Educación mejorada por computadora: 20 años de esperanzas frustradas
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v11i5.28181Palabras clave:
Tecnologias da informação e comunicação; Sistemas de gestão de aprendizagem; Ensino superior.Resumen
Este artículo tiene como objetivo presentar las condiciones involucradas en el uso de Learning Management Systems (LMS) en la Universidad de Borås (UB), Suecia, específicamente en los años 2004, 2009, 2010 y 2018, destacando patrones que caracterizan las rutinas adoptadas por los docentes. Utilizando enfoques cuantitativos y cualitativos, la investigación exploratoria implicó el análisis de cursos en el área STEM (Ciencias, Tecnología, Ingeniería y Matemáticas). Además de un análisis general de los respectivos cursos, se aplicó un cuestionario a 76 docentes y 926 estudiantes de dichos cursos. El patrón de uso se analiza por medio de una clasificación de herramientas en cuatro grupos; herramientas de distribución, herramientas de comunicación, herramientas de interacción y herramientas de gestión de cursos. Los resultados confirman que el LMS es más ampliamente utilizado para distribuir documentos a los estudiantes, mientras que las herramientas que facilitan la interacción y la colaboración se usan con moderación y ese patrón es consistente a lo largo del tiempo. A pesar de un aumento en el uso total de LMS, no hay aumento en la utilización de herramientas digitales para interacción en la Educación Superior, indicando la importancia de promover una amplia utilización de métodos colaborativos y a incentivar la interacción.
Citas
Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. Education, 34(3), 243-257.
Anderson, T. & Kanuka, H. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction.
Baragash, R. & Al-Samarraie, H. (2018). Blended learning: Investigating the influence of engagement in multiple learning delivery modes on students’ performance. Telematics and Informatics, 35. 10.1016/j.tele.2018.07.010.
Beach, D. (2013). Changing higher education: converging policy-packages and experiences of changing academic work in Sweden. Journal of Education Policy, 28(4), 517-533.
Berg, E., Barry, J. & Chandler, J. (2017). The New Public Management and Higher Education: A Human Cost? (pp. 161-175).
Bickle, M. (2018). Student-to-Student Interaction: Humanizing the Online Classroom Using Technology and Group Assignments.
Blin, F. & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn't technology disrupted academics' teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Comput. Educ., 50(2), 475-490. 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.017.
Bologna Declaration. (1999). Towards the European Higher European Area: Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education in 29 European countries (June), Bologna, Italy.
Bongalos, Y. Q., Bulaon, D. D. R., de Celedonio, L. P., de Guzman, A. B. & Ogarte, C. J. F. (2006). University teachers' experiences in courseware development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 695-704.
Boulton, G. & Lucas, C. (2011). What Are Universities For? Chinese Science Bulletin, 56, 2506-2517. 10.1007/s11434-011-4608-7.
Broucker, B., De Wit, K. & Leisyte, L. (2016). Higher Education System Reform: A Systematic Comparison of Ten Countries from a New Public Management Perspective (pp. 19-40).
Broucker, B., De Wit, K. & Verhoeven, J. (2018). Higher education for public value: taking the debate beyond New Public Management. Higher Education Research and Development, 37, 227-240. 10.1080/07294360.2017.1370441.
Bush, M. D. & Mott, J. D. (2009). The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers. The Transformation of Learning with Technology: "Learner-Centricity, Content and Tool Malleability, and Network Effects". Educational Technology Publications, 49(2), 3-20.
Cain, J., Romanelli, F. & Smith, K. M. (2012). Academic entitlement in pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(10).
Cerezo, R., Sánchez-Santillán, M., Ruíz, M. & Núñez, J. (2016). Students´ LMS interaction patterns and their relationship with achievement: A case study in higher education. Computers & Education, 96. 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.006.
Chaw, L. & Tang, C. M. (2018). What Makes Learning Management Systems Effective for Learning? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 47, 004723951879582. 10.1177/0047239518795828.
Cheng, C. K., Paré, D. E., Collimore, L.-M. & Joordens, S. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of a voluntary online discussion forum on improving students’ course performance. Computers & Education, 56(1), 253-261.
Cronjé, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 387-416.
Ditzz, Á. J. M., & Gomes, G. R. R. (2021). Ferramenta de elaboração de testes de autoavaliação para ambientes de ensino a distância. Research, Society and Development, 10(8), e32710817424-e32710817424.
Dutton, W. H., Cheong, P. & Park, N. (2004). The Social Shaping of a Virtual Learning Environment: The Case of a University-wide Course Management System. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2(2), 1-12.
