Assessment approaches and practices of university lecturers: a nationwide empirical research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7346/sird-012023-p129Keywords:
Syllabus, Assessment, Lecturers, University, ItalyAbstract
International educational research has for decades considered assessment a strategic process through which to foster more effective teaching/learning practices. Despite growing research evidence, assessment in the university context is still considered almost exclusively as the final moment of teaching activity, relegated to a control and certification function rather than a learning support function.
In this context, it would be important to foster greater awareness among lecturers with regard to assessment. Training actions, however, must start from an analysis of the state of the art, which in Italy is only known in a fragmented and local way. In order to bridge this gap, the present research aimed to explore which assessment practices are most widely used at national level by university lecturers. A representative sample of Italian syllabi was analysed within the framework of a mixed sequential research design QUAL →Quant.
The results make it possible to construct an overall picture that outlines the prevalence of traditional practices and confirms differences between subject areas. Concluding considerations concern the value of these results in relation to possible future training paths and further perspectives of the work.
References
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D.R., et al (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Black, P. & William, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York, NY: Longmans Green.
Boud D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in continuing education, 22(2), 151-167.
Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 400–413.
Brookhart, S. M. (2009). Grading. Pearson Education.
Brown, S.(2014). Learning, Teaching and Assessment in Higher Education. Global Perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carless D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning. Assessment in Education, 12, (1), 39–54.
Carless, D. (2015). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education, 69(6), 963– 976.
Castoldi, M. (2016). Valutare e certificare le competenze. Roma: Carocci.
Coggi C., (a cura di), (2022). Formare i docenti universitari alla didattica e alla valutazione. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Coggi, C. (2019a). Innovare la didattica e la valutazione in Università: Il progetto IRIDI per la formazione dei docenti. Innovare la didattica e la valutazione in Università, 1-361.
Coggi, C. (2019b). Migliorare l'affidabilità degli esami, innovare gli strumenti, adottare strategie formative nel valutare e concorrere all'accountability istituzionale. In Innovare la didattica e la valutazione in Università. Il progetto IRIDI per la formazione dei docenti. (Vol. 1, pp. 155-200). Franco Angeli.
Coggi, C., (2005). “Valutare gli studenti. Problemi teorici e prassi nella facoltà”. In C. Coggi, (a cura di), Per migliorare la didattica universitaria. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia. pp. 205-238
Commissione europea/EACEA/Eurydice, (2018), La carriera degli insegnanti in Europa: accesso, progressione e sostegno. Rapporto Eurydice. Lussemburgo: Ufficio delle pubblicazioni dell’Unione europea.
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods research, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications.
Dochy, F. J. R. C., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher education, 24(3), 331-350.
Doria B. & Grion V. (2020). L’autovalutazione nel contesto universitario: una revision sistematica della letteratura. Form@re – Open Journal Per La Formazione in Rete, 20(1): 78-92.
Fischer C, McPartlan P, Orona GA, Yu R, Xu D, Warschauer M (2022). Programmi salienti: esame delle caratteristiche di progettazione dei corsi online di scienze nell'istruzione superiore. PLoS UNO, 17(11): e0276839.
Foschi, L. C., & Cecchinato, G. (2019). Validity and reliability of peer-grading in in-service teacher training. Italian Journal of Educational Research, 177-194.
Grion V. & Serbati A. (2019). Valutazione sostenibile e feedback nei contesti universitari. PensaMultimedia.
Grion V., & Tino C. (2018). Verso una “valutazione sostenibile” all’università: percezioni di efficacia dei processi di dare e ricevere feedback fra pari. Lifelong Lifewide Learning, 31, 38-55.
Grion V., Serbati A., Tino C., & Nicol D. (2017). Ripensare la teoria della valutazione e dell’apprendimento all’università: un modello per implementare pratiche di peer review. Italian Journal of Educational Research, 210-224.
Grion, V., Serbati, A., Felisatti, E., & Li, L. (2019). Peer feedback and technology-enhanced assessment as critical issues to foster student learning. Italian Journal of Educational Research, 9-14.
Guest & Fleming, (2014). Mixed Methods Research. In G. Guest, E. Namey (Eds.), Public Health Research Methods (pp.581-610). Sage.
Guskey, T. R. (2011). Five obstacles to grading reform. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 16–21.
Guskey, T. R. (2019). Get set, go! Implementing successful reforms in grading and reporting. Solution Tree.
Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology, 8(1), 23–34.
Karran, T. (2005). Pan-European grading scales: Lessons from national systems and the ECTS. Higher Education in Europe, 30(1), 5–22.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and teacher education, 22(8), 1020-1041.
