The establishment of the integrated instruction and education system from birth to six years (Legislative Decree no. 65 of 13 April 2017) aims to guarantee all children the right to education, recognizing the early childhood and care services as places of educational culture and social inclusion. However, in addition to ensuring the accessibility, sustainability, and inclusiveness of such an educational system, it becomes necessary to ask oneself about which pedagogical choices and organizational conditions make it possible to support and promote the implementation of quality daily educational practices in the services, thus underlining the urgency to introduce effective monitoring and evaluation systems, as indicated on several occasions by the European Council (Recommendation of the European Council, 2019). In this regard, in the draft of the pedagogical guidelines for the integrated system "zerosei", in the section reserved for evaluation, the formative function and the reflective and participatory character that this strategy must assume in order to allow the entire working group to be able to contextualize, reflect and then elaborate the educational experience realized, bringing out and problematizing the complexity of the meanings contained in it. In this perspective, evaluation is therefore configured as a functional strategy to activate exchange dynamics between different groups of educators and teachers, also in a dynamic of dialogue and discussion between services, identifying the formative needs of a specific territorial context and promoting the integration process between the institutional subjects involved (Benedetti, Gariboldi, & Maselli, 2017). In fact, the formative efficacy of an evaluation process does not end only in the elaboration of an improvement project but is connected to the ability to activate reflective and self-reflective investigations, to build repertoires of shared meanings, and to nurture forms of co-participation in the educational groups involved (Bondioli, 2015; Bondioli, & Savio, 2014; Gariboldi, Babini, & Vannini, 2014; Fetterman, 2001; Fetterman, Deitz, & Gesundheit, 2010). It, therefore, means adopting and implementing a participatory and unanimous approach to evaluation, valuing the latter as a catalyst for multiple transformative learning processes (Bondioli, & Ferrari, 2004; Garaway, 1995; Butler, & Schnellert, 2012). As part of a formative and participatory approach to evaluation, this contribution intends to illustrate two different self-evaluation paths, the first linked to the accreditation process of 0/3 educational services of the Emilia-Romagna Region and the second carried out in state preschools in the province of Como. While presenting differences with regard to the instruments used and the manners of participation of the various actors involved, both paths examined move on two levels: the development of reflective and transformative practices within the single service and the activation of network dynamics in the context of a territorial pedagogical coordination (Benedetti, Gariboldi, & Maselli, 2017). In this perspective, the realization of educational self-evaluation paths in early childhood and care services not only aims to support the groups of educators and teachers in planning and implementing possible improvement actions but is also aimed at promoting the development of a pedagogical awareness of equipe and of an explicit and shared educational planning at the level of a network of services and preschools present in a specific territory, an essential level for the progressive realization of a zero-six integrated system of quality.

L’istituzione del sistema integrato di educazione e di istruzione dalla nascita ai sei anni (Decreto legislativo n.65 del 13 Aprile 2017) mira a garantire a tutti i bambini il diritto all’educazione, riconoscendo nei servizi per l’infanzia dei luoghi di cultura educativa e di inclusione sociale. Tuttavia, oltre ad assicurare l’accessibilità, la sostenibilità e l’inclusività di un tale sistema formativo, diviene necessario interrogarsi circa quali scelte pedagogiche e condizioni organizzative consentono di sostenere e promuovere quotidianamente nei servizi la realizzazione di prassi educative di qualità, sottolineando così l’urgenza di introdurre dei sistemi efficaci di monitoraggio e valutazione, come indicato anche a più riprese dal Consiglio Europeo (Raccomandazione del Consiglio Europeo, 2019). A tal proposito, nella bozza delle Linee pedagogiche per il sistema integrato “zerosei”, nella sezione riservata alla valutazione, si pone in evidenza la funzione formativa e il carattere riflessivo e partecipativo che tale dispositivo deve assumere per permettere all’intero gruppo di lavoro di poter contestualizzare, riflettere e quindi elaborare l’esperienza educativa realizzata, facendo emergere e problematizzando la complessità dei significati in essa racchiusi. In tale prospettiva, la valutazione viene dunque a configurarsi come dispositivo funzionale ad attivare dinamiche di scambio tra i diversi gruppi di educatori e insegnanti, anche in una dinamica di dialogo e confronto tra i servizi, individuando anche i bisogni formativi di uno specifico contesto territoriale e promuovendo il processo di integrazione tra i soggetti istituzionali implicati (Benedetti, Gariboldi, & Maselli, 2017). Infatti, l’efficacia formativa di un processo di valutazione non si esaurisce solamente nell’elaborazione di un progetto di miglioramento, ma è connessa alla capacità di attivare indagini riflessive ed autoriflessive, costruire repertori di significati condivisi e alimentare forme di co-partecipazione all’interno delle equipe educative coinvolte (Bondioli, 2015; Bondioli, & Savio, 2014; Gariboldi, Babini, & Vannini, 2014; Fetterman, 2001; Fetterman, Deitz, & Gesundheit, 2010). Significa, quindi, adottare e implementare un approccio partecipato e corale alla valutazione, valorizzando quest’ultima come un catalizzatore di processi plurimi di apprendimento trasformativo (Bondioli, & Ferrari, 2004; Garaway, 1995; Butler, & Schnellert, 2012). Nel contesto di un approccio formativo e transattivo alla valutazione, il presente contributo intende illustrare due differenti percorsi di autovalutazione, il primo legato al processo di accreditamento dei servizi educativi 0/3 in Regione Emilia-Romagna e il secondo realizzato in 20 scuole dell’infanzia statali della provincia di Como. Pur presentando delle differenze per quanto riguarda gli strumenti utilizzati e le modalità di partecipazione dei vari attori coinvolti, entrambi i percorsi presi in esame si muovono a due livelli: lo sviluppo di pratiche riflessive e trasformative all’interno del singolo servizio e l’attivazione di una dinamica di rete nel contesto di un coordinamento pedagogico territoriale (Benedetti, Gariboldi, & Maselli, 2017). In tale prospettiva, la realizzazione di percorsi di autovalutazione formativa nei servizi per l’infanzia non mira solo a sostenere le equipe nel progettare e realizzare delle possibili azioni di miglioramento, ma è anche volta a promuovere lo sviluppo di una consapevolezza pedagogica di equipe e di una progettualità educativa esplicita e condivisa a livello della rete di servizi e scuole presenti in un determinato territorio, livello essenziale per la realizzazione progressiva di un sistema integrato zerosei di qualità.