Findik, D. & Ozkan, S. (2010, 27-30 Oct. 2010). Identifying success factors for WBLMS use by instructors of engineering departments. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2010 IEEE.
Garrote Jurado, R. (2006). The use of learning management systems in Engineering Education: A Swedish case study. In M. F. Christie (Ed.), Shifting Perspectives in Engineering Education (pp. 213-226): Chalmers Strategic Effort on Learning and Teaching (C-SELT) Chalmers University of Technology.
Garrote Jurado, R. & Pettersson, T. (2007). Lecturers' Attitudes about the Use of Learning Management Systems in Engineering Education: A Swedish Case Study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 327-349.
Garrote Jurado, R. & Pettersson, T. (2011). The use of learning management systems: A Longitudinal Case Study. eleed, 8(1).
Ghadirian, H., Salehi, K. & Mohd Ayub, A. f. (2018). Exploring the behavioural patterns of knowledge dimensions and cognitive processes in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions.
Haidt, J. & Lukianoff, G. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure: Penguin UK.
Irwin, C. & Berge, Z. (2006). Socialization in the Online Classroom. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 9(1), n1.
Kromydas, T. (2017). Rethinking higher education and its relationship with social inequalities: past knowledge, present state and future potential. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1. 10.1057/s41599-017-0001-8.
Ladyshewsky, R. K. & Gardner, P. (2008). Peer assisted learning and blogging: A strategy to promote reflective practice during clinical fieldwork. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(3), 241-257.
Lorenz, C. (2006). Will the Universities Survive the European Integration? Higher Education Policies in the EU and in the Netherlands before and after the Bologna Declaration. Sociologia internationalis, 44(1), 123.
Lukianoff, G. & Haidt, J. (2015). The coddling of the American mind. The Atlantic, 316(2), 42-52.
Molesworth, M., Nixon, E. & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: the marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277-287. 10.1080/13562510902898841.
Marconi, M., & lakatos, E. (2010). Pesquisa bibliográfica e resumos. fundamentos de metodologia científica. (7a ed.), Atlas.
Msonde, S. E. & Aalst, J. V. (2017). Designing for interaction, thinking and academic achievement in a Tanzanian undergraduate chemistry course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 1389-1413.
Murphy, E. (2004). Recognising and Promoting Collaboration in an Online Asynchronous Discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421-431 July 2004.
Nawaz, A. & Kundi, G. M. (2010). From objectivism to social constructivism: The impacts of information and communication technologies (ICTs) on higher education. International Journal of Science and Technology Education Research, 1(2).
Ouadoud, M., Chkouri, M. Y. & Nejjari, A. (2018). Learning management system and the underlying learning theories: towards a new modeling of an LMS. International Journal of Information Science and Technology, 2(1), 25-33.
Pereira, A. S., Shitsuka, D. M., Parreira, F. J., & Shitsuka, R. (2018). Metodologia da pesquisa científica.[e-book]. Santa Maria. Ed (pp. 3-9). UFSM.
Petraglia, I. (2013). Pensamento complexo e educação. Livraria da Física.
Phillips, R. (2006). Tools used in Learning Management Systems: Analysis of WebCT usage logs. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2006, Sydney, Australia.
Seneviratne, C. & Hoque, Z. (2017). Management control systems research in the public higher education sector: Current status and future research agenda. In E. Harris (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Performance Management and Control. London: Routledge.
Ubell, R. (2000). Engineers turn to e-learning. Spectrum, IEEE, 37(10), 59-63.
Uijl, S., Filius, R. & Ten Cate, O. (2017). Student Interaction in Small Private Online Courses. Medical Science Educator, 27(2), 237-242. 10.1007/s40670-017-0380-x.
Wasserman, V. & Berkovich, I. (2020). Higher education professionals in the age of NPM and digital knowledge: Distinction strategies for forming new occupational capital. Studies in Higher Education. 10.1080/03075079.2020.1732909.
Wilson, G. & Stacey, E. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 33-48.
Yin, R. K. (2015). Estudo de Caso-: Planejamento e métodos. Bookman editora.
Zwierewicz, M., Souza, J., Veber, S. C., Ferreira, H. M., Vestena, C. L. B. & Berg, J. (2019). Das abordagens do ensino do século xx à educação complexa e aos projetos criativos ecoformadores. Querubim, 15, 113-123.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2022 Ramon Garrote Jurado; Tomas Pettersson; Marlene Zwierewicz; Stephanie Cristina