveness. NACTA Journal, 47 (3), 6-10.
  36. Rahnema, S., Kroll, P., & Jennings, F. (2007). Faculty Perceptions of the “Student Evaluation of Instruction” Instrument as a Tool for assessing Teaching Effectiveness. North American Colleges & Teachers of Agriculture (NACTA) Journal, 51 (3), 10-14.
  37. Redfield, D. L., & Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A Meta-analysis of Experimental Research on Teacher Questioning Behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 237-245.
  38. Robasto, D. (2017). Autovalutazione e piano di miglioramento a scuola. Metodi e indicazioni operative. Roma: Carocci.
  39. Robasto, D., & Trinchero, R. (2015) (a cura di), Strategie per pensare. Attività evidencebased per migliorare la didattica e gli apprendimenti in aula. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  40. Schunk, D. H. (1998). An Educational Psychologist’s Perspective on Cognitive Neuroscience. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 411-417.
  41. Semeraro, R. (a cura di) (2005). La valutazione della didattica universitaria in Italia, in Europa, nel mondo. Atti di un convegno internazionale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  42. Trinchero, R. (2012). Costruire, valutare, certificare competenze: proposte di attività per la scuola, Milano: Franco Angeli.
  43. Trinchero, R. (2017). Costruire e certificare competenze con il curricolo verticale nel secondo ciclo. Milano: Rizzoli Education.
  44. Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2003). Questioning and Understanding to Improve Learning and Thinking: Teacher Manual. Charleston: AEL, 2nd ed.
  45. Wiggins, G., McTighe, J. (2000). Understanding by Design. Alexandria (VA): Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  46. Zaggia, C. (2008). L’università delle competenze. Progettazione e valutazione dei corsi di laurea nel processo di Bologna. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  47. Zimmerman B.J. (2001). Theories of Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview and Analysis. In Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.), Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement (pp.1-37). Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Costruire comunità di ricerca dialogiche: quando l'aula accademica diventa uno spazio di formazione e possibilità interculturali Isabella Pescarmona, Valeria Ferrero, in EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION IN LEARNING AND TEACHING 1/2024 pp.40
    DOI: 10.3280/exioa1-2024oa18032
  • Come costruire un Syllabus Learner-centred? Creazione e Validazione di una Rubrica di (Auto)valutazione del Syllabus Anna Serbati, Sabrina Maniero, Marcella Bracale, Silvia Caretta, in EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION IN LEARNING AND TEACHING 1/2021 pp.97
    DOI: 10.3280/exioa1-2021oa12067

Daniela Robasto, Processi di apprendimento e insegnamento nella didattica universitaria. Tra requisiti di sistema e innovazione didattica in "EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION IN LEARNING AND TEACHING" 1/2018, pp 38-58, DOI: 10.3280/EXI2018-001003