Impacto de un programa de desarrollo docente universitario español en los enfoques de enseñanza. Propiedades psicométricas de la escala S-ATI-20
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.26725Palabras clave:
Enfoques de enseñanza, programa de desarrollo docente, formación docente, educación superiorResumen
La calidad de la formación de los profesores en las Universidades ha sido un debate inacabado entre las autoridades y los académicos debido a su impacto en el aprendizaje de los estudiantes. Aprender a enseñar en educación superior no es un camino directo, existen pocas oportunidades para aprender cómo enseñar a este nivel antes de entrar a enseñar directamente. Las Universidades deberían monitorizar hasta qué punto los profesores cumplen con sus funciones docentes y se dedican a mejorar sus habilidades y aptitudes docentes, así como sus actitudes y el compromiso hacia sus estudiantes. Siguiendo la línea de investigación sobre enfoques de aprendizaje (SAL), este estudio atiende a la formación docente analizando el impacto de un breve programa de desarrollo en los enfoques de enseñanza a través del uso de un cuestionario en español (S-ATI-20) que no es sino una revisión y validada versión del Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI), así como de otra información de corte cualitativo. El diseño es pre-experimental (pretest-postest) sin grupo de control. Se recogió información de 85 profesores a lo largo de tres cursos académicos consecutivos: 2014-2015 (n = 48), 2015-2016 (n = 22) y 2016-2017 (n = 15). Los resultados muestran que los programas de desarrollo cortos tienen un efecto positivo en los enfoques de enseñanza. Además, los resultados corroboran la estructura de dos factores del S-ATI-20, distinguiendo entre profesores que al enseñar se centran en el cambio conceptual y el estudiante (CCSF) o en la transmisión de la información y en el profesor (ITTF). Por último, la discusión teórica del impacto en los enfoques de enseñanza nos anima a (re)pensar la relación entre distintas formas de manejar las responsabilidades docentes. ¿Están los enfoques realmente en un continuo bipolar?, ¿deberíamos pensar en los enfoques como si fuera un modelo basado en una muñeca rusa (matrioshka)?
Descargas
Citas
Aksoy, E., Akbas, U., & Seferoglu, G. (2018). Adaptation of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory into Turkish and Analysis of Turkish Academics’ Approaches to Their Own Teaching. Egitim ve bilim-education and science, 43, 81–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/ EB.2018.7253
Baume, D. (2006). Towards the end of the last non-professions? International Journal for Academic Development, 11(1), 57–60.
Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381–394.
Biggs, J. (1987). Student Approaches to learning and studying. Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. (1987). Study Process Questionnaire Manual. Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. McGraw Hill Education.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.
Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality in learning at university (3rd ed.). Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Bucharest Communiqué (2012). Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area. https://bit.ly/3fIH30m
Cano, F., & Berbén, A.B.G. (2009). University students’ achievement goals and approaches to learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 131–153.
Cao, Y., Postareff, L., Lindblom, S., & Toom, A. (2018). Teacher educators’ approaches to teaching and the nexus with self-efficacy and burnout: examples from two teachers’ universities in China. Journal of Education for Teaching, 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.14 50954
Cassidy, R. & Ahmad, A. (2019). Evidence for conceptual change in approaches to teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, (early access) http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.168 0537
Chalmers, D. & Gardiner, D. (2015). An evaluation framework for identifying the effectiveness and impact of academic teacher development programmes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 81–91.
Christie, J. (2015). A study to understand the relationship between student’s perception of academic environment, student learning approaches and student learning outcomes among MBA students of Gujarat. Paripex – Indian Jorunal of Research, 4(6), 263–
Del Rincón, B. (Coord.) (2006). Primer intercambio de experiencias ECTS. Universidad Castilla La Mancha.
Del Rincón, B. (Coord.) (2009). ¿Qué es una enseñanza ECTS? Universidad Castilla La Mancha.
Duff, A. & McKinstry, S. (2007). Students’ approaches to learning. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(2), 183–214.
Entwistle, N.J., Hanley, M., & Hounsell, D. (1979). Identifying distinctive approaches to studying. Higher Education, 8, 365–380.
Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. Croom Helm.
George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Goh, P.S.C., Wong, D.T., & Hamzah, M.S.G. (2014). The Approaches to Teaching Inventory: A preliminary Validation of the Malaysian Translation. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 16–26. http:// dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n1.6
Gibbs, G. & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100.
González-Geraldo, J. L. (2015). Publicar ya no es suficiente: los peligros del panóptico digital en un mundo académico excesivamente transparente. In J.L. González-Geraldo (Coord.), Educación, Desarrollo y Cohesión Social (pp. 413–418). Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.
González-Geraldo, J.L., Del Rincón, B., y Del Rincón, D. (2011). Estructura latente y consistencia interna del R-SPQ-2F: Reinterpretando los enfoques de aprendizaje en el EEES. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 29(2), 277–293.
González-Geraldo, J. L. y Del Rincón, B. (2013). Aprendiendo el lenguaje de nuestros alumnos: de las competencias al aprendizaje. Cadernos de Pedagogia no ensino superior, 24, 25–41.
