Deep Understanding. Control of student understanding in university during distance and face-to-face learning

Journal title EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY
Author/s Antonio Marzano, Sergio Miranda, Roberto Trinchero
Publishing Year 2021 Issue 2021/2
Language English Pages 15 P. 344-358 File size 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/ess2-2021oa12153
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.

The health emergency of 2020 has led many university professors to wonder about how to check that the information presented in their lessons generates a correct conceptual representation in their students and, above all, to ask themselves if they have carried out the right training actions capable of triggering what is called deep understanding, that is a set of cognitive processes that produce durable and meaningful learning. This paper describes two experiences conducted in two different Italian universities that have been designed and implemented precisely with these objectives. The achieved results are very encouraging and could represent a starting point to reflect on the methodologies, teaching practices and tools to be used in distance and face-to-face university courses.

Keywords: ; Deep Understanding; Dynamics Concept Maps; Metacognitive Self-Regulation; Learning

  1. Munns G., and Woodward H. (2006). Student engagement and student self-assessment: the REAL framework. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(2): 193-213.
  2. Nesbit J.C., and Olusola O. (2006). Learning With Concept and Knowledge Maps: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3): 413-448.
  3. Marzano A., and Miranda S. (2020). The DynaMap Remediation Approach (DMRA) in online learning environments. Computers & Education, 162: 1-18.
  4. Logan E. (2009). Self and peer assessment in action. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 3(1): 29-35.
  5. Karpicke J.D., and Blunt J.R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331: 772-775.
  6. Kalyuga S. (2009). Knowledge elaboration: a cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction, 19(5): 402-410.
  7. Hattie J., and Timperley H.S. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1): 81-112.
  8. Hattie J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
  9. Grion V., Serbati A., Tino C., and Nicol D. (2017). Ripensare la teoria della valutazione e dell’apprendimento all’università: un modello per implementare pratiche di peer review. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa – Italian Journal of Educational Research, 10(19): 209-225.
  10. Gore J., Ladwig J., Elsworth W., and Ellis H. (2009). Quality Assessment Framework. A Guide for Assessment Practice in Higher Education, The University of Newcastle (Australia).
  11. Earl L.M. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  12. Dunlosky J., Rawson K.A., Marsh E.J., Nathan M.J., and Willingham D.T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1): 4-58.
  13. Coggi C., and Pizzorno, M.C. (2017). La valutazione formativa in Università. In A. M. Notti (Ed.), La funzione educativa della valutazione (pp. 37-58). Lecce-Rovato: Pensa MultiMedia.
  14. Chi M.T.H., Bassok, M., Lewis M.W., Reimann P., and Glaser R. (1989). Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 18: 145-182.
  15. Butler R. (2011). Are positive illusions about academic competence always adaptive, under all circumstances: New results and future directions. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(4): 251-256.
  16. Brown S. (2014). Learning, teaching and assessment in higher education. Global perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  17. Brown G., Andrade H., & Chen F. (2015). Accuracy in student self-assessment: directions and cautions for research. Assess. Educ., 22(4): 444-457.
  18. Brown G.T., and Harris, L.R. (2013). Student self-assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment (pp. 367-393). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
  19. Brown A.L., Armbruster, B.B., and Baker, L. (1985). The Role of Metacognition in Reading and Studying. In Orasanu, J. (Ed.). Reading Comprehension: from research to practice. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  20. Boud D. and Associates (2010). Assessment 2020: seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
  21. Azevedo R. (2005). Computers as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4): 193-197.
  22. Ausubel D.P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
  23. Andrade H.L., and Brookhart S.M. (2019). Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Assessm. Educ. Principles Policy Pract (ver. 23.03.2020).
  24. Andrade H.L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Front. Educ., 4(87) (ver. 23.03.2020).
  25. Andrade H.L. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 90-105). New York, NY: Routledge.
  26. Ausubel D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  27. Nicol D., and 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.
  28. Novak J.D., and Gowin D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge. University Press.
  29. Panadero E., and Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: Theoretical and practical connotations. When it happens, how is it acquired and what to do to develop it in our students. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol., 11: 551-576.
  30. Panadero E., Brown G.L., and Strijbos J.-W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educ. Psychol. Rev., 28(4): 803-830.
  31. Panadero E., Jonsson A., and Botella J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: four meta-analyses. Educ. Res. Rev., 22: 74-98.
  32. Pereira D., Flores M.A., and Niklasson L. (2016). Assessment revisited: a review of research in assessment and evaluation in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(7): 1008-1032.
  33. Price M., Carroll J., O’Donovan B. and Rust C. (2011). If I was going there I wouldn’t start from here: A critical commentary on current assessment practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 36(4): 479-492.
  34. Schraw G. (2007). The use of computer-based environments for understanding and improving self-regulation. Metacognition and Learning, 2: 169-176.
  35. Schroeder N.L., Nesbit J.C., Anguiano C.J., and Adesope O.O. (2018). Studying and constructing concept maps: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2): 431-455.
  36. Trinchero R. (2018). Valutazione formante per l’attivazione cognitiva. Spunti per un uso efficace delle tecnologie per apprendere in classe. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3): 40-55.
  37. Trinchero R. (2020). The role of self-assessment of learning in university education. Ideas from field research. Form@re, 20: 93-114.
  38. Trinchero R. (2021). Valutare gli apprendimenti nella didattica universitaria. Verona: QuiEdit.
  39. Veenman M. (2007). The assessment and instruction of self-regulation in computer-based environments: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 2: 177-183.
  40. Vygotsky L.S. (1978). Mind and Society. The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  41. Vygotsky L.S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. Rieber and A. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. I (pp. 39-285). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934).
  42. Vygotsky L.S. (1999). Sign and tool in the development of the child. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. VI (pp. 3-68). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work written 1931, published 1984).
  43. Wells A. (2013). Advances in metacognitive therapy. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 6: 186-201. DOI: 10.1521/ijct.2013.6.2.186.
  44. Wiggins G., and McTighe J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  45. Winne P., and Hadwin A. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk, B. Zimmerman (eds.). Motivation and selfregulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 297-314.
  46. Yorke M., and Longden B. (2004). Retention and student success in higher education. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Antonio Marzano, Sergio Miranda, Roberto Trinchero, Deep Understanding. Control of student understanding in university during distance and face-to-face learning in "EDUCATION SCIENCES AND SOCIETY" 2/2021, pp 344-358, DOI: 10.3280/ess2-2021oa12153