Fomentar la participación en clase de los estudiantes universitarios y evaluarla

  1. Moliní Fernández, Fernando 1
  2. Sánchez-González, Diego 1
  1. 1 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01cby8j38

Journal:
REDU: Revista de Docencia Universitaria

ISSN: 1696-1412,  1887-4592

Year of publication: 2019

Volume: 17

Issue: 1

Type: Article

DOI: 10.4995/REDU.2019.10702 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: REDU: Revista de Docencia Universitaria

Abstract

The objective of this research is to analyze a system the aim of which is to encourage the participation of students based on critical reflection. The method consists mainly of presenting material in the classroom to be constructively criticized by the students and assigning the task of noting down the participation by at least two randomly selected students. It is a relatively objective system of evaluating participation. The methodology is based on a mixed method, qualitative-quantitative.Participant observation together with a survey of 507 students was used, with a response rate of 55% of the students. 66% consider that students’ critical capacity must be developed in a high or very high degree (compared to 9% in low or very low degree) and 51% agree in a high o very high degree with the rotating system of recording the student’s participation in class (compared to 19% in a low or very low degree). There is a significant association between the size of the class group and the grade obtained in participation (r = -0.96), with worse scores in the most numerous groups. It is surprising that students with low participation (from 0 to 3 interventions) are the most numerous group, with 42.2%. It reflects that the method has excluded or almost excluded a very high percentage of students. If you add the average and high participation, the method works more or less well for a majority of students, the 58.2%, but we must make the maximum effort to integrate the large group of excluded people.

