Evaluative brainstorming. From theory to research practice in contexts characterized by resistance to innovation

Journal title RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione
Author/s Giuliana Parente, Rossana Labalestra
Publishing Year 2019 Issue 2018/71-72
Language Italian Pages 17 P. 276-292 File size 413 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIV2018-071014
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 article aims to explore the opportunities offered by evaluative brainstorming to investigate the concepts of quality and innovation in the scholastic context, starting from the research project -Towards the digital school- carried out by the Department of Communication and Social Research of Sapienza University of Rome. After developing a first theorization of the concepts of quality and innovation in the first paragraph, we explain the motivations behind the choice of evaluative brainstorming as a research technique, to then explore the semantic field and the shared definition of quality and of indicators related to innovative digital didactics. The article concludes with a reflection on the use of evaluative brainstorming intended both as a participatory technique capable of activating self-reflective processes in teaching practices, and as a catalyst for a new culture of evaluation that focuses on the continuous learning of teachers and students.

Keywords: Evaluative Brainstorming; School Quality; Innovation; Digital; Self-Reflexivity; Formative.

  1. Argyris C., Schon D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison Wesley, reading MA.
  2. Barrilà D. (2018). I superconnessi. Come la tecnologia influenza le menti dei nostri ragazzi e il nostro rapporto con loro. Roma: Feltrinelli.
  3. Bertin G. (2007), Governance e valutazione della qualità nei servizi socio-sanitari. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  4. Bezzi C. (2003). “Dalla comprensione dell’evaluando alla costruzione degli indicatori”. Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione, n. 27.
  5. Bocconi S., Kampylis P., Punie Y. (2012). “Innovating Teaching and Learning Practices: Key elements for developing Creative Classrooms in Europe”, eLearning papers, 30, 1-13.
  6. Bourdieu P., Passeron J.C. (1970). La reproduction. Éléments pour une théorie du système d'enseignement. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
  7. Bruni, A., Pinch, P., Schubert, C. (2013). “Technologically Dense Environments: What For? What Next?”. Tecnoscienza, 4 (2), 51-72.
  8. Buckingham D. (2003). Media Education: Literacy, Learning And Contemporary Culture, Cambridge: Polity Press. Buckingham D., (2007). Beyond Technology: Children's Learning in The Age of Digital Media, Polity Press, Cambridge.
  9. Coleman J.S. et al. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity, National Center for Educational Statistics, Washington. -- http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf
  10. Cornacchia M. (2009). La scuola si organizza, Roma: Aracne Editrice.
  11. De Ambrogio U. (2003). “Perchè si valutano servizi e politiche sociali?”, in De Ambrogio
  12. U., a cura di (2003). Valutare gli interventi e le politiche sociali. Roma: Carocci.
  13. Eco U. (2003). Dire quasi la stessa cosa. Esperienze di traduzione. Milano: Bompiani.
  14. Fenwick T., Landri P. (2012). “Materialities, Textures and Pedagogies: Socio-Material Assemblages in Education”. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20 (1), 1-7.
  15. Freddano M., Pastore S. (2018). Per una valutazione oltre l’adempimento. Riflessioni e pratiche sui processi valutativi. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  16. Gherardi S. (2009). “Knowing and Learning in Practice-based Studies: An Introduction”. The Learning Organization, 16 (5), 352-59.
  17. Kaiser D. (2005). Pedagogy and the Practice of Science: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  18. Kennedy M., Billett S., Gherardi S., Grealish, L. (2015). Practice-based Learning in Higher Education. Jostling Cultures. Dordrecht: Springer.
  19. Kirkhart J. (2000). “Reconceptualizing evaluation use: an integrated theory ofinfluence”, in Caracelli V. e Preskill H. (a cura di) (2000), The espanding scope of evaluation use. San Francisco: NDE, Jossey Bass.
  20. Law, N., Yuen, A., & Fox, R. (2011). Educational innovations beyond technology – Nurturing leadership and establishing learning organizations. New York: Springer.
  21. Lipari D. (1995). Progettazione e valutazione nei processi formativi. Roma: Edizioni Lavoro.
  22. Luhmann N., Shorr K.E. (1988). Il sistema educativo. Problemi di riflessività. Roma: Armando.
  23. Martini A. (2008). “L’accountability nella scuola”. Working paper Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli, 8,12.
  24. Marradi A. (1996). “Metodo come arte”. Quaderni di sociologia, XL, n.10.
  25. McGregor J. (2004). “Spatiality and Place of the Material in Schools”. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 12 (3), 347-72.
  26. Mori S., Storai F. (2016). “Innovazione e miglioramento. Promozione dei processi e valutazione del cambiamento”. Scuola Democratica, 2, pp. 537-552.
  27. OECD (2019). Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom. Paris: OECD.
  28. Ogburn W. F. (1922). Social change with respect to culture and original nature. New York: B.W. Huebsch.
  29. Orlikowski, W.J. (2010). “The Sociomateriality of Organizational Life: Considering Technology in Management Research”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34 (1),125-41.
  30. Palumbo M., Congiu D. (2009). “Partecipazione e valutazione per il piano regolatore sociale”, in Palumbo M., Torrigiani C., a cura di (2009). La partecipazione tra ricerca e valutazione. Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp 37-72.
  31. Pastore S. (2008). “Riflessività, apprendimento e valutazione”. Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione, a. XII, 41, pp. 57-68.
  32. Patton M. Q. (2011). Devepmental Evaluation. New York: the Guilford Press.
  33. Preskill H., Catsambas T. (2006). Refreming evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  34. Rist R.C. (1994). “The preconditions for learning:lessons from the public sector?” in Leeuw
  35. F.L., Rist R.C., SOnnichsen R.C. (1994). Can governments learn? Comparative per- spectives on evaluation and organizational learning. New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK): Transaction Publishers.
  36. Romei P. (1986). La scuola come organizzazione. Testo e casi. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  37. Sergiovanni T.J. (2000). Costruire comunità nella scuola. Roma: LAS.
  38. Schatzki T.R., Knorr Cetina K., Von Savigny E. (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.
  39. Scheerens J., van Ravens J., Luyte H. (2001). “Un'applicazione di indicatori, basata sulla ricerca, per misurare la qualità dell’istruzione”. ECPS Journal, 3.
  40. Scriven M. (1967), The methodology of evaluation. Chicago: Rand Mc Nally.
  41. Sørensen E. (2009). The Materiality of Learning: Technology and Knowledge in Educational Practice. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Tomei G., (2004). Valutazione partecipata della qualità. Milano:FrancoAngeli.
  43. Torrigiani C., (2010). Valutare per apprendere. Capitale sociale e teoria del programma. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  44. Zevenberg R., Lerman S. (2008). “Learning enviroments using interactive whiteborards: New learning spaces or reproduction of old technologies!. Mathematic education research journal, 20, 1, pp. 108-126.

Giuliana Parente, Rossana Labalestra, Il brainstorming valutativo. Dalla teoria alla pratica di ricerca in contesti caratterizzati da resistenze all’innovazione in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 71-72/2018, pp 276-292, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2018-071014