Per una costruzione di competenze valutative decentrate nella scuola: indicazioni dalla rilevazione della soddisfazione dei partecipanti alla formazione

Journal title RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione
Author/s Angela Litteri, Cristiana De Santis, Monica Perazzolo, Letizia Giampietro
Publishing Year 2024 Issue 2024/88-89
Language Italian Pages 21 P. 188-208 File size 442 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIV2024-088010
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

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 literature on evaluation capacity building in educational-school contexts underlines the need to adopt training models tailored to schools, enhancing aspects such as collaboration among teachers, school culture, attitudes towards evaluation. This paper presents the results emerging from three training paths on school self-evaluation (North, Centre, and South Italian macro-areas). The project involved a judgment sample of 42 Italian schools. At the end of the training, a Satisfaction Questionnaire was administered to teachers (N. 243). The Questionnaire aimed of investigating the partic-ipants satisfaction about more dialogic and relational aspects of evalua-tion capacity training. As the results show, some of the pathways were able to capture trainees' needs to a greater extent, inspiring confidence and supporting the development of their evaluative skills.

Keywords: evaluation capacity building; self-evaluation; training; bias; satisfaction; collaboration.

  1. Scheerens, J., Mosca, S., Bolletta, R. (a cura di) (2011). Valutare per gestire la scuola, Governance, leadership e qualità educativa. Milano, Torino: Bruno Mondadori.
  2. Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  3. Sohail, M.S., & Hasan, M. (2021). Students’ perceptions of service quality in Saudi universities: the SERVPERF model. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives,17(1), 54-66. DOI: 10.1108/LTHE-08-2020-0016.
  4. Stame, N. (2016). Valutazione pluralista. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  5. Stern, E. (2016). La valutazione di impatto. Una guida per committenti e manager preparata per Bond. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  6. Stockdill, S.H., Baizerman M., & Compton D. (2002). Toward a definition of the ECB process: A conversation with the ECB literature. In Compton D.W., Baizerman M. e Stockdill S.H., a cura di, The art, craft and science of evaluation capacity building. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 93 (pp. 7–25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  7. Stodnick, M., Rogers, P. (2008). Using SERVQUAL to measure the quality of the classroom experience. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1): 115-133.
  8. Stoll, L. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of educational change, 10, 115-127.
  9. Sumi, R. S., Kabir, G. (2021). Satisfaction of E-Learners with Electronic Learning Service Quality Using the SERVQUAL Model. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(4): 1-17.
  10. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in Peer Learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6): 631–645. DOI: 10.1080/01443410500345172
  11. Udo, G. J., Bagchi, K. K., Kirs, P. J. (2011). Using SERVQUAL to assess the quality of e-learning experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3): 1272-1283.
  12. Vigano, R. (2017). Qualità e professione docente: la valutazione come risorsa. EDETANIA 52 [Dicembre 2017], 269-285, ISSN: 0214-8560, 269-285
  13. Vanhoof, J., Verhaeghe, G., Petegem, P. V., & Valcke, M. (2013). Improving Data Literacy in Schools: Lessons from the School Feedback Project. In K. Schildkamp, M. K. Lai, & L. Earl (a cura di), Data-based Decision Making in Education: Challenges and Opportunities, 113–134. Springer Netherlands. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4816-3_7
  14. Vertecchi, B. (2003). Manuale della valutazione. Analisi degli apprendimenti e dei contesti. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  15. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of marketing, 60(2): 31-46. DOI: 10.1177/002224299606000203
  16. Akdere, M., Top, M., Tekingündüz, S. (2018). Examining patient perceptions of service quality in Turkish hospitals: The SERVPERF model. Total quality management & business excellence, 31(3-4): 342-352, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2018.1427501