Bibliographic References

  • Álvarez, C. (2017). ¿Es interactiva la enseñanza en la Educación Superior? La perspectiva del alumnado. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 15(2), 97-112. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2017.6075
  • Álvarez, V., Padilla, M. T., Rodríguez, J., Torres, J. J. y Suárez, M. (2011). Análisis de la participación del alumnado universitario en la evaluación de su aprendizaje. Revista Española de Pedagogía, LXIX(250), 410-426.
  • Arguedas, E., Núñez, L., Torres, R., Vásquez, A. C. y Vargas, C. A. (2008). La participación en el aula escolar rural: un reto para la transformación. Revista Educare, XII (163-169), 42-58.
  • Auster, C. J. y MacRone, M. (1994). The classroom as a negotiated social setting: An empirical study of the effects of faculty members’ behavior on students’ participation. Teaching Sociology, 22, 289-300. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318921.
  • Brockbank, A. y McGill, I. (2008). Aprendizaje reflexivo en la educación superior. Madrid: Morata.
  • Brady, K. L. y Eisler, R. M. (1999). Sex and gender in the college classroom: A quantitative analysis of faculty student interactions and perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 127-145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-663.91.1.127
  • Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K. y Beyth-Marom, R. (2006). The influence of personality on social participation in learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.003
  • Cáceres, P. A. y Conejeros, M. L. (2011). Efecto de un modelo de metodología centrada en el aprendizaje sobre el pensamiento crítico, el pensamiento creativo y la capacidad de resolución de problemas en estudiantes con talento académico. Revista Española de Pedagogía, LXIX(248), 39-56.
  • Cobo, C. (2016) La innovación pendiente. Reflexiones (y provocaciones) sobre educación, tecnología y conocimiento. Colección Fundación Ceibal/Debate: Montevideo.
  • Cornelius, R., Gray, J. M. y Constantin, A. P. (1990). Student faculty interaction in the college classroom. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23, 189-197.
  • Crombie, G., Pyke, S. W., Silverthorn, N., Jones, A. y Piccinin, S. (2003). Students’ perceptions of their classroom participation and instructor as function of gender and context. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5064994
  • Denniston, M. M., Brener, N. D., Kann, L., Eaton, D. K., McManus, T. M., Kyle, T. M., Roberts, A. M., Flint, K. H. y Ross, J. G. (2010). Comparison of paper-and-pencil versus web administration of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS): participation, data quality, and perceived privacy and anonymity. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1054-1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.006
  • Eliassona, N., Sørensenb, H. y Göran, K. (2016). Teacher–student interaction in contemporary science classrooms: is participation still a question of gender? International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1655-1672. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1213457.
  • Fan, W. y Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: a systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 132-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015.
  • Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’ contributions to students’ silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 82-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1995.11774758
  • Fernández, M. y Alcaraz, N. (2016). Proyedu2: la participación y la democracia son posibles en la formación de docentes. En M. Fernández y N. Alcaraz (coords.), Innovación educativa. Más allá de la ficción (pp. 189-205). Madrid: Pirámide.
  • Fullana, J., Pallisera, M., Palaudàrias, J. M. y Badosa, M. (2014). El desarrollo personal y profesional mediante el aprendizaje reflexivo. Una experiencia en el grado de Educación Social. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 12(1), 373-397. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2014.6413
  • Galvin, S. M., Dolly, M. R. y Pula, J. J. (2013). Genderlect and participation in the college English classroom. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 79(2), 22-30.
  • Gargallo, B., Garfella, P. R., Sahuquillo, P. M., Verde, I. y Jiménez, M. A. (2015). Métodos centrados en el aprendizaje, estrategias y enfoques de aprendizaje en estudiantes universitarios. Revista de Educación, 370, 229-254. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-370-304.
  • Garrote, D., Garrote, C. y Jiménez, S. (2016). Factores influyentes en motivación y estrategias de aprendizaje en los alumnos de grado. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 14(2), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2016.14.2.002
  • Giné, N. (2009). Cómo mejorar la docencia universitaria: el punto de vista del estudiantado. Revista Complutense de Educación, 20(1) 117-134.
  • Grøver, V. (2008). Boys’ and girls’ conversational participation across four grade levels in Norwegian classrooms: taking the floor or being given the floor? Gender & Education. 20(3), 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250802000413
  • Gilles, R. M. (2014). Developments in classroom-based talk. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.05.002
  • Gillies, R. M. (2016). Dialogic interactions in the cooperative classroom. International Journal of Educational Research 76, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.009
  • Howard, J. R., Zoeller, A. y Pratt, Y. (2006). Students’ race and participation in classroom discussion in introductory sociology: a preliminary investigation. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6, 14-38.
  • Howe, C. y Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325–356. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024.
  • Huang, H. M. (2006). Do print and web surveys provide the same results? Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 334-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.09.012
