Validación de un cuestionario para la evaluación de la interacción en la enseñanza universitaria

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.authorAlvarez-Alvarez, Carmenes_ES
dc.contributor.authorSánchez-Ruiz, Lidiaes_ES
dc.contributor.authorSarabia Cobo, Carmenes_ES
dc.contributor.authorMontoya-del Corte, Javieres_ES
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-14T09:30:41Z
dc.date.available2022-07-14T09:30:41Z
dc.date.issued2022-06-30
dc.description.abstract[EN] Although  interaction  in  the  teaching-learning process is a widely researched phenomenon, there are no instruments to measure it at the university level. With this in mind, this article aims to validate the questionnaire Instrument for Measuring Interaction in Higher Education (IMIHE) , which  consists  of  35  Likert-type  items. The validation has been carried out with a sample of 2,170 university students of different Official Degrees and Masters of all  academic  years  in  a  University  in  the  north of Spain According to our results, the questionnaire has shown good properties and  good  reliability  measures  in  seven key factors. It can be concluded that the IMIHE is a tool that contributes to initiate and improve the evaluation of interaction processes  in  university  teaching.  We consider  it  to  be  a  useful  instrument  both  for faculty, as a self-assessment tool, and for universities as a whole as a general diagnostic tool to foster interaction in their classrooms.en_EN
dc.description.abstract[ES] A pesar de que la interacción en los procesos de enseñanza-aprendizaje es un fenómeno muy investigado, en el ámbito universitario no existen instrumentos para medirla. Teniendo esto en cuenta, este artículo tiene como objetivo validar el cuestionario "Instrumento de Medición de la Interacción en la Educación Superior (cuestionario IMIES)", que consta de 35 ítems tipo Likert. La validación se ha realizado con una muestra de 2.170 estudiantes universitarios de diferentes Grados y Másteres Oficiales de todos los cursos académicos en una Universidad del norte de España Según nuestros resultados, el cuestionario ha mostrado buenas propiedades y buenas medidas de fiabilidad en siete factores clave. Se puede concluir que el IMIES es una herramienta que contribuye a iniciar y mejorar la evaluación de los procesos de interacción en la enseñanza universitaria. Consideramos que es un instrumento útil tanto para el profesorado, como herramienta de autoevaluación, como para las universidades en su conjunto como herramienta de diagnóstico general para fomentar la interacción en sus aulas.es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethodOJSes_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitationAlvarez-Alvarez, C.; Sánchez-Ruiz, L.; Sarabia Cobo, C.; Montoya-Del Corte, J. (2022). Validación de un cuestionario para la evaluación de la interacción en la enseñanza universitaria. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria. 20(1):145-160. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2022.15918es_ES
dc.description.issue1es_ES
dc.description.referencesÁlvarez-Álvarez, C., Vejo-Sainz, R. (2017). ¿ Cómo se sitúan las escuelas españolas del medio rural ante la innovación? Un estudio exploratorio mediante entrevistas. Aula abierta, 45(1), 25-32.es_ES
dc.description.referencesÁlvarez-Álvarez, C., Sánchez-Ruiz, L., Ruthven, A., Montoya, J. (2019). Innovating in University Teaching Through Classroom Interaction. Journal of Education, Innovation, and Communication, 1(1), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.34097/jeicom_1_1_1es_ES
dc.description.referencesAlves, C, Mercuri, E, Da Silva, L. (2011). Escala de Interação com Pares: construção e evidências de validade para estudantes do ensino superior. Psico-USF, 16(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-82712011000100003es_ES
dc.description.referencesBai, Y, Chang, T.S. (2016). Effects of class size and attendance policy on university classroom interaction in Taiwan. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(3): 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.997776es_ES
dc.description.referencesBaudrit, A. (2012). Being a tutor of nursing students today: A sustainable and complex mission? Recherche en soins infirmiers, (4), 6-12. https://doi.org/10.3917/rsi.111.0006es_ES
dc.description.referencesBoden, K.K., Zepeda, C.D., Nokes-Malach, T.J. (2020). Achievement goals and conceptual learning: An examination of teacher talk. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(6), 1221. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000421es_ES
dc.description.referencesCarr, R. (2015). Active learning: The importance of developing a comprehensive measure. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(3), 173-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415589529es_ES
dc.description.referencesDe Longhi, A.L., Ferreyra, H.A., Peme, C. (2012). La interacción comunicativa en clases de ciencias naturales. Un análisis didáctico a través de circuitos discursivos. Revista Eureka sobre enseñanza y divulgación de las ciencias, 9(2), 178-195.es_ES
dc.description.referencesDuschl, R., Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187es_ES
