Influencia de la regulación del trabajo del alumnado universitario en la implicación hacia las tareas

  1. David Hortigüela
  2. Ángel Pérez-Pueyo
Journal:
Psychology, Society & Education

ISSN: 1989-709X,  2171-2085

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 8

Issue: 1

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Psychology, Society & Education

Abstract

This research analyzes the university students perception about the methodological and evaluative process conducted in two subjects. It affects factors involved to work and regulation of wokload. 241 students from three subjects Degree in Primary and Infant University of Burgos participated. Each of the subjects were divided into two groups (A and B), each taught by a teacher through different pedagogical approach. A mixed methodology was used by pretest-posttest design. On one hand, quantitative, through a descriptive analysis (mean and standard deviation factors) and inferential (ANOVA). On the other hand, qualitative, through an interview with the two teachers to complete the process. A validated questionnaire initial teacher was employed. At the end of the course, students in group A (regulated their work actively) reported greater involvement to work, both in relation to pretest as compared to group B (not regulated their work). Within group A were students with more university degrees who value more positive experience. In group B were differences in the independent variable of previous experience in the recorded work actively. Teachers gave a different importance to the role played by the methodology in the classroom.

Bibliographic References

  • Aguaded, M.C., y Moraleda, E. (2015). Opinión del alumnado acerca de los cambios metodológicos de enseñanza en la asignatura. Infancias Imágenes, 13, 61-69.
  • Ballesta, F.J., Izquierdo, T., y Romero, E. (2011). Percepción del alumnado de Pedagogía ante el uso de metodologías activas. Educatio siglo XXI: Revista de la Facultad de Educación, 29, 353-368.
  • Castejón, F. J., Santos, M., y Palacios, A. (2015). Cuestionario sobre metodología y evaluación en formación inicial en Educación Física. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y el Deporte, 15 (58), 245-267.
  • Cohn, P. J. (1991). An exploratory study on peak performance in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 1-14.
  • Corbetta, P. (2007). Metodologías y técnicas de investigación social. Madrid: McGrawHill. Covill, A. (2011). College Students' Perceptions of the Traditional Lecture Method. College Student Journal, 45(1), 92-101.
  • Delgado, V., y Casado, R. (2014). Radiografía de la formación del profesorado en la Universidad de Burgos: evolución y análisis de planes y estrategias formativas. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 66(2), 43-60.
  • Denzin, N. K., y Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Fraile, A., López-Pastor, V. M., Castejón, F. J., y Romero, R. (2013). La evaluación formativa en docencia universitaria y el rendimiento académico del alumnado. Revista Aula Abierta, 41(2), 23-34.
  • Guzmán, J.R. (2012). Comunidades de aprendizaje y formación del profesorado. Tendencias Pedagógicas, 19, 67-86.
  • Hall, J., y Ryan, K. (2011). Educational Accountability: A Qualitatively Driven MixedMethods Approach. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(1), 105-115.
  • Herrero, J. (2010). El Análisis Factorial Confirmatorio en el estudio de la Estructura y Estabilidad de los Instrumentos de Evaluación: Un ejemplo con el Cuestionario de Autoestima CA-14. Intervención Psicosocial, 19(3), 289-300.
  • Hortigüela, D., Pérez Pueyo, A. y Abella, V. (2015). Perspectiva del alumnado sobre la evaluación tradicional y la evaluación formativa. Contraste de grupos en las mismas asignaturas. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 13(1), 35-48. Recuperado de http://www.rinace.net/reice/numeros/arts/vol13num1/art3.pdf.
  • Jones, S. (2014). Assessing the Science Knowledge of University Students: Perils, Pitfalls and Possibilities.Journal of Learning Design, 7(2), 16-27.
  • Kanyal, M. (2014).Early Childhood Studies--Students' Participation in the Development of a Learning Space in a Higher Education Institution. Management in Education, 28(4), 149-155.
  • Libarkin, J. C., yKurdziel. J. P. (2002). Research methodologies in science education: Qualitative data. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50, 195-200.
  • Lincoln, Y. S., yGuba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Low, S., Polanin, J., yEspelage, D. (2013). The Role of Social Networks in Physical and Relational Aggression among Young Adolescents.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 10878-1089.
  • MacDonald, B. (2012). Using Self-Assessment to Support Individualized Learning.Mathematics Teaching, 231, 26-27.
  • Navarro, J.J., Campos, M.E, y Uceda, X. (2014). Investigación acción con estudiantes de integración social. Una experiencia basada en la relación educativa. Contextos Educativos: Revista de Educación, 17, 91-108.
  • Newberry, M. (2013).Reconsidering Differential Behaviors: Reflection and Teacher Judgment When Forming Classroom Relationships. Teacher Development, 17(2), 195-213.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Picón, E. (2012). Promoting Learner Autonomy through Teacher-Student Partnership Assessment in an American High School: A Cycle of Action Research. PROFILE: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 14(2), 145-162.
  • Powell, L., y Robson, F. (2014). Learner-Generated Podcasts: A Useful Approach to Assessment? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(3), 12-21.
  • Saldaña, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Sosa, M.J., López, C., y Díaz, S. (2014). Comunidad de aprendizaje y participación social en un curso MOOC. International journal of EducationalResearch and Innovation, 1, 1- 13.
  • Smith, J. A. y Osborne, M. (2003). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. En J.A. Smith (Ed.),Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. (pp. 53-79). London: Sage.
  • Strauss, A. &Corbin, J. (2002). Bases de la investigación cualitativa: Técnicas y procedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada. Colombia: Universidad de Antioquia.
  • Van Looy, L.y Goegebeur, W. (2007). Teachers and teacher trainees as classroom researchers: beyond Utopia? Educational Action Research, 15(1), 107-126.
  • Vavpotic, D., Zvanut, B., yTrobec, I.(2013). A Comparative Evaluation of E-Learning and Traditional Pedagogical Process Elements. Educational Technology y Society, 16(3), 76- 87.
  • Varbelow, S. (2014).Instruction, Curriculum and Society: Iterations Based on the Ideas of William Doll. Online Submission, International Journal of Instruction, 5(1), 87-98.
  • Vaughan, M. (2014). Flipping the Learning: An Investigation into the Use of the Flipped Classroom Model in an Introductory Teaching Course.Education Research and Perspectives, 14(1), 25-41.
  • Vrieling, E., Bastiaens, T., y Stijnen, S. (2012). Consequences of Increased Self-Regulated Learning Opportunities on Student Teachers' Motivation and Use of Metacognitive Skills.Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(8), 12-23.
Data source: Dialnet