  • Jagger, S. (2013). Affective learning and the classroom debate. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(1), 38-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.746515
  • Jiménez, E. (2010). Análisis del factor género y las estrategias conversacionales en el aula universitaria. Alfinge, 22, 143-164.
  • Khan, F. N., Ahmad, S. M., Ahmad, N. P. (2014). The interplay between gender and student classroom participation: a case study of University of Swat. Humanities & Social Sciences. 21(2), 41-50.
  • Kittleson, M. J. y Brown, S. L. (2005). E-mail versus web survey response rates among health education professionals. American Journal of Health Studies, 20(1), 7-14.
  • Koss, M. D. y Williams, C. A. (2018). All American Boys, #BlackLivesMatter, and Socratic Seminar to Promote Productive Dialogue in the Classroom. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 46(2), 3-15.
  • Linz, W. y Van Ryzing, G. G. (2012). Web and mail surveys: an experimental comparison of methods for nonprofit research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 1014-1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011423840
  • López, F. (2005). Metodología participativa en la enseñanza universitaria. Madrid: Narcea.
  • Maneu, V., López, D., Campello, L., Formigós, J. A., Bellot, J. L. y García, C. (2016). Análisis crítico de la implementación de actividades en el aula distintas a la clase magistral. En M. T. Tortosa; S. Grau y J. D. Álvarez (coords.), Investigación, innovación y enseñanza universitaria: enfoques pluridisciplinares. XIV Jornadas de Redes de Investigación Universitaria. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
  • Mateo, E., Díez, M. D. y Menchen, F. (1983). Cómo fomentar la creatividad en la familia, en la escuela. Madrid: Marsiega.
  • Medina, J. L., Cruz, L. y Jarauta, B. (2016). La dimensión dialógico-reflexiva del conocimiento didáctico del contenido en la docencia universitaria. Revista de Educación, 374, 69-93. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2016-374-326
  • Mercer, N. (2008). Classroom dialogue and the teacher’s professional role. Education Review, 21(1), 60-65.
  • Mercer, N. y Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
  • Morell, T. (2009). ¿Cómo podemos fomentar la participación en nuestras clases universitarias? Alcoy: Marfil.
  • Murphy, L., Eduljee, N. B., Parkman, S. y Croteau, K. (2018). Gender differences in teaching and classroom participation methods: a pilot study. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 13(2), 307-319. https://doi.org/10.32381/JPR.2018.13.02.5
  • Nunn, C. E. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom: triangulating observational and survey results. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(3), 243-266. https://doi.org/10.2307/2943844.
  • Pearson, J. y West, R. (1991). An initial investigation of the effects of gender on student questions in the classroom: developing a descriptive base. Communication Education, 40, 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529109378823
  • Pérez, Á. (2008). ¿Competencias o pensamiento práctico? La construcción de los significados de representación y de acción. En J. Jimeno (coord.), Educar por competencias, ¿qué hay de nuevo? (pp. 59-102). Madrid: Morata.
  • Rau, W. y Heyl, B. S. (1990). Humanizing the college classroom: collaborative learning and social organization among students. Teaching Sociology, 18, 141-155. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318484.
  • Richardson, S. y Radloff, A. (2014). Allies in learning: critical insights into the importance of staff–student interactions in university education. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 603-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901960.
  • Roso-Bas, F., Ferrer-Pérez, V. A. y Pades-Jiménez, A. (2017). Competencia comunicativa: validación de una escala para evaluar la comunicación no verbal durante el discurso. Estudios sobre Educación, 32, 95-113. https://doi.org/10.15581/004.32.95-113
  • Saiz, C. y Fernández, S. (2012) Pensamiento crítico y aprendizaje basado en problemas cotidianos. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 10(3), 325-346. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2012.6026
  • Sedova, K., Salamounova, Z. y Svaricek, R. (2014). Troubles with dialogic teaching. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3, 274-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.04.001
  • Serrano, J. (2012). Aplicación on-line y tratamiento informático de cuestionarios. Revista Española de Pedagogía, LXX(251), 61-76.
  • Shih, T.-H. y Fan, X. (2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: a meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 4, 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.01.003
  • Tatum, H. E., Schwartz, B. M., Schimmoeller, P. A. y Perry, N. (2013). Classroom participation and student-faculty interactions: does gender matter? The Journal of Higher Education, 84(6), 745-768. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2013.11777309
  • Tourón, J. y Santiago, R. (2015). El modelo flipped learning y el desarrollo del talento en la escuela. Revista de Educación, 368, 196-231. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-368-288
  • Trujillo, J. M., Hinojo, F. J. y Aznar, I. (2011). Propuestas de trabajo innovadoras y colaborativas e-learning 2.0 como demanda de la sociedad del conocimiento. Estudios sobre Educación, 20, 141-159.
  • Ventosa, V. J. (2004). Métodos activos y técnicas de participación para educadores y formadores. Madrid: CCS.
  • Ventosa, V. J. (2016). Didáctica de la participación. Teoría, metodología y práctica. Madrid: Narcea.
  • Wells, W., Cavanaugh, M. R., Bouffard, J. A. y Nobles, M. R. (2011). Non-response bias with a web-based survey of college students: differences from a classroom survey about carrying concealed guns. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28, 455-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-011-9148-4
  • Xhemajli, A. (2016). The role of the teacher in interactive teaching. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 4(1), 31-37. https://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE1601031X
Data source: Dialnet