Evaluating the DICO project: results and future prospects

Downloads

Additional Files

Pubblicato

2023-01-20

Fascicolo

Supplementi (14/2023): DICO Toolkit for Digital Career Stories

Sezione

Section 3. Project evaluation and further resources

Licenza

La licenza adottata è la Creative Commons - Attribuzione/Condividi allo stesso modo. Ovvero, gli autori che pubblicano su questa rivista accettano le seguenti condizioni:

  1. Gli autori mantengono i diritti sulla loro opera e cedono alla rivista il diritto di prima pubblicazione dell'opera, contemporaneamente licenziata sotto una Licenza Creative Commons - Attribuzione che permette ad altri di condividere l'opera indicando la paternità intellettuale e la prima pubblicazione su questa rivista.
  2. Gli autori possono aderire ad altri accordi di licenza non esclusiva per la distribuzione della versione dell'opera pubblicata (es. depositarla in un archivio istituzionale o pubblicarla in una monografia), a patto di indicare che la prima pubblicazione è avvenuta su questa rivista.
  3. Gli autori possono diffondere la loro opera online (es. in repository istituzionali o nel loro sito web) prima e durante il processo di submission, poiché può portare a scambi produttivi e aumentare le citazioni dell'opera pubblicata.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.13138/2039-2362/3152

Autori

  • Concetta Ferrara University of Macerata
  • Mara Cerquetti

Abstract

This chapter discusses the results of the evaluation activities carried out within the DICO project (Digital Career Stories. Opening new career paths for arts and culture students) under the Erasmus+ Programme. After analysing the role of measurement in management and the specific contribution of assessment practices in higher education, the paper presents the activities undertaken by the partner institutions during the project (2021-2022). The DICO project focused on the role of digital and self-reflection learning methodologies in boosting resilience and belief in the future among higher education students in cultural and creative fields. In addition to arts-based active learning methodologies as a tool for promoting motivation and skills, the project evaluation also examined assessment as a form of learning. Quantitative and qualitative research methods were adopted to investigate lecturers’ and students’ expectations, prior experience, satisfaction, and the impact of the project. Moreover, a specific qualitative focus was applied with students enrolled in a master’s degree course in Cultural Heritage Management (University of Macerata). The results provide valuable insights into teaching and learning methodologies and suggestions for higher education institutions (HEIs) in cultural and creative fields.

.

Riferimenti bibliografici

Armstrong P., Tomes A. (1996), Art and accountability: the languages of design and managerial control, «Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal», 9, n. 5, pp. 114-125.

Auster E.R., Wylie K.K. (2006), Creating active learning in the classroom: A systematic approach, «Journal of Management Education», 30, n. 2, pp. 333-353.

Benneworth P., Pinheiro R., Sánchez-Barrioluengo M. (2016), One size does not fit all! New perspectives on the university in the social knowledge economy, «Science and Public Policy», 43, n. 6, pp. 731-735.

Bonwell C.C., Eison J.A. (1991), Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Bonwell C.C. (2010), Using active learning as assessment in the postsecondary classroom, «The Clearing House», 71, n. 2, pp. 73-76.

Bovens M. (2007), Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework, «European Law Journal», 13, n. 4, pp. 447-468.

Bridgstock R. (2011), Skills for creative industries graduate success, «Education + Training», 53, n. 1, pp. 9-26.

Bridgstock R., Cunningham S. (2014), Graduate careers in journalism, media and communications within and outside the sector: Early career outcomes, trajectories and capabilities, in Creative Work Beyond the Creative Industries, edited by G. Hearn, R. Bridgstock, B. Goldsmith, J. Rodgers, Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 226-244.

Carless D. (2007), Learning‐oriented assessment: conceptual bases and practical implications, «Innovations in education and teaching international», 44, n. 1, pp. 57-66.

Carless D., Joughin G., Mok M. (2006), Learning-oriented assessment: principles and practice, «Assessment and evaluation in Higher Education», 31, n. 4, pp. 395-398.

Cerquetti M. (2017), From value assessment to public value creation and measurement in the museum sector. Theoretical approaches and critical issues in a changing world, in Bridging theories, strategies and practices in valuing cultural heritage, edited by M. Cerquetti, Macerata: eum, pp. 121-147.

Cerquetti M. (2019), What gets measured gets done. Misurare e valutare l’archeologia pubblica, «Il capitale culturale. Studies on the Value of Cultural Heritage», n. 9, pp. 553-569.

Deiaco E., Hughes A., McKelvey M. (2012), Universities as strategic actors in the knowledge economy, «Cambridge journal of economics», 36, n. 3, pp. 525-541.

Dixson D., Worrell F. (2016), Formative and summative assessment in the classroom, «Theory into Practice», 55, n. 2, pp. 153-159.

Earl L.M. (2012), Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks (CA): Corwin Press.

Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. (2000), The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations, «Research Policy», 29, n. 2, pp. 109-123.

