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

Carmen Alvarez-Alvarez; Lidia Sánchez-Ruiz; Carmen Sarabia Cobo; Javier Montoya-del Corte

doi:10.4995/redu.2022.15918

Autores/as

Carmen Alvarez-Alvarez Universidad de Cantabria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8160-2286
Lidia Sánchez-Ruiz Universidad de Cantabria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8386-5952
Carmen Sarabia Cobo Universidad de Cantabria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7929-4042
Javier Montoya-del Corte Universidad de Cantabria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5630-1545

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2022.15918

Palabras clave:

Interacción, universidad, estudiante, cuestionario, validación.

Resumen

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.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Carmen Alvarez-Alvarez, Universidad de Cantabria

Facultad de Educación

Lidia Sánchez-Ruiz, Universidad de Cantabria

Business and Management Department. IDIVAL.Research Group of Health Economics and Health Service

Javier Montoya-del Corte, Universidad de Cantabria

Department of Business Administration

Citas

Álvarez-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.

Álvarez-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_1

Alves, 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/S1413-82712011000100003

Bai, 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/10.1080/14703297.2014.997776

Baudrit, 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.111.0006

Boden, 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/edu0000421

Carr, R. (2015). Active learning: The importance of developing a comprehensive measure. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(3), 173-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415589529

De 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.

Duschl, R., Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187

Dwyer, 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/10.1080/14703297.2015.1112297

Fusco, 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.

Gauci, 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.00109.2007

Hartikainen, 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/educsci9040276

Haneda, 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/10.1080/09500782.2016.1230127

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers. Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203181522

Hardman, J. (2015). Tutor–student interaction in seminar teaching: Implications for professional development. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415616728

Heaslip, 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/10.1177/1469787413514648

Howe, 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.2013.786024

Laudadío, 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.2018.35.1.8

Majlesi, 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.2012.08.004

Matthews, 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-y

McCoy, 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.

Micari, 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/10.1177/1469787414544874

Moliní, 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.2019.10702

Orona, 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.2022.104498

Pielmeier, 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.2018.01.002

Roberts, D. (2019). Higher education lectures: From passive to active learning via imagery? Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731198

Rubie-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/10.1348/000709906X101601

Scott, 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.20131

Steen-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.2017.06.002

Stockero, 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.2017.01.006

Tronchoni, 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.v48i1.7331

Tan, 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/s40299-019-00444-6

Vercellotti, 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/10.1177/1469787417735606

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a socio-cultural practice and theory of education. UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605895

Wong, W.H., Chapman, E. (2022). Student satisfaction and interaction in higher education. Higher Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00874-0