  17. Bourgeois, I., & Cousins, J. B. (2013). Understanding Dimensions of Organizational Evaluation Capacity. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(3), 299–319, DOI: 10.1177/1098214021100757
  18. Brochado, A. (2009). Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in education, 17(2): 174-190.   DOI: 10.1108/0968488091095138
  19. Carrillat, F. A., Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J. P. (2007). The validity of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales: A meta‐analytic view of 17 years of research across five continents. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(5): 472-490. DOI: 10.1108/09564230710826250
  20. Carter, L., Murray, P., & Gray, D. (2011). The relationship between interpersonal relational competence and employee performance: A developmental model. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(3), 213-229. 
  21. Casavola, P., Tagle, L., (2004). Costruzione di capacità di valutazione: riflessioni sulla recente esperienza nella valutazione dei programmi di sviluppo, in “RIV - Rassegna italiana di valutazione”, 29, pp. 93-114.
  22. Cian, L., Cervai, S. (2013). Dal ServQual al ServPerval: l’evoluzione della misurazione della qualità del servizio. Micro & Macro Marketing, 22(1): 11-36.
  23. Commissione europea (2017). Quality Assurance for School Development: Guiding principles for policy development on quality assurance in school education. Report from the ET 2020 Working Group Schools 2016–2018. Brussels: European Commission.
  24. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. The Journal of Marketing: 49: 41-50. DOI: 10.1177/002224298504900403
  25. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1): 12-40.
  26. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4): 420-450.
  27. Pastore, S. (2019). Alla ricerca di una definizione di competenza valutativa. In Pastore S. a cura di, Competenza valutativa e formazione docente. Roma: Carrocci editore
  28. Pastore, S. (2018). La valutazione delle scuole: dal modello alla pratica. In Freddano M. e Pastore, S. a cura di, Per una valutazione delle scuole oltre l’adempimento, Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  29. Petruzzellis, L., D’Uggento, A., Romanazzi, S. (2006). Student satisfaction and quality of services in Italian universities. Managing Service Quality, 16(4): 349-364. DOI 10.1108/09604520610675694.
  30. Poliandri D., Romiti S., (2020). La valutazione esterna delle scuole in Italia: la selezione e la formazione di chi valuta. RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione, 73(1): 66-92.
  31. Preskill, H., Boyle, S. (2008). Insights into evaluation capacity building: Motivations, strategies, outcomes, and lessons learned. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 23(3), 147.
  32. Rivoltella, P.C. (2013). Fare didattica con gli EAS. Episodi di Apprendimento Situato. Brescia: La Scuola.
  33. Rossi, P.G. (2011). Didattica enattiva. Complessità, teorie dell’azione, professionalità docente. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  34. Salvadori, I. (2023). Le competenze valutative percepite da insegnanti esperti in relazione a pratiche collaborative. Lifelong Lifewide learning 19(42): 182-195.
  35. Schildkamp, K. (2019). Data-based decision-making for school improvement: Research insights and gaps. Educational research, 61(3), 257-273. DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2019.1625716
  36. Schildkamp, K., Lai, M. K., & Earl, L. (a cura di) (2013). Data-based Decision Making in Education. Springer Netherlands. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-007-4816-3
  37. Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C. L., & Handelzalts, A. (2016). Data teams for school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), Articolo 2. DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2015.105619
  38. OCSE (2013). Synergies for better learning, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2013.
  39. O’Brien, S., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., Brown, M. (2017). External specialist support for school self-evaluation: Testing a model of support in Irish post-primary schools. Evaluation, 23(1), 61–79. DOI: 10.1177/1356389016684248
  40. Mandinach, E. B., Gummer, E. S. (2013). A Systemic View of Implementing Data Literacy in Educator Preparation. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 30–37. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X1245980