Valutazione come dialogo / Gariboldi, Antonio; Pugnaghi, Antonella. - In: IUL RESEARCH. - ISSN 2723-9586. - 2:4(2021), pp. 308-321.

Valutazione come dialogo

GARIBOLDI Antonio;PUGNAGHI Antonella
2021

Abstract

The establishment of the integrated instruction and education system from birth to six years (Legislative Decree no. 65 of 13 April 2017) aims to guarantee all children the right to education, recognizing the early childhood and care services as places of educational culture and social inclusion. However, in addition to ensuring the accessibility, sustainability, and inclusiveness of such an educational system, it becomes necessary to ask oneself about which pedagogical choices and organizational conditions make it possible to support and promote the implementation of quality daily educational practices in the services, thus underlining the urgency to introduce effective monitoring and evaluation systems, as indicated on several occasions by the European Council (Recommendation of the European Council, 2019). In this regard, in the draft of the pedagogical guidelines for the integrated system "zerosei", in the section reserved for evaluation, the formative function and the reflective and participatory character that this strategy must assume in order to allow the entire working group to be able to contextualize, reflect and then elaborate the educational experience realized, bringing out and problematizing the complexity of the meanings contained in it. In this perspective, evaluation is therefore configured as a functional strategy to activate exchange dynamics between different groups of educators and teachers, also in a dynamic of dialogue and discussion between services, identifying the formative needs of a specific territorial context and promoting the integration process between the institutional subjects involved (Benedetti, Gariboldi, & Maselli, 2017). In fact, the formative efficacy of an evaluation process does not end only in the elaboration of an improvement project but is connected to the ability to activate reflective and self-reflective investigations, to build repertoires of shared meanings, and to nurture forms of co-participation in the educational groups involved (Bondioli, 2015; Bondioli, & Savio, 2014; Gariboldi, Babini, & Vannini, 2014; Fetterman, 2001; Fetterman, Deitz, & Gesundheit, 2010). It, therefore, means adopting and implementing a participatory and unanimous approach to evaluation, valuing the latter as a catalyst for multiple transformative learning processes (Bondioli, & Ferrari, 2004; Garaway, 1995; Butler, & Schnellert, 2012). As part of a formative and participatory approach to evaluation, this contribution intends to illustrate two different self-evaluation paths, the first linked to the accreditation process of 0/3 educational services of the Emilia-Romagna Region and the second carried out in state preschools in the province of Como. While presenting differences with regard to the instruments used and the manners of participation of the various actors involved, both paths examined move on two levels: the development of reflective and transformative practices within the single service and the activation of network dynamics in the context of a territorial pedagogical coordination (Benedetti, Gariboldi, & Maselli, 2017). In this perspective, the realization of educational self-evaluation paths in early childhood and care services not only aims to support the groups of educators and teachers in planning and implementing possible improvement actions but is also aimed at promoting the development of a pedagogical awareness of equipe and of an explicit and shared educational planning at the level of a network of services and preschools present in a specific territory, an essential level for the progressive realization of a zero-six integrated system of quality.
2021
2
4
308
321
Valutazione come dialogo / Gariboldi, Antonio; Pugnaghi, Antonella. - In: IUL RESEARCH. - ISSN 2723-9586. - 2:4(2021), pp. 308-321.
Gariboldi, Antonio; Pugnaghi, Antonella
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
166-Articolo-1036-2-10-20211223.pdf

Open access

Descrizione: Articolo principale
Tipologia: Versione pubblicata dall'editore
Dimensione 366.23 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
366.23 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1273328
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact