La "trasparenza" nella didattica. Un’indagine sulla percezione di studenti universitari italiani

Titolo Rivista RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA
Autori/Curatori Rosa Cera, Alexander Porshnev, Manuela Cantoia
Anno di pubblicazione 2016 Fascicolo 2016/3 Lingua Italiano
Numero pagine 32 P. 281-312 Dimensione file 282 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIP2016-003002
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

La rilevazione della trasparenza nella didattica universitaria e un aspetto ancora poco indagato. La trasparenza e un aspetto distinto dalla qualita della didattica e si riferisce al modo in cui gli studenti percepiscono visibili i processi apprenditivi, la valutazione, il rapporto tra pari e con i docenti. L’obiettivo dello studio e rilevare informazioni sulla percezione della trasparenza in ambito universitario. A tal fine, e stato somministrato a 167 studenti di due diverse universita e di tre differenti facolta un questionario creato ad hoc. Obiettivo secondario e rilevare se le percezioni in questione si differenziano in base a caratteristiche degli studenti quali la facolta cui sono iscritti, l’eta, il profitto accademico e lo status economico. I risultati indicano che nella percezione degli studenti gli assunti alla base delle modalita didattiche e di valutazione sono adeguatamente esplicitati dai docenti, i quali tendenzialmente ascoltano e incoraggiano i discenti, concedendo loro margini di autonomia. Anche il livello di cooperazione tra studenti appare essere piu che soddisfacente. Sul piano delle motivazioni, i rispondenti dichiarano di essere sostenuti nello studio da interessi e aspirazioni non strumentali ed essere disponibili a impegni aggiuntivi, se questi portano ad apprendimenti significativi. Tuttavia, l’importanza di un riconoscimento formale del livello di competenza raggiunto (voto) e pure importante e non vengono negati i vissuti di preoccupazione e ansia che accompagnano l’esperienza accademica. Le differenze individuali sostanzialmente non incidono sulla percezione della trasparenza.;

Keywords:Trasparenza, didattica universitaria, rapporto studenti-docenti; apprendimento collaborativo, apprendimento auto-regolato, motivazione.