González-Geraldo, J.L. & Monroy, F. (2017). Impact of a teacher development programme on approaches to teaching in Higher Education. 3er International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAD 17). http://dx.doi. org/10.4995/HEAd17.2017.5052
Gow, L. & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20–33.
Harland, T. (2010). Pre-service Teacher Education for University Lectures: The academic apprentice. Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 27(3), 269–276. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/02607470120091597
Harshman, J. & Stains, M. (2017). A review and evaluation of the internal structure and consistency of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. International Journal of Science Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0 9500693.2017.1310411
Ibrahim, A., Clark, K., Reese, R., & Shingles, R. (2020). The effects of a teaching development institute for early career researchers on their intended teaching strategies, course design, beliefs about instructors’ and students’ knowledge, and instructional self-efficacy: The case of the Teaching Institute at Johns Hopkins University, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.stueduc.2020.100836
Jiménez, D., González, J.J., & Tornel, M. (2020). Active methodologies in the university and their relationship with teaching approaches. Profesorado. Revista de curriculum y formación del profesorado, 24(1), 76–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v24i1.8173
Jiménez, D., Tornel, M., González, J.J., y Sancho, P. (2019). Perfil del profesorado universitario que emplea un enfoque docente centrado en el alumnado. Psychology, Society, & Education, 11(1), 125–135. http:// dx.doi.org/10.25115/psye.v10i1.2125
Justicia, F., Pichardo, M.C., Cano, F., & Berbén, A.B.G. (2008).
The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F): Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses at item level. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 3, 355–372.
Kember, D. & Kwan, K.P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469–490.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Parpala, A., & Postareff, L. (2018). What constitutes the Surface approach to learning in the light of new empirical evidence? Studies in Higher Education, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.14 82267
Marton, F. (1976). What does it take to learn? Some implications of an alternative view of learning. In N.J. Entwistle (Ed.), Strategies for Research and Development in Higher Education (pp. 32–43). Swets and Zeitlinger.
Merino, C. y Kumar, R. (2013). Validación structural del R-SPQ-2F: Un análisis factorial confirmatorio. Revista Digital de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria, 7(1), 111–127.
Meyer, J.H.F. & Eley, M.G. (2006). The approaches to teaching inventory: a critique of its development and applicability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 633–649.
Monroy, F., González-Geraldo, J.L., & Hernández Pina, F. (2015). A psychometric analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) and a proposal for a Spanish version (S-ATI-20). Anales de Psicología, 31(1), 172–183.
Monroy, F. & González-Geraldo, J.L. (2017). Measuring learning: discrepancies between conceptions of and approaches to learning. Educational Studies, 1–18. 10.1080/03055698.2017.1345677
Monroy, F., Hernández Pina, F., & Martínez Clares, P. (2014). Enfoques de enseñanza de estudiantes en formación pedagógica. Un estudio exploratorio. [Approaches to teaching of trainee teachers. An exploratory analysis]. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía, 25(3), 90–105.
Montenegro, H. y González, C. (2013). Análisis factorial confirmatorio del cuestionario “Enfoques de Docencia Universitaria” (Approaches to teaching inventory, ATI-R). Estudios Pedagógicos, 39(2), 213–230.
Parsons, D. J., Hill, I., Holland, J., & Willis, D. (2012). Impact of teaching development programmes in higher education. Higher Education Academy (HEA).
Parsons, D.J., Hughes, J., & Walsh, K. (2010). Initial Training and Professional Development of Teachers and Trainers beyond Upper-secondary Education. Publications Office of the European Union, Cedefop.
Paüler-Kuppinger, L. & Jucks, R. (2018). Out-of-Class Instruction in Higher Education. Impact of Approaches to Teaching and Discipline. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(2), 199–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijhe. v7n2p199
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 405–419.
Prebble, T., Hargraves, H., Leach, L., Naidoo, K., Suddaby, G., & Zepke, N. (2004). Impact of student support services and academic development programmes on student outcomes in undergraduate tertiary study: A synthesis of the research. A Report to the Ministry of Education.
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics´ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4(3), 217–231.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in Higher Education. Routledge.
Richardson, J.T.E. (2015). Approaches to learning or levels of processing: What did Marton and Säljö (1976a) really say? The legacy of the work of the Göteborg group in the 1970s. Interchange, 46, 239–269.
Rosewell, K. & Ashwin, P. (2018). Academics´ perceptions of what it means to be an academic. Studies in Higher Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1499717
Soler-Contreras, M.G., Cárdenas- Salgado, F.A., Hernández-Pina, F., y Monroy, F. (2017). Enfoques de aprendizaje y enfoques de enseñanza: origen y evolución. Educación y Educadores, 20(1), 65–88.
Stewart, M. (2014). Making sense of a teaching programme for university academics: Exploring the longer- term effects. Teacning and Teacher Education, 38, 89–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.006
Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F., & Straus, M. A. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of family measurement techniques. Sage.
Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275–284.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and Use of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Education Psychology Review, 16(4), 409–424.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M., & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised approaches to teaching inventory. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 349–360.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70.
Yerevan Communiqué (2015). EHEA Ministerial Conference https://bit. ly/30pLwyD
Wolf, E.J., Harrington, K.M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M.W. (2013). Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
Zabalza, M. A. (2009). Ser profesor universitario hoy. La cuestión universitaria, 5, 68–80.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
