Abstract
This chapter discusses the concept of training as a process that entails a lifelong learning perspective, especially when it involves e-learning and online activities. Training is a complex process involving cognitive, affective, social, and cultural components. The evaluation of training outcomes is especially challenging. We stress the relevance of self-assessment in the context of the Workshop for Observing Children at School, an experience of e-training at the University of Macerata. In the formative design phase, it seems significant to plan for teachers sharing with participants their evaluation criteria. We show the differences, in terms of curricular results, between versions of the same online course. In the first version, we did not share the assessment criteria with participants, instead we gave that information at the end of the course; in the second, we dedicated a special time to the activity of building assessment criteria as one of the required tasks; in the third version, we asked student to construct a list of criteria to assess the required and then to negotiate their list with ours. The analysis of the three versions of the Workshop shows some differences in the outcomes; it is possible to argue that self-assessment is relevant to e-training effectiveness.
The chapter is based on Nicolini, Lapucci, and Moroni (2008a).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Portfolio represents a curricular document where metacognition of students is indispensable to select and choose the relevant and significant documents of their educational experience, including evaluations and self evaluation.
- 2.
According with authors like Wiggins (1998) or Varisco (2004) we use a blended assessment system, applying both qualitative and quantitative evaluation strategies.
- 3.
The indicators are quoted from the students’ works.
- 4.
The evaluation was conducted by two blind researchers. The percentage of agreement was 93%. In the case of disagreement a third informed researcher was involved.
References
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 17–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Bennet, R. E. (1998). Reinventing assessment: speculations on the future of large-scale educational testing service. Princeton NJ: Policy Information Center.
Bion, W. R. (1961). Esperienze nei gruppi. Trad.it. Roma: Armando.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.
Cunningham, D. (1992). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 35–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Cunningham, D. J., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1981). Le développement social de l’intelligence. Paris: Interéditions.
Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Pérez, J. A. (1998). The social construction of knowledge: Social marking and socio-cognitive conflict. In U. Flick (Ed.), The psychology of the social (pp. 77–90). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.
Harasim, L. (1996). Online education: The future. In T. M. Harrison & T. Stephen (Eds.), Computer networking and scholarly communication in the twenty-first century university (pp. 203–214). New York: State University of New York Press.
Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner interface interaction in distance education. An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992a). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational technology research and development, 39(3), 5–14.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992b). Evaluating constructivistic learning. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 137–148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Knowles, M. S. (1973). The adult learner, a neglected species. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lake, C., & Tessmer, M. (1997). Constructivism’s implications for formative evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the association for educational communications and technology. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lapadat, J. C. (2000). Construction of science knowledge: Scaffolding conceptual change through discourse. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35(2), 1–14.
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2003). Beyond constructivism. London: Lea.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15–21.
Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talking and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11, 305–329.
May, R.(1975). The courage to create. New York: W.W. Norton.
Mitchell, S., & Andrews, R. (Eds.). (2000). Learning to argue. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Moore, G. M. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.
Moroni, C., & Nicolini, P. (2008). Osservare l’interazione tra pari con una lente psicolinguistica. Gli indicatori di negoziazione. In P. Nicolini (Ed.), L’interazione tra pari nei processi di apprendimento, (pp. 209–225). Bergamo: Junior.
Moroni, C, Smestad, O., & Kinshuk, K. (2006). Improving discursive negotiation in web discussion forum. In K. Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, & P. Isaìas (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd international conference on cognition and exploratory learning in digital age 2006. Barcelona, Spain.
Nicolini, P., Lapucci, T., & Moroni, C. (2007). Is it possible to train professional skills online? Teaching- learning strategies to improve practices change in online learning. In Lionarakis, A. (Ed.). Forms of democracy in education: open access and distance education: vol. A, Proceedings of 4th international conference on open distance learning, Researches. Athens, Greece, 206–212.
Nicolini, P., Lapucci, T., & Moroni, C. (2008a). Self assessment: a crucial process in e-training. In K. Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, P. Isaìas, D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Proceedings of 5th international conference “cognition and exploratory learning in digital age” (pp. 253–260). Freiburg, Germany: IADIS.
Nicolini, P., Lapucci, T., Moroni, C. (2008b). The role of cognitive conflict and peer interaction in conceptual change: a course on child observation practices. Gestalt Theory, 30(4), 447–454.
Nicolini, P., Moroni, C., Lapucci, T., & Kinshuk, K. (2007). Teaching – Learning online strategies: conceptual change and negotiation. In K. Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, & P. Isaìas (Eds.), Proceedings of 4th international conference “cognition and exploratory learning in digital age” (pp. 85–92). Algarve, Portugal.
Pear, J. (2003, November). Enhanced Feedback Using Computer-Aided Personalized System of Instruction PsychTeacher Electronic Discussion List.
Pear, J. J., & Crone-Todd, D. E. (2002). A social constructivist approach to computer mediated instruction. Computers & Education, 38, 221–231.
Pear, J. J., Crone-Todd, D. E., Wirth, K. M., & Simister, H. D. (2002). Assessment of thinking levels in students’ answers. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(4), 94–98.
Perkins, D. N. (1992). What constructivism demands of the learners. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 161–166). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Perkins, D. N. (1998). What is understanding. In M. S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding (pp. 39–57). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Pine, K. J., & Messer, D. J. (2000). The effect of explaining another’s actions on children’s implicit theories of balance. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 35–51.
Pontecorvo, C. (1993). Forms of discourse and shared thinking. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3–4), 189–196.
Posner, G. J. (1995). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 37–48.
Rafaeli, S., Barak, M., Dan-Gur, Y., & Toch, E. (2003). Knowledge sharing and online assessment. In Proceedings Online of IADIS 2003: http://www.iadis.net.
Rafaeli, S., & Tractinsky, N. (1989). Computerized tests and time: measuring, limiting and providing visual cues for time in computerized tests. Behavior and information technology, 8(5), 335–353.
Rafaeli, S., & Tractinsky, N. (1991). Time in computerized tests: A multi-trait Multi-method investigation of general knowledge and mathematical reasoning in online examinations. Computers in Human Behavior, 7(2), 123–142.
Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3–4), 347–364.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge society. Educational leadership, 54(3), 6–10.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2002). Knowledge building. In Deighton, L. C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education. New York: Macmillan Reference.
Scriven, M. (1983). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Sternberg, R. (1997). Thinking styles. Boston: Cambridge University Press.
Varisco, B. M. (2004). Portfolio. Valutare gli apprendimenti e le competenze. Roma: Carocci.
Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopolou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381–419.
Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339–362.
Wenger, E. C. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment. Design assessment to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nicolini, P., Lapucci, T., Moroni, C. (2010). Self-Assessment: An Important Process in e-Training. In: Spector, J., Ifenthaler, D., Isaias, P., Kinshuk, Sampson, D. (eds) Learning and Instruction in the Digital Age. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1551-1_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1551-1_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1550-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1551-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)