  1. Alivernini, F., & Lucidi, F. (2011). Relationship between social context, self-efficacy, motivation, academic achievement , and intention to drop out of highschool: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(4), 241-252. DOI: 10.1080/00220671003728062
  2. Astin, A.W. (2003). Studying how college affects students: A personal history of the CIRP. About Campus, 8(3), 21-28. DOI: 10.1002/abc.83
  3. Bartels, J., Magun-Jackson, S., & Kemp, A.D. (2009). Volitional regulation and self-regulated learning: An examination of individual differences in approachavoidance achievement motivation. Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology, 7(2), 605-626.
  4. Bates, R. (2002). The impact of educational research: Alternative methodologies and conclusions. Research Papers in Education, 17(4), 1-6. DOI: 10.1080/0267152022000031379
  5. Beare, P., Torgerson, C., Marshall, J., Tracz, S., & Chiero, R. (2014). Examination for bias in principal ratings of teachers’ preparation. Teacher Educator, 49, 75-88. DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2013.2957.848005
  6. Bianchini, S. (2014). Feedback effects of teaching quality assessment: Macro and micro evidence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 380-394.
  7. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2013.842957.Blair,C.,Calkins,S.,&Koop,L.(2010).Handbookofpersonalityandself-regulation.Chicester:Wiley-Blackwell.DOI:10.1002/9781444318111.fmatter
  8. Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation. European Psychologist, 1(2), 100-112.
  9. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: a new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161-187. DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-1
  10. Boekaerts, M. (2007). Emotion in education. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
  11. Boehm, F., & Caprio, T. (2014). Fostering Good Governance at School Level in Honduras: The Role of Transparency Bulletin Boards. Peabody Journal of Education, 89, 86-105. DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2014.862474
  12. Burkhardt, H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32, 3-14. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X032009003
  13. Caprara, G.V., Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2011). The contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy belief to academic achievement: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 78-96. DOI: 10.1348/2044-8279.002004
  14. Caratelli, M. (2006). La trasparenza tra banche e clienti: fabbisogni informativi ed intervento pubblico. Milano: FrancoAngeli Editore.
  15. Carbone, A., Ross, B., Phelan, L., Lindsay, K., Drew, S., Stoney, S., & Cottman, C. (2015). Course evaluation matters: Improving students learning experiences with a peer-assisted teaching programme. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40, 165-180. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2014.895894
  16. Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice undergraduate education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  17. Coe, R. (2002). Finding out what works: evidence-based education. Durham: University School of Education.
  18. CREAP, Universita degli Studi di Brescia (2011). Governance e trasparenza nelle aziende di servizi di pubblica utilita. FrancoAngeli: Milano.
  19. Cui, Y., & Li, S. (2014). Principles for analyzing and communicating student ratings of teaching. Chinese Education and Society, 47, 65-69. DOI: 10.2753/CED1061-1932470306
  20. Krzykowski, L.M. (2012). Transparency in higher educational student learning Assessment as seen through accreditation. ProQuest LLC, Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Albany.
  21. Inozu, J. (2011). The role of non-classroom faculty in student learning outcomes in higher education context. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 292-302.
  22. Joet, G., Usher, E.L., & Bressoux, P. (2011). Sources of self-efficacy: An investigation of elementary school in France. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 649-663. DOI: 10.1037/a0024048
  23. Jungert, T., & Rosander, M. (2010). Self-efficacy and strategies to influence the study environment. Theaching in Higher Education, 15, 647-659. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2010.522080
  24. Lang, J.M. (2007). Classroom transparency. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(31), pC2.
  25. Lawley, J.J., Moore, J., & Smajic, A. (2014). Effective communication between preservice and cooperating teachers. New Educator, 10, 153-162. DOI: 10.1080/1547688X.2014.898495
  26. Levinas, E. (2010). Totalita e infinito. Saggio sull’esteriorita. Milano: Jaca Book.
  27. Malott, K.M., Hall, K.H., Sheely-Moore, A., Krell, M.M., & Cardaciotto, L. (2014). Evidence-based teaching in higher education: Application to counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervision, 53, 294-305. DOI: 10.1002/J.1556-6978.2014.00064.x
  28. McGinley, J.J., & Jones, B.D. (2014). A brief instructional intervention to increase student motivation on the first day of class. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 158-62. DOI: 10.1177/0098628314530350
  29. Metcalf, J., & Hearther, E. (2014). Distrupting the pipeline: Critical analyses of student pathways through postsecondary STEM Education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 15, 77-93. DOI: 10.1002/ir.20047
  30. Mullin, P.A., Lohr, K.N., Bresnahan, B.W., & McNulty, P. (2000), Applying cognitive design principles to formatting HRQoL instruments. Quality of life Research, 9(1), 18-27.
  31. Nixon, A., Packard, A., Dam, M. (2013). Principals Judge Teachers by Their Teaching. Teacher Educator, 48(1), 58-72. DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2012.740154.
  32. Niero, M. (2008), La personalizzazione nella ricerca quantitativa, Milano: FrancoAngeli Editore. Ogawa, A. (2011). Facilitating self-regulated learning: An exploratory case of teaching a university course on Japanese society. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 166-174.
  33. Pasupathy, R., & Siwatu, K.O. (2014). An investigation of research self-efficacy beliefs and research productivity among faculty members at an emerging research university in the USA. Higher Education Research and Development, 33, 728-41. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2013.863843
  34. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Research and Innovations, 19, 430-446. DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
  35. Rawlins, B.L. (2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 71-99. DOI: 10.1080/10627260802153421
  36. Rawlins, B.L. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and employee trust. Public Relations Journal, 2(2), 1-21.