dc.description.referencesDwyer, T. (2015). Persistence in higher education through student–faculty interactions in the classroom of a commuter institution. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 325-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1112297es_ES
dc.description.referencesFusco, E. (2012) Effective Questioning Strategies in the Classroom: A Step-by-Step Approach to Engaged Thinking and Learning, K-8. New York: Teachers College Press.es_ES
dc.description.referencesGauci, S.A., Dantas, A.M., Williams, D.A., Kemm, R.E. (2009). Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advances in Physiology Education, 33(1), 60-71. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00109.2007es_ES
dc.description.referencesHartikainen, S., Rintala, H., Pylväs, L., Nokelainen, P. (2019). The concept of active learning and the measurement of learning outcomes: A review of research in engineering higher education. Education Sciences, 9(4), 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276es_ES
dc.description.referencesHaneda, M., Teemant, A., Sherman, B. (2016). Instructional coaching through dialogic interaction: helping a teacher to become agentive in her practice. Language and education, 31(1), 46-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2016.1230127es_ES
dc.description.referencesHattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers. Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203181522es_ES
dc.description.referencesHardman, J. (2015). Tutor–student interaction in seminar teaching: Implications for professional development. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415616728es_ES
dc.description.referencesHeaslip, G., Donovan, P., Cullen, J.G. (2013). Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413514648es_ES
dc.description.referencesHowe, C., 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.2013.786024es_ES
dc.description.referencesLaudadío, J., Mazzitelli, C. (2018). Adaptation and validation of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction in Higher Education. Interdisciplinaria, 35(1), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2018.35.1.8es_ES
dc.description.referencesMajlesi, A.R., Broth, M. (2012). Emergent learnables in second language classroom interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(3–4), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LCSI.2012.08.004es_ES
dc.description.referencesMatthews, K., Dwyer, A., Hine, L., Turner, J. (2018). Conceptions of students as partners. Higher Education, 76, 957-971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0257-yes_ES
dc.description.referencesMcCoy, L., Pettit, R.K., Kellar, C., Morgan, C. (2018). Tracking active learning in the medical school curriculum: a learning-centered approach. Journal of medical education and curricular development, 5, https://doi.org/10.1177/2382120518765135.es_ES
dc.description.referencesMicari, M., Pazos, P. (2014). Worrying about what others think: A social-comparison concern intervention in small learning groups. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(3), 249-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787414544874es_ES
dc.description.referencesMoliní, F., Sánchez, D. (2019). To encourage the participation in class of university students and evaluate it as objectively as possible. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 17(1), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2019.10702es_ES
dc.description.referencesOrona, G.A., Li, Q., McPartlan, P., Bartek, C., Xu, D. (2022). What predicts the use of interaction-oriented pedagogies? The role of self-efficacy, motivation, and employment stability. Computers & Education, 184, 104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104498es_ES
dc.description.referencesPielmeier, M., Huber, S., Seidel, T. (2018). Is teacher judgment accuracy of students’ characteristics beneficial for verbal teacher-student interactions in classroom?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 255-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.01.002es_ES
dc.description.referencesRoberts, D. (2019). Higher education lectures: From passive to active learning via imagery? Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731198es_ES
dc.description.referencesRubie-Davies, C.M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high- and low-expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational psychology, 77(2), 289-306. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X101601es_ES
dc.description.referencesScott, P.H., Mortimer, E.F., Aguiar, O.G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school. Science Education, 90(4), 605-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131es_ES
dc.description.referencesSteen-Utheima, A., Wittekb, A.L. (2017). Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 15, 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.06.002es_ES
dc.description.referencesStockero, S.L., Rupnow, R.L., Pascoe, A.E. (2017). Learning to notice important student mathematical thinking in complex classroom interactions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 384-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.006es_ES
