Validación de un instrumento para evaluar metodologías de enseñanza con Student Response Systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v28i2.29637Keywords:
higher education, cooperative learning, Wooclap, validationAbstract
The effectiveness of cooperative learning techniques for teaching has been widely discussed and demonstrated over the years, as has the use of Student Response Systems such as Wooclap. The present work describes the process of construction and psychometric study of the “Questionnaire to evaluate teaching methodologies with SRS”, designed to collect information on the effects that the combination of both resources generates in the classroom climate, learning and the evaluation process of university students; Its importance lies in the lack of a reliable instrument for its measurement, especially in the case of the Wooclap tool. The instrument was designed ad hoc, and is based on a Likert scale (1-5) that goes from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (5) in the dimensions: Classroom climate, Learning and Evaluation through technological tool. To analyze its properties, two descriptive studies have been carried out by cross-sectional survey, involving 187 students in the first and 354 in the second of the Degree in Early Childhood Education. The data collected were subjected to a study of its factor structure and internal consistency through an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, as well as a correlational analysis. The results obtained show high goodness-of-fit indices and Cronbach's Alpha coefficient, which allows us to confirm the reliability and consistency of the instrument to collect information on the effects of combining cooperative learning teaching methodologies with SRS for student teaching-learning processes.
Downloads
References
Alfares, N. (2020). The effect of using a self-regulated jigsaw task on female students’ performance in the course of curriculum reading in english at umm al-qura university in Saudi Arabia. Arab World English Journal, 11(4), 519-533. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no4.33
Álvarez-Fuentes, J. & Martín-Banderas, L. (2022). Utilización de" Wooclap" para fomentar la participación en clase y evaluar el seguimiento del proceso enseñanza-aprendizaje. In Edunovatic 2022. Conference Proceedings: 7th Virtual International Conference on Education, Innovation and ICT, December 14-15, 2022 (pp. 386-388). REDINE (Red de Investigación e Innovación Educativa).
Arias, B. (2008). Desarrollo de un ejemplo de análisis factorial confirmatorio con LISREL, AMOS y SAS. En M. A. Verdugo, M. Crespo, M. Badía y B. Arias Ed.), Metodología en la investigación sobre discapacidad (pp. 75-120). INICO.
Aronson, E. & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Buildings cooperation in the classroom. Longman
Baken, E. K., Adams, D. C. & Rentz, M. S. (2022). Jigsaw method improves learning and retention for observation-based undergraduate biology laboratory activities. Journal of Biological Education, 56(3), 317-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1796757
Braçe-Diko, O. & Garrido-Cumbrera, M. (2022). Utilización de herramientas tecnológicas de dinamización docente en educación superior de asignaturas de geografía. Geosaberes, 13, 178-185. https://doi.org/10.26895/geosaberes.v13i0.1315
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. LEA.
Byrne, M. (2005). Factor analytic models: viewing the structure of an assessment Instrument From three perspectives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(1), 17-32. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8501_02
Campo-Arias, A. & Oviedo H. C. (2008). Propiedades psicométricas de una escala: la consistencia interna. Revista de Salud Pública, 10, 831-839. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=42210515
Catalina-García, B. & García Galera, M. C. (2022). Innovación y herramientas hi-tech en la docencia del periodismo. El caso de Wooclap. Doxa Comunicación, (34), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.31921/doxacom.n34a1141
Chang, W. L. & Benson, V. (2020). Jigsaw teaching method for collaboration on cloud platforms. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(1), 24-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1792332
Costelo, A. B. & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory Factor Análisis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your análisis. Practical Assesment, research and evaluation, 10(7), 1-9. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol10/iss1/7
Flora, D. B., LaBrish, C. & Chalmers, R. P. (2012). Old and new ideas for data screening and assumption testing for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, 3 (55), 1-21. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2012.00055
Fuller, J. S. & Dawson, K.M. (2017). Student response systems for formative assessment: Literature-based strategies and findings from a middle school implementation. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 8(4), 370–389. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6206
Gavilán, P. & Alario, R. (2010). Aprendizaje cooperativo. Una metodología con futuro. Principios y aplicaciones. CCS.
