Validación de una Escala para la Evaluación Trabajos de Fin de Titulación en la universidad

  1. María Consuelo Sáiz Manzanares 1
  2. María Begoña Prieto Moreno 1
  3. Francisco Javier Hoyuelos Álvaro 1
  4. Jose María Cámara Nebreda 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Burgos
    info

    Universidad de Burgos

    Burgos, España

    ROR https://ror.org/049da5t36

Journal:
Electronic journal of research in educational psychology

ISSN: 1696-2095

Year of publication: 2019

Volume: 17

Issue: 47

Pages: 169-192

Type: Article

DOI: 10.25115/EJREP.V17I47.2002 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Electronic journal of research in educational psychology

Metrics

Cited by

  • Scopus Cited by: 0 (16-03-2023)

SCImago Journal Rank

  • Year 2019
  • SJR Journal Impact: 0.29
  • Best Quartile: Q3
  • Area: Developmental and Educational Psychology Quartile: Q3 Rank in area: 238/355
  • Area: Education Quartile: Q3 Rank in area: 751/1544

Índice Dialnet de Revistas

  • Year 2019
  • Journal Impact: 0.880
  • Field: PSICOLOGÍA Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 23/112
  • Field: EDUCACIÓN Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 30/235

CIRC

  • Social Sciences: C

Scopus CiteScore

  • Year 2019
  • CiteScore of the Journal : 1.0
  • Area: Education Percentile: 42
  • Area: Developmental and Educational Psychology Percentile: 27

Journal Citation Indicator (JCI)

  • Year 2019
  • Journal Citation Indicator (JCI): 0.26
  • Best Quartile: Q4
  • Area: PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Quartile: Q4 Rank in area: 66/74

Abstract

Introduction. This paper analyzes a referential aspect into the Higher Education framework as well as the students ́ satisfaction with the final degree projects (FDP). Method. Therefore, a longitudinal study has been carried out during three academic years on the satisfaction of students with FDP. We have worked with 1331 students, 1014 of degree and 317 of masters distributed in 30 degrees and 23 masters. The aims of this study were: 1) Find the reliability and validity indicators of the satisfaction Scale, 2) Check if there were significant differences depending on the variables the type of studies (degree or master's de- gree) and the type of branch of knowledge, 3) Study the student improvement proposals. Results. Regarding the first objective, high reliability indicators and high validity were found (α = .87; α = .90) that were checked with a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). In relation to the second objective, significant differences were found in the satisfaction of the students depending on the degree (degree vs. masters) and the branch of knowledge in all the items of the scale, except for general satisfaction. With respect to the third objective, the indications for improvement were summarized in optimizing the planning and the tutorship. Discussion or Conclusion. So future training actions will be specified in teacher training plan that to improvement actions, as well as its follow-up in a proposal for continuous improve- ment.

Funding information

Este estudio se ha realizado con las ayudas a la traducción y difusión del Vicerrectorado de Personal Docente e investigador de la Universidad de Burgos 2018. Asimismo, agradecemos las sugerencias de los revisores que se han sumado a la calidad del manuscrito.

Bibliographic References

  • Biggs, J.B. (2005). Calidad del aprendizaje universitario. Madrid: Editorial Narcea.
  • Bol, A., Sáiz, M.C., & Pérez, M. (2013). Validación de una encuesta sobre la actividad docente en Educación Superior. Aula Abierta 2013, 41(2), 45-54. Recuperado de Link
  • Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental Design for Research. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally.
  • Cardoso, S., Santiago, R., & Sarrico, C. (2012). The impact of quality assessment in uni-versities. Portuguese students ‘perceptions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(2), 125-138. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2018.1428932
  • Feather, D., Anchor, J. R., & Cowton, C. J. (2014). Supervisors’ perceptions of the val-ue of the undergraduate dissertation. International Journal of Management Edu-cation, 12, 14–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2013.06.002
  • Gaspard, H., Wigfield, A., Jiang, Y., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., & Marsh, H.W. (2018). Dimensional comparisons: How academic track students’ achievements are related to their expectancy and value beliefs across multiple domains. Con-temporary Educational Psychology, 52, 1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.10.003.
  • Gimeno-Sacristran, J. (2008). Educar por competencias ¿qué hay de nuevo? Madrid: Morata.
  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
  • Hattie, J. (2017). Educators are not uncritical believers of a cult figure. School Leader-ship & Management, 37(4), 427-430. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2017.1343655
  • Kivistö, J. (2008). An assessment of agency theory as a framework for the government-university relationship. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4), 339-250. doi: 10.1080/13600800802383018
  • Knight, P.T. (2005). El profesorado de Educación Superior: Formación para la excelen-cia. Madrid: Narcea.
  • Marsh, H. W., y Hattie, J. (2002). The relationship between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: commentary, antagonistic or independent constructs. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 603-643. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2002.0047
  • Marsh, H. W. (2008). The elusive importance effect: More failure for the Jamesian per-spective on the importance of importance in shaping selfesteem. Journal of Per-sonality, 76, 1081–1122. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00514.x
  • Pozo, J.I., & Del Puy, M. (2009). Psicología del aprendizaje universitario: La formación en competencias. Madrid: Morata.
  • Real Decreto 1393/2007, de 29 de octubre, por el que se establece la ordenación de las enseñanzas universitarias oficiales. Texto consolidado. Recuperado de Link
  • RED-U. (2016). Actas de las jornadas TGM/TFM... ¿Cómo convertirlos en experiencias educativas de alto valor? Madrid. UNED. Recuperado de Link
  • Retna, K. S., Chong, E., & Cavana, R. Y. (2009). Tutors and tutorials: students’ percep-tions in a New Zealand university. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Man-agement, 31(3), 251-260. doi: 10.1080/13600800902974336
  • Sáiz, M.C., Bol, A., & Payo, R.J. (2014). Validación de una Escala de Evaluación de Tareas de Tutoría en la Universidad. Electronic Journal of Research in Educa-tional Psychology, 12(3), 835-852. doi: 10.14204/ejrep.34.14027
  • Sáiz, M.C., Bol, A., Payo, R.J. (2014). Validation of an Evaluation Tutoring Task Scale at the University. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 12(3), 835-852. doi: 10.14204/ejrep.34.14027
  • Sáiz, M. C., & Payo, R. J. (2012). Autopercepción del conocimiento en Educación Supe-rior. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 3(2), 159-174. Recuperado de Link
  • Sáiz, M.C., Montero, E., Bol, A., & Carbonero, M.A. (2012). An Analysis of Learning to Learning Competences at the University. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 10(1), 253-270. Recuperado de Link
  • Vera, J., & Briones, E. (2015). «Students’ perspectives on the processes of supervision and assessment of undergraduate dissertations / Perspectiva del alumnado de los procesos de tutorización y evaluación de los trabajos de fin de grado». Cultura y Educación, 27(4), 726-765. doi: 10.1080/11356405.2015.1089391