dc.description.referencesTronchoni, H., Izquierdo, C., Anguera, M.T. (2018). Interacción participativa en las clases magistrales: fundamentación y construcción de un instrumento de observación. Publicaciones, 48(1), 81-108. https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.v48i1.7331es_ES
dc.description.referencesTan, Y.J., Gwendoline, C.L., Fulmer, G. (2019). Validation of Classroom Teacher Interaction Skills Scale. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 28(5), 429-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00444-6es_ES
dc.description.referencesVercellotti, M.L. (2018). Do interactive learning spaces increase student achievement? A comparison of classroom context. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735606es_ES
dc.description.referencesWells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a socio-cultural practice and theory of education. UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605895es_ES
dc.description.referencesWong, W.H., Chapman, E. (2022). Student satisfaction and interaction in higher education. Higher Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00874-0es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipUniversidad de Cantabriaes_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin160es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio145es_ES
dc.description.volume20es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.4995/redu.2022.15918
dc.identifier.eissn1887-4592
dc.identifier.urihttps://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/184148
dc.languageEspañoles_ES
dc.publisherUniversitat Politècnica de Valènciaes_ES
dc.relation.ispartofREDU. Revista de Docencia Universitariaes_ES
dc.relation.pasarelaOJS\15918es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2022.15918es_ES
dc.relation.references10.17811/rifie.45.2017.25-32es_ES
dc.relation.references10.34097/jeicom_1_1_1es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1590/S1413-82712011000100003es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/14703297.2014.997776es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3917/rsi.111.0006es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1037/edu0000421es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/1469787415589529es_ES
dc.relation.references10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2012.v9.i2.02es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/03057260208560187es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/14703297.2015.1112297es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1152/advan.00109.2007es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3390/educsci9040276es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/09500782.2016.1230127es_ES
dc.relation.references10.4324/9780203181522es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/1469787415616728es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/1469787413514648es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024es_ES
dc.relation.references10.16888/interd.2018.35.1.8es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.08.004es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s10734-018-0257-yes_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/2382120518765135es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/1469787414544874es_ES
dc.relation.references10.4995/redu.2019.10702es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104498es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.tate.2018.01.002es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/1469787417731198es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1348/000709906X101601es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1002/sce.20131es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.06.002es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.006es_ES
dc.relation.references10.30827/publicaciones.v48i1.7331es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s40299-019-00444-6es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/1469787417735606es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1017/CBO9780511605895es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s10734-022-00874-0es_ES
dc.rightsReconocimiento - No comercial - Sin obra derivada (by-nc-nd)es_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsAbiertoes_ES
dc.subjectInteractiones_ES
dc.subjectUniversityes_ES
dc.subjectStudentes_ES
dc.subjectQuestionnairees_ES
dc.subjectValidationes_ES
dc.subjectInteracciónes_ES
dc.subjectUniversidades_ES
dc.subjectEstudiantees_ES
dc.subjectCuestionarioes_ES
dc.subjectValidaciónes_ES
dc.titleValidación de un cuestionario para la evaluación de la interacción en la enseñanza universitariaes_ES
dc.title.alternativeValidation of a questionnaire to interaction assessment in university teachinges_ES
dc.typeArtículoes_ES
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_ES
dspace.entity.typePublication
upv.uuid2eaabec1-a0dd-4e6e-8dfa-545861b02e97es_ES

Archivos

Bloque original

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
REDU_20-1_15918 Validacion de un cuestionario.pdf
Tamaño:
632.95 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
[object Object] Descargar

Colecciones

REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria - Vol 20, No 1 (2022)