Click here to download

Burdens and virtues of the evaluation judgment in schools external evaluation
Journal Title: RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione 
Author/s: Ughetta Favazzi, Michela Freddano 
Year:  2018 Issue: 71-72 Language: Italian 
Pages:  23 Pg. 235-257 FullText PDF:  531 KB
DOI:  10.3280/RIV2018-071012
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


The object of this contribution is the formulation of the evaluation judgment in the context of the external evaluation of Italian schools, with the aim to highlighting burdens and virtues. In this regard, a study was carried out to find out how much the external evaluators find the evaluation activities aimed at formulating the judgment difficult. We conducted secondary analyses of data collected by INVALSI in the a.s. 2016/2017 through a survey which involved 172 of the 209 subjects who carried out the external evaluation in the 375 schools of the first round of evaluation visits. The results show that the formulation of the evaluation judgment is considered the most difficult phase at the conclusion of the visit, among those required by the protocol, confirming that multiple triangulation, which invests in sharing and negotiation between actors, is a laborious process to carry out but virtuous for evaluation.
Keywords: Evaluation; External Evaluation of Schools; Formulation of Judgment; Triangulation; Negotiation; INVALSI

  1. Campbell D.T. (1964). Distinguishing Differences of Perception from Failures of Communication in Cross-cultural Studies. In: Northrop F.S.C. and Livingston H.H., a cura di, Cross-Cultural Understanding: Epistemology in anthropology. New York: Harper & Row, 308-336.
  2. Campbell D.T., Russo J. (1999). Social Experimentation, Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
  3. Castoldi M. (2007). Le Rubriche Valutative. L’educatore, Annata 2006/2007, 5, 6-10. -- Testo disponibile al sito: https://www.formazionescienzesociali.unisalento.it/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=bb4c489b-a7ff-4112-a48f-30e32be0187f&groupId=886128 (30/09/2019).
  4. Castoldi M. (2011). Certificare le competenze: un percorso di ricerca. Roma: Tecnodid, 65-80. -- Testo disponibile al sito: http://hdl.handle.net/2318/88214 (30/09/2019).
  5. Castoldi M. (2019). Rubriche valutative. Guidare l’espressione del giudizio. Novara: Utet.
  6. Comoglio M. (2002). La valutazione autentica. Orientamenti Pedagogici, 49 (1), 93-112
  7. Denzin N.K. (1970). The Research Act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
  8. Denzin N.K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of mixed methods research, 6(2):80-88.
  9. Diamond S. (2013). Ottenere di più. Come potete negoziare per avere successo nel lavoro e nella vita. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  10. Dreyfus H.L., Dreyfus S.E. (1986). Mind over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  11. Favazzi U., Freddano M. (2019). “Oneri e virtù della condivisione del giudizio valutativo nell’esperienza dei nuclei esterni di valutazione delle scuole”. Contributo presentato al XXII Congresso Nazionale dell’Associazione italiana di valutazione “La cultura della valutazione: diffusione e traiettorie di sviluppo”, 1-3 aprile 2019, IUAV, Venezia.
  12. Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
  13. Freddano M., Poliandri D., Sette S. (2018). “Il NEV e le visite di valutazione esterna delle scuole: il punto di vista dei valutatori esterni”. Contributo presentato al Convegno di fine mandato della sez. Sociologia dell’Educazione “Le professioni dell’educazione cambiamenti e nuove sfide”, 17-18 maggio 2018, Università di Salerno.
  14. Giddens A. (2006). Sociology (5th ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
  15. Goffman E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Oxford, England: Doubleday.
  16. Goffman E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2005.
  17. Goffman E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (trad. it.: Frame analysis: L’organizzazione dell’esperienza. Roma: Armando editore, 2001).
  18. Guba E.G, Lincoln Y.S. (1982). Epistemological and Methodological Bases of Naturalistic Inquiry, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30: 233-252., DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-6675-8_1
  19. Guba E.G, Lincoln Y.S. (1987). Fourth Generation Evaluation. In: Palumbo D.J., a cura di, The Politics of Program Evaluation, CA: Thousand Oaks: Sage (trad. it.: In Stame N., I classici della valutazione. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 2007:128-155).
  20. Holgado–Tello F. P., Chacón–Moscoso S., Barbero–García I., & Vila–Abad E. (2010). Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity, 44(1), 153.