European Commission (2010), Green Paper: Unlocking the Potential of Cultural and Creative Industries, COM (2010) 183, Brussels, https://op.europa.eu/it/publication-detail/-/publication/1cb6f484-074b-4913-87b3-344ccf020eef/language-en, 07.07.2022.

Harte D., Long P., Naudin A. (2019), The university as intermediary for the creative economy: Pedagogues, policy makers and creative workers in the curriculum, «Arts and Humanities in Higher Education», 18, n. 2-3, pp. 120-139.

Hatry H.P. (1999), Performance measurement: getting results, Washington (USA): Urban Institute Press.

Ibarra-Sáiz M.S., Rodríguez-Gómez G., Boud D. (2020), Developing student competence through peer assessment: the role of feedback, self-regulation and evaluative judgement, «Higher Education», 80, n. 1, pp. 137-156.

Inks S.A., Avila R.A. (2008), Preparing the next generation of sales professionals through social, experiential, and immersive learning experiences, «Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education», 13, n. 1, pp. 47-55.

Jung J.Y., Wang Y.J. (2006), Relationship between total quality management (TQM) and continuous improvement of international project management (CIIPM), «Technovation», 26, n. 5-6, pp. 716-722.

Kaynak H. (2003), The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance, «Journal of Operations Management», n. 21, pp. 405-435.

Kerzner H. (2003), Strategic planning for a project office, «Project Management Journal», 34, n. 2, pp. 13-25.

McGinnis P. (2018), Engaging students in learning through assessment, «Science Scope», 41, n. 5, p. 1

Mercer C. (2011), Which skills for culture in a globalised and digitised world?, EENC Paper, Brussels: European Expert Network on Culture.

Meredith J.R., Mantel S.J. (2003), Project management a managerial approach, New York: Wiley.

Mir F.A., Pinnington A.H. (2014), Exploring the value of project management: linking project management performance and project success, «International Journal of Project Management», 32, n. 2, pp. 202-217.

Neely A.D., Adams C., Kennerley M. (2002), The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success, London: Prentice Hall Financial Times.

OECD/CERI (2008), Assessment for Learning Formative Assessment, OECD/CERI International Conference Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy (Paris, 15-16 May 2008).

Popham W.J. (2008), Transformative assessment, Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Rawlusyk P.E. (2018), Assessment in higher education and student learning, «Journal of Instructional Pedagogies», n. 21, pp. 1-34.

Robson I. (2004), From Process Measurement to Performance Improvement, «Business Process Management Journal», 10, n. 5, pp. 510-521.

Rossi P.G., Giannandrea L., Gratani F., Laici C., Tarantino A., Paviotti G. (2021), Assessment as learning: transforming practices with secondary school teachers, in Proceeding of the International Online Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (8-9 November 2021), edited by L. Gomez, A. Lopez, I.G. Torres, Valencia: IATED, pp. 6543-6551.

Rubens A., Spigarelli F., Cavicchi A., Rinaldi C. (2017), Universities’ third mission and the entrepreneurial university and the challenges they bring to higher education institutions, «Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy», 11, n. 3, pp. 354-372.

Saad M., Guermat C., Brodie L. (2015), National innovation and knowledge performance. The role of higher education teaching and training, «The Journal of Higher Education Studies», 40, n. 7, pp. 1194-1209.

Sharma M.K., Bhagwat R., Dangayach G.S. (2005), Practice of performance measurement: experience from Indian SMEs, «International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business», 1, n. 2, pp. 183-213.

Stiggins R.J. (2002), Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning, «Phi Delta Kappan», 83, n. 10, pp. 758-765.

Taticchi P. (2009), Business Performance Measurement and Management: New Contexts, Themes and Challenges, Berlin: Springer.

Taticchi P., Tonelli F., Cagnazzo L. (2010), Performance measurement and management: a literature review and a research agenda, «Measuring Business Excellence», 14, n. 1, pp. 4-18.

Thomas J., Mullaly M. (2007), Understanding the value of project management: First steps on an international investigation in search of value, «Project Management Journal», 38, n. 3, pp. 74-89.

Torrance H. (2012), Formative assessment at the crossroads: Conformative, deformative and transformative assessment, «Oxford Review of Education», 38, n. 3, pp. 323-342.

UNESCO (2017), Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives, Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

UNESCO (2019), Culture|2030 Indicators, Thematic Indicators for Culture in the 2030 Agenda, Paris: UNESCO.

Zeng W., Huang F., Yu L., Chen S. (2018), Towards a learning-oriented assessment to improve students’ learning—a critical review of literature, «Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability», 30, n. 3, pp. 211-250.

Vedi tutto il testo ...

Biografia autore

Concetta Ferrara, University of Macerata

Research fellow, Department of Education, Cultural Heritage and Tourism

Come citare

Ferrara, C., & Cerquetti, M. (2023). Evaluating the DICO project: results and future prospects. Il Capitale Culturale. Studies on the Value of Cultural Heritage, (14), 213–246. https://doi.org/10.13138/2039-2362/3152

Puoi leggere altri articoli dello stesso autore/i

1 2 3 4 > >>