La valutazione della competenza imprenditoriale degli studenti: Risultati da un’iniziativa interfacoltà basata su Google Design Sprint
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7346/-fei-XXI-03-23_03Parole chiave:
Google Design Sprint, Problem based leanring, Framework EntreComp, Educazione all'imprenditorialità, Valutazione di programmiAbstract
Questo contributo valuta la competenza imprenditoriale sviluppata dagli studenti durante un programma innovativo e interfacoltà basato sulla metodologia Google Design Sprint. Adotta un set combinato di strumenti per raccogliere dati, incluso un questionario online basato sul framework Entrecomp, e dotato sia di scale Likert che di domande aperte, come pure focus group su quello che i partecipanti hanno appreso durante l’iniziativa. Le analisi triangolano sia le statistiche descrittive che le analisi tematiche. I risultati suggeriscono che la competenza più importante sviluppata durante questa esperienza è il lavoro di gruppo in team eterogenei, anche se i partecipanti hanno sviluppato diverse altre competenze connesse a EntreComp. Nelle conclusioni si argomenta come questo framework sia indicato per valutare le competenze da un punto di vista prescrittivo, cioè come standard, specialmente quando combinato a un approccio più contestuale come la teoria dell’apprendimento costruttivo, che si focalizza sulla performance e sui risultati di apprendimento acquisiti dagli studenti.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Bacigalupo, M. (2022). The European Entrepreneurship Competence Framework (EntreComp). A Conceptual Model Built and Tested by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Journal of Creative Industries and Cultural Studies, (4), 38–53. http://hdl.handle.net/10760/43287
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (European Commission), Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2791/593884
Bacigalupo, M., Lilian, W. G., Yashar, M., & O’Keeffe, W. (2020). EntreComp Playbook: Entrepreneurial Learning Beyond the Classroom. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/77835
Baena-Luna, P., García-Río, E., & Monge-Agüero, M. (2020). Entrecomp: marco competencial para el emprendimiento. Una revisión sistemática de la literatura sobre su uso y aplicación. Información Tecnológica, 31(2), 163–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07642020000200163
Bassett, J., Cleveland, A., Acorn, D., Nix, M., & Snyder, T. (2017). Are they paying attention? Students’ lack of motivation and attention potentially threaten the utility of course evaluations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1119801
Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem‐based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486.
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5–22. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://www.tru.ca/__shared/assets/Constructive_Alignment36087.pdf
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1989). Towards a model of school-based curriculum development and assessment using the SOLO taxonomy. Australian Journal of Education, 33(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/168781408903300205
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. New York: McGraw-hill.
Blenker, P., Trolle Elmholdt, S., Hedeboe Frederiksen, S., Korsgaard, S., & Wagner, K. (2014). Methods in entrepreneurship education research: A review and integrative framework. Education + Training, 56(8/9), 697–715. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2014-0066
Boyas, E., Bryan, L. D., & Lee, T. (2012). Conditions affecting the usefulness of pre- and post-tests for assessment purposes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.538665
Castoldi, M. (2012). Valutare a scuola. Dagli apprendimenti alla valutazione di Sistema. Roma: Carocci.
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2018) Qualitative Evaluation: Methods, ethics and politics with stakeholders. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of Qualitative Research, Vol. 5 (pp. 867–886). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7
European Commission, D.-G. for E., Youth, Sport and Culture. (2019). Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/569540
Flick, U. (2018). Triangulation. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, Vol. 5 (pp. 444–461). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070
Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001027
Golding C., & Adam, L. (2016) Evaluate to improve: useful approaches to student evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.976810
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
Hung, W. (2009). The 9-step problem design process for problem-based learning: Application of the 3C3R model. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.12.001
Koenen, A. K., Dochy, F., & Berghmans, I. (2015). A phenomenographic analysis of the implementation of competence-based education in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 50, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.04.001
Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days (First Simon&Schuster hardcover edition). Simon & Schuster.
López-Núñez, M. I., Rubio-Valdehita, S., Armuña, C., & Pérez-Urria, E. (2022). EntreComp Questionnaire: A Self-Assessment Tool for Entrepreneurship Competencies. Sustainability, 14(5), 2983. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052983
Mortari, L., & Silva, R. (2020). Valutare un Teaching Program attraverso l’esperienza degli alumni: Una ricerca empirica che offre stimoli alla riprogettazione didattica. ITALIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 25, 137–150. https://doi.org/10.7346/SIRD-022020-P137
Morselli, D. (2018). Teaching a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship with constructive alignment in tertiary non-business contexts. Education + Training, 60(2), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2017-0093
Morselli, D., & Gorenc, J. (2022). Using the EntreComp framework to evaluate two entrepreneurship education courses based on the Korda Method. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(1), 100591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100591
Mulder, M., & Winterton, J. (2017). Introduction. In M. Mulder (Ed.), Competence-based Vocational and Professional Education (Vol. 23, pp. 1–43). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_1
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030: The future we want. OECD Publishing. Retrieved December 10, 2023, from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., Smith, A., & Papadakos, P. (2014). Value proposition design: How to create products and services customers want. Get started with. Wiley.
Paniagua, A., & Istance, D. (2018). Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085374-en
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2021). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological (Second edition). Sage.
Richter, N., Schildhauer, T., & Jackson, P. (2018). Meeting the innovation challenge: Agile processes for established organisations. In N. Richter, P. Jackson, & T. Schildhauer (Eds.), Entrepreneurial innovation and leadership (pp. 109–121). Cham: Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71737-1
Savery, J R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002
Sprintlab. (2021). Javelin Board: Cos’è, A Cosa Serve, Come Compilarla. Blog.Sprintlab.It. https://web.archive.org/web/20230923204251/https://blog.sprintlab.it/javelin-board/
Viganò, R. (2020). Valutare l’insegnamento nell’istruzione superiore. A cosa serve veramente? Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 13(24), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.7346/SIRD-012020-P120
Wangsa, K., Chugh, R., Karim, S., & Sandu, R. (2022). A comparative study between design thinking, agile, and design sprint methodologies. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 15(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJASM.2022.124916
Yanchar, S. C. (2011), Using numerical data in explicitly interpretive, contextual inquiry: a ‘practical discourse’ framework and examples from Engeström’s research on activity systems, Theory & Psychology, 21(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310393777
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (Fifth edition). Sage.
##submission.downloads##
Pubblicato
Come citare
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Copyright (c) 2024 Daniele Morselli, Guido Orzes
TQuesto lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale.
Formazione & insegnamento è distribuita con la seguente licenza: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Per ulteriori dettagli, si rimanda alle Politiche di archiviazione e ai Termini di Copyright e Licenza.