  37. Sax, L.J., Bryant, A.N., & Harper, C.E. (2005). The differential effects of studentfaculty interaction on college outcomes for women and men. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 642-657.
  38. Schunk, D.H., & Usber, E.L. (2012). Social cognitive theory and motivation. Oxford: University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0002
  39. Shaidi, S., Khodalanahi, M.K., Heidari, M., & Baezat, F. (2004). Cognitive and motivational self-regulation Iranian students: Effects of training on the reduction
  40. of educational problems and anxiety. Psychology and Education: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 41(3-4), 17-25.
  41. Slavin, R.E. (1980). Cooperative learning in teams: State of the art. Educational Psychologist, 15(2), 93-111. DOI: 10.1080/00461528009529219
  42. Slavin, R.E. (1988). Student team learning: An overview and practical guide. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
  43. Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd edition). Boston: Allen and Bacon.
  44. Slavin, R.E. (2001). Student team learning: A practical guide for cooperative learning. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
  45. Spiller, D., & Harris, T. (2013). Learning from evaluations: Probing the reality. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 258-268.
  46. Vevere, N., & Kozlinskis, V. (2011). Students' evaluation of teaching quality. USChina Education Review B, 5, 702-708.
  47. Willinsky, J. (2003). Plicymakers’ online use of academic research. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(2), 1-23. DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v11n2.2003
  48. Winkelmes, M.-A. (2013). Transparency in learning and teaching. National Education Association – Higher Education: Advocate, 30(1), 6-9. Winkelmes, M.-A., Copeland, D.E., Jorgensen, E., Sloat, A., Smedley, A., Pizor,
  49. P., Johnson, K., & Jalene, S. (2015). Benefits (some unexpected) of transparently designed assignments. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 24(4), 4-7. DOI: 10.1002/ntlf.30029
  50. Zhu, X.B, Zhang, L.M., & Wu, L.L. (2011). A study on the relationship achievement goal orientation, academic social comparison, and self-efficacy in middle school students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19(2), 255-258.
  51. Kim, Y.G. (2007). Region building in Korea through cross-border higher education: The case of Handong Global University. Paper presented at OuECD/IMHE International Conference, Valencia, Spain.
  52. Kellogg Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good (2002, May). Educating for the public good: Implications for faculty, students, administrators and community. Oxnard, CA: A Report from the National Leadership Dialogue Series and Scott London.
  53. Hussain, A. (2013). Canonical correlational models of students’ perceptions of assessment tasks, motivational orientations, and learning strategies. International Journal of Instruction, 6(1), 21-38.
  54. 0663.100.2.398. Hunt, S.M., & McKenna, S.P. (1986). Measuring health status. London: Croom Helm.
  55. Hulleman, C.S., Durik, A.M., Schweigert, S.B., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2008). Task value, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal and Educational Psychology, 100, 398-416. DOI: 10.1037/0022
  56. Herrmann, K.J. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an Intervention. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14, 175-187. DOI: 10.1177/146987413498035
  57. Hemsley, B., & Sharp, C. (2003). The use of research to improve professional practice: A systematic review of the literature. Oxford Review of Education, 29(4), 449-70.
  58. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Lloydia Cincinnati, 1-17.
  59. Hart, H., Healey, K., & Sporte, S.E. (2014). Measuring up. Phi Delta Kappan, 95, 62-66. DOI: 10.1177/003172171409500814
  60. Hammersley, M. (2007). Methodological paradigms in educational research. London: TLRP.
  61. Hammersley, M. (2001). Some questions about evidence-based practice in Education. Paper presented annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Leeds, England.
  62. Hammersley, M. (1997). Educational research and teaching: A response to David Hargreaves. British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 141-162. DOI: 10.1080/0141192970230203
  63. Hagenauer, G., & Volet, S.E. (2014). Teacher-student relationship at university: An important yet under-researched field. Oxford Review of Education, 40, 370-388. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2014.921613
  64. Galliani, L. (2014). 700.000 fuori corso: Universita e docenti senza alibi. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 13, 9-11.
  65. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3), 85-118.
  66. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (2000). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th edition), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  67. Jaradat, M.H. (2013). The notion of adminstrative transparency among academic leaderships at Jordanian universities. Education, 134, 74-81.
  68. Jankowski, N.A., & Provezis, S.J. (2011). Making student learning evidence transparent: The state of the art. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
  69. Freeman, R., & Dobbins, K. (2013). Are we serious about enhancing courses? Using the principles of assessment for learning to enhance course evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 142-151. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2011.611589
  70. Favero, T.G. (2011). Active review sessions can advance student learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 35, 247-248. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00040.2011
  71. Egorov, E.E., Lebedeva, T.E., Bulganina, S.V., & Vasilyeva, L.I. (2015). Some aspects of the implementation of the principle of trasparency in Russian universities: Research, experience, perspectives. International Education Studies, 8(5), 191-204. DOI: 10.5539/ies.v8n5p191.
  72. De Beni, R., & Moe, A. (2000). Motivazione e apprendimento. Bologna: il Mulino.
  73. Davies, P. (2004). Is evidence-based government possible? The 2004 Jerry Lee Lecture, Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Washington DC.
  74. Dalsgaard, C., & Paulsen, M.F. (2009).Transparency in cooperative online education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 55-68.

Rosa Cera, Alexander Porshnev, Manuela Cantoia, La "trasparenza" nella didattica. Un’indagine sulla percezione di studenti universitari italiani in "RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA " 3/2016, pp 281-312, DOI: 10.3280/RIP2016-003002