  41. Mahmoud, A. B., Khalifa, B. (2015). A confirmatory factor analysis for SERVPERF instrument based on a sample of students from Syrian universities. Education+ Training, 57(3): 343 – 359.
  42. Labin, S. N., Duffy, J. L., Meyers, D. C., Wandersman, A., & Lesesne, C. A. (2012). A Research Synthesis of the Evaluation Capacity Building Literature. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(3), Articolo 3. DOI: 10.1177/109821401143460
  43. Khan, M. A. (1998). Evaluation capacity building: An overview of current status, issues and options. Evaluation, 4(3), 310–328. DOI: 10.1177/13563899822208626
  44. Ikemoto, G. S., & Marsh, J. A. (2007). Cutting Through the “data driven” mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 105–131. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1372.html
  45. Huffman, D., Lawrenz, F., Thomas, K., & Clarkson, L. (2006). Collaborative evaluation communities in urban schools: A model of evaluation capacity building for STEM education. New Directions for Evaluation, 109, 73–85.
  46. Gomez Paloma F., Poliandri D., Giampietro L. (2020). Il Progetto Value for Schools: Ricerca pedagogica e Learning Analytics per l’autovalutazione delle scuole. Formazione & insegnamento, 18(1): 294–307.
  47. Giampietro, L., Poliandri, D., Quadrelli, I., Romiti, S. (2016). L'autovalutazione in Italia: istanza di rendicontazione o sfida per migliorarsi? Scuola Democratica, 2, 467-480.
  48. Fullan, M. (1995). The school as a learning organization: Distant dreams. Theory into practice, 34(4), 230-235. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1476595.
  49. Freddano, M., Stringher, C. (2021). Fare autovalutazione nella scuola dell'infanzia: rapporto sulla sperimentazione del RAV Infanzia. Milano: FrancoAngeli
  50. Fortini, F., Muzzioli, P., Poliandri, D., Vinci, E. (2016). Il Sistema Nazionale di Valutazione: conoscere le scuole per supportarle. Scuola Democratica, 2, 451-466.
  51. Fogarty, G., Catts, R., Forlin, C. (2000). Identifying shortcomings in the measurement of service quality. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 4(1): 425-447.
  52. Dinh, H. V. T., Nguyen, Q. A. T., Phan, M. H. T., Nguyen, T., Nguyen, H. T. (2021). Vietnamese Students' Satisfaction toward Higher Education Service: The Relationship between Education Service Quality and Educational Outcomes. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(3): 1397-1410.
  53. Decreto del Presidente Della Repubblica 28 marzo 2013, n. 80. Regolamento sul sistema nazionale di valutazione in materia di istruzione e formazione. https://www.istruzione.it/valutazione/allegati/DPR_%2028_03_13.pdf
  54. Decreto legislativo 25 maggio 2017, n. 74 Modifiche al decreto legislativo 27 ottobre 2009, n. 150, in attuazione dell'articolo 17, comma 1, lettera r), della legge 7 agosto 2015, n. 124. (17G00088) (GU Serie Generale n.130 del 07-06-2017).
  55. Decreto legislativo 27 ottobre 2009, n. 150. Attuazione della legge 4 marzo 2009, n. 15, in materia di ottimizzazione della produttività del lavoro pubblico e di efficienza e trasparenza delle pubbliche amministrazioni.
  56. Darling-Hammond, L., Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher Learning: What Matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5): 46–53.
  57. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological methods, 1(1): 16-29. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16.
  58. Cousins, J. B., Goh, S. C., Elliott, C. J., & Bourgeois, I. (2014). Framing the capacity to do and use evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2014(141), 7-23.
  59. Cousins, J. B., Goh, S. C., Clark, S., & Lee, L. E. (2004). Integrating Evaluative Inquiry into the Organizational Culture: A Review and Synthesis of the Knowledge Base. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 19(2), 99–141. https://evaluationcanada.ca/system/files/cjpe-entries/19-2-099.pdf
  60. Cronin Jr, J. J., Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. Journal of marketing, 56(3): 55-68. DOI: 10.1177/002224299205600304.
  61. Compton, D. – Baizerman, M. (2007), Defining Evaluation Capacity Building, American Journal of Evaluation, vol. n. 28, n°1, 118-119. DOI: 10.1177/1098214006298172

Angela Litteri, Cristiana De Santis, Monica Perazzolo, Letizia Giampietro, Per una costruzione di competenze valutative decentrate nella scuola: indicazioni dalla rilevazione della soddisfazione dei partecipanti alla formazione in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 88-89/2024, pp 188-208, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2024-088010