  21. INVALSI (2016). “Programma e protocollo per le visite di valutazione esterna nel Sistema Nazionale di Valutazione”, Adottato dalla Conferenza SNV il 03/03/2016, -- testo disponibile al sito https://www.invalsi.it/snv/docs/ves/Programma_Protocollo_Valutazione_esterna_2016.pdf (30/09/2019).
  22. Jensen K. (1995). Effective Rubric Design: Making the Most of this Powerful Assessment Tool. Science Teacher, 62(5), 34-37.
  23. Lazzarini G. (1993). Sociologia e ordine sociale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  24. Majone G., Wildavsky A. (1979). Implementation as Evolution. In: Pressman J.L. e Wildavsky A., Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press,177-194.
  25. Marradi A., Macrì E. (2012). Sono equidistanti le categorie di una scala Likert? Alcune risultanze di ricerca, Cambio. Rivista sulle Trasformazioni Sociali, 2(3):171-188.
  26. Mc Tighe J., Ferrara S. (1996). Performance-based assessment in the classroom: A planning framework. In R.E. Blum, J.A. Arter, a cura di, A handbook for student performance assessment in an era of restructuring. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  27. MC Tighe J., Wiggins G. (2004). Fare progettazione. Roma: Las.
  28. Mead G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). Chicago: University of Chicago Press (trad. it.: Mente, sé e società. Firenze: Giunti editore, 2010).
  29. OECD (2016). What make a school a learning organization?. Paris: OECD. -- Testo disponibile al sito: http://www.oecd.org/education/school/school-learning-organisation.pdf (30/09/2019).
  30. Page C., Braver S.L., MacKinnon D.P. (2003). Levine's guide to SPSS for analysis of variance (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  31. Palumbo M. (2001). Il processo di valutazione. Decidere, programmare, valutare. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  32. Panadero E., Jönsson A. (2013). The Use of Scoring Rubrics for Formative Assessment Purposes Revisited: A Review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129-144.
  33. Parra Saiani P. (2001). Triangolazione e processi valutativi. Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione, 24:49-65.
  34. Poliandri D., Freddano M., Molinari B., a cura di (2019). “Rav e dintorni: verso il consolidamento del sistema nazionale di valutazione”, INVALSI. -- Testo disponibile al sito https://www.invalsi.it/value/docs/valueforrav/RAV_dintorni.pdf (30/09/2019).
  35. Previtali D. (2018). Il sistema nazionale di valutazione in Italia: una rilettura. Torino: UTET Università.
  36. Raiffa H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  37. Schön Donald A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books.
  38. Scriven M. (2007). The logic of evaluation. In: Hansen H.V., Tindale C.W., Blair J.A., Johnson R.H., Godden D.M., a cura di, Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, CD-ROM (pp. 1-16). Windsor, ON: OSSA.
  39. Silverman D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  40. Stame N. (1998). L'esperienza della valutazione. Roma: SEAM.
  41. Wiggins G. (1996). What is a rubric? A dialogue on design and use. In: Blum R.E. e Arter J. A., a cura di, A handbook for student performance assessment in an era of restructuring (VI-5: 1-13). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  42. Wiggins G. (1998). Educative assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  43. Argyris C., Schön D.A. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
  44. Argyris C. (1992). On Organizational Learning. Cambridge-Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  45. Baglin, J. (2014). Improving your exploratory factor analysis for ordinal data: A demonstration using FACTOR. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(5), 1-14, -- Testo disponibile al sito: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=19&n=5 (30/09/2019).
  46. Barbaranelli C., D’Olimpio F. (2006). Analisi dei dati con SPSS (Vol. 2). Milano: Led.
  47. Barbier J.M. (1977). L’évaluation en formation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (trad. it.: La valutazione nel processo formativo. Torino: Loescher, 1989).
  48. Benner P. (1984). From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.
  49. Blumer H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  50. Bovone L. (2000). Comunicazione: pratiche, percorsi, soggetti (Vol. 4). Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Ughetta Favazzi, Michela Freddano, Burdens and virtues of the evaluation judgment in schools external evaluation in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 71-72/2018, pp. 235-257, DOI:10.3280/RIV2018-071012

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content