Hernández Lalinde, J. D., Espinosa Castro, F., Rodríguez, J. E., Chacón Rangel, J. G., Toloza Sierra, C. A., Arena Torrado, M. K., Carrillo Sierra, S. M. & Bermúdez Pirela, V. J. (2018). Sobre el uso adecuado del coeficiente de correlación de Pearson: definición, propiedades y suposiciones. Archivos venezolanos de Farmacología y Terapéutica, 37(5), 587-595. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/559/55963207025/55963207025.pdf
Herrada, R. I., Baños, R. & Alcayde, A. (2020). Student response systems: a multidisciplinary analysis using visual analytics. Education Science, 10(12), 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10120348
Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(H1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Iranzo, P. I. (2022). Caracterización y aplicación docente de la plataforma Wooclap. En Actas del Congreso Internacional Virtual USATIC 2022, Ubicuo y Social: Aprendizaje con TIC (p. 59). Servicio de Publicaciones
Kolhekar, S. P., Alone, A. S., Bendle, S. S., Bhasme, A. S., Bhoge, R. S. & Bhoyar, K. (2020). A Study to Assess the Effectiveness of the Jigsaw Reading Technique in Improving the Reading Skills among High School Children. Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research, 14(12), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2020/44790.14303
Lorenzo–Seva, U. (2000). The weighted oblimin rotation. Psychometrika, 65(3), 301-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296148
Marin, J., Brichler, S., Lecuyer, H., Carbonnelle, E. & Lescat, M. (2021). Feedback from medical and biology students on distance learning: focus on a useful interactive software, wooclap. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(2), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211023383
Merino-Soto, C. (2016). Diferencias entre coeficientes alfa de Cronbach, con muestras y partes pequeñas: Un programa VB. Anales de Psicología, 32(2), 587-588. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.2.203841
Moreno-Medina, I., Peñas-Garzón, M., Belver, C. & Bedia, J. (2023). Wooclap for improving student achievement and motivation in the Chemical Engineering Degree. Education for Chemical Engineers, 45, 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2023.07.003
Moreno-Rodríguez, N., Valdivia, V., Recio, R. & Vega-Holm, M. (2023). Uso de herramientas activas para dinamizar el aula y mejorar el aprendizaje en la asignatura de Química Orgánica I. RESCIFAR. Revista Española de Ciencias Farmacéuticas, 4(1), 50-58.
Nolan, J. M., Hanley, B. G., DiVietri, T. P. & Harvey, N. A. (2018). She who teaches learns: Performance benefits of a jigsaw activity in a college classroom. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(2), 93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/stl0000110
Otzen, T. & Manterola, C. (2017). Técnicas de Muestreo sobre una Población a Estudio. International Journal of Morphology, 35(1), 227-232. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022017000100037
Ramírez, M. Á. R. & Perales, M. D. C. M. (2023). Aplicación de actividades colaborativas en los seminarios de Farmacología y Farmacoterapia III y Farmacia Clínica. RESCIFAR. Revista Española de Ciencias Farmacéuticas, 4(1), 74-78. https://hdl.handle.net/11441/155714
Reverte, Ó. C. & Férez, P. G. (2023). Rivalizar o no: análisis del modo competición de Wooclap basado en rendimiento y procesamiento de audio. Actas de las Jenui, 8, 65-72. http://hdl.handle.net/10045/136978
Rodríguez Calzada, L. (2021). El aprendizaje de nuevas metodologías innovadoras empleadas en tiempos de covid-19. Journal of Management and Business Education, 4(3), 338-353. https://doi.org/10.35564/jmbe.2021.0018
Rostan, C., Cañabate, D., González, M., Albertín, P. & Pérez, M. (2015). Una herramienta para evaluar el clima social del aula en entornos universitarios. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 13(2), 387-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.36.14075
Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology press.
Soto Martínez, G., Martínez-Saura, H. F., & Sánchez-López, M. C. (2022). Motivación de estudiantes universitarios a través de Wooclap. En Educar para transformar: Innovación pedagógica, calidad y TIC en contextos formativos (pp. 2121-2127). Dykinson.
Timmerman, M. E. & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality Assessment of Ordered Polytomous Items with Parallel Analysis. Psychological Methods, 16, 209-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353
Uppal, V. & Uppal, N. (2020). Flipped jigsaw activity as a small group peer‐assisted teaching learning tool in Biochemistry Department among Indian Medical Graduate: An experimental study. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 48(4), 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21355
Wooclap (2023). Wooclap. Presentaciones interactivas para clases memorables. https://www.wooclap.com/es/