Li L., & Grion V. (2019). The Power of Giving and Receiving in Peer Assessment. AISHE Journal, 11(11): 1-17.
Li, L., Liu, X. Y. & Zhou, Y. C. (2012). Give and Take: A Re-Analysis of Assessor and Assessee’s Roles in Technology Facilitated Peer Assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology 43 (3), 376–384.
Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A.L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. Br. J. Educ. Technol., 41, 525-536.
Lipnevich, A. A., Guskey, T. R., Murano, D. M., & Smith, J. K. (2020). What do grades mean? Variation in grading criteria in American college and university courses. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(5), 480–500.
Lipnevich, A. A., Panadero, E., Gjicali, K. & Fraile, J. (2021). What’s on the Syllabus? An analysis of assessment criteria in first year courses across US and Spanish universities, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33(4), 675–699.
Marzano, A., Calenda, M., Galliani, L. & Petolicchio, A. (2014). La dimensione referenziale: prodotto, processo, sistema. In L. Galliani & A. M. Notti (Eds.), Valutazione educativa, (pp. 69-139). Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia.
Nicol D. (2018). Unlocking generative feedback via peer reviewing. In V. Grion, & A. Serbati (Eds.), Assessment of Learning or Assessment for Learning? Towards a culture of sustainable assessment in HE (pp. 73-85). Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia.
Nicol, D. (2020). The power of internal feedback: exploiting natural comparator processes. Assessment & Evaluation in higher education, 46(5): 756-778.
Nicol D. (2021). Guiding learning by activating students’ inner feedback. Times Higher Education.
Nicol, D. (2014). Guiding principles of peer review: unlocking learners’ evaluative skills. In C. Kreber, C. Anderson, N. Entwistle & J. McArthur (Eds.), Advances and Innovations in University Assessment & Feedback (pp. 197-224). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
O’Connor, K. (2009). Grades: When, why, what impact, and how? Education Canada, Spring, 2010, 38–41.
Panadero, E., & 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. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2(30), 551–576.
Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: Positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 133–156.
Panadero, E., Fraile, J., Fernández Ruiz, J., Castilla-Estévez, D., & Ruiz, M. A. (2019). Spanish university assessment practices: examination tradition with diversity by faculty. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 44(3), 379–397.
Panadero, E. & Lipnevich, A.A. (2022). A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements, Educational Research Review, 35, 1-22.
Pastore, S. (2012). Silent assessment? Cosa pensano della valutazione gli studenti universitari. Italian Journal of Educational Research, 62-73.
Rauhvargers, A., Deane C., Pouwels, W. Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2009, ISBN: 978-90-403-0295-4 NUR 84, Flemish Ministry of Education and Training, Brussels, 2009, 144 pages.
Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.
Sambell, K., Brown, S., & Race, P. (2019). Assessment as a locus for engagement: priorities and practicalities. Italian Journal of Educational Research, 45-62.
Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Montgomery, C. (2013). Assessment for learning in higher education. London: Routledge.
Serbati, A., Grion, V., & Fanti, M. (2019). Caratteristiche del peer feedback e giudizio valutativo in un corso universitario blended. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 12, 115–137.
Serbati, A., Picasso, F., Doria, B., & Grion, V. (2022). Learning outcomes and constructive alignment in the Mega-Universities Syllabi: which “promises” to students?. Form@re - Open Journal Per La Formazione in Rete, 22(2), 61-77.
Taras, M. (2005). Assessment - Summative and Formative - some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 466 - 478.
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.
Varisco, B.M. (2004). Portfolio. Valutare gli apprendimenti e le competenze. Roma: Carocci.
Vermunt, J., & Magidson, J. (2003). Latent class models for classification. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 41(3-4), 531-537.
Collins, L., & Lanza, S. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Formative Assessment: Getting the Focus Right. In D. Wiliam, Educational Assessment, 283-289 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Zhao, C. G., & Qi, Q. (2022). Implementing Learning‐Oriented Assessment (LOA) Among Limited‐Proficiency EFL Students: Challenges, Strategies, and Students' Reactions. TESOL Quarterly
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Beatrice Doria, Valentina Grion, Omar Paccagnella
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors who publish in this magazine accept the following conditions:
- The authors retain the rights to their work and give the magazine the right to first publish the work, simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License - Attribution which allows others to share the work indicating the intellectual authorship and the first publication in this magazine.
- Authors may adhere to other non-exclusive license agreements for the distribution of the version of the published work (eg deposit it in an institutional archive or publish it in a monograph), provided that the first publication took place in this magazine.
- Authors can disseminate their work online (eg in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and increase citations of the published work.
