The first purpose of the university system is to deliver qualitative education through solid didactics/educational, but not many university structures seem really interested in the subject.
Sets of laws, measures, rules, and prescriptions of all kinds are in fact relegating it to a corner, making it less and less central and effective while also increasing the difficult to decipher, update and innovate it.
As a matter of fact, the issue of modernization of teaching methods has been tackled decisively by the European Commission, which has placed it among the priorities of its agenda. By acting in this way, EU is manifesting the conviction that a better quality for higher education will determine a growth in development and competitiveness not only for the Union itself but also for the individual universities that will define a strategy to improve the level of their teaching and learning and to give equal importance to research and teaching.
In its report on the theme of modernization and quality of teaching and learning, the European Commission summarizes its conclusions in 16 recommendations, including:
- the need for adequate teaching training for teachers;
- the need for the merits of teachers who make a significant contribution to improving teaching and learning methods to be recognized and rewarded.
But in order to achieve such quality prospects, it is necessary for university teachers to combine the knowledge of their discipline with specific communicative, cognitive and, more generally, relational skills. All this must become a principle of the university teaching of the future.
However, on a practical level, it is not uncommon to meet teachers who are not sufficiently attentive to these dimensions of the teaching-learning dynamic, failing to identify the “language” capable of transferring their theoretical/practical knowledge in the function of real learning of the student.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: University Press.
Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory - New York: Academic Press
Boscolo P., Psicologia dell’apprendimento scolastico: gli aspetti cognitivi, Utet, Torino1986
Carlson, J., Thorpe, C., 1984, The growing teacher: How to become the teacher you’ve always wanted to be. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Teaching; Motivation in education; Classroom management; Interaction analysis in education
Cela, J., Palou, J., 2004, Va de mestres. Carta als mestres que comencen, Ed. Assocciació de Mestres Rose Sensat, Barcelona
Chandler P., Sweller J., 1991, Cognitive Load Theory and the format of instruction
Crow L.D., Crow A. (a cura di), 1963, Readings in Human Learning, Mc Kay, New York
Glasser, W. The Quality School Teacher. New York: Harper Collins, 1993
Goleman D., Bennis W., O’Toole J., 2009, Trasparenza. Verso una nuova economia dell’onestà, Rizzoli Editore, Milano,
Harris T. L., Schwahn W. E., Selected Readings on the Learning Process, 1961, New York: Oxford University Press
Hilgard E. – Bower G., 1971, Le teorie dell’apprendimento, Angeli, Milano.)
Jan Amos Komenski DIDACTICA MAGNA e PANSOPHIA. Firenze La Nuova Italia editrice, Educatori antichi e moderni, 1952
Meadows D., 2019, Pensare per sistemi. Interpretare il presente, orientare il futuro verso uno sviluppo sostenibile, a cura di S. Armenia - Guerrini NEXT
Mustica S., 2017, Insegnare e apprendere con le tecnologie: quale università. In: Tra educazione e società nell’ era delle ICT Luci e ombre del processo di innovazione digitale in ambito educativo, ANICIA
Paivio A.,1991, Dual coding theory: retrospect and current status in the Canadian journal of Psychology
Salvitti C., 2017, L’importanza della comunicazione nella didattica - Educare.it - Anno XVII, N. 5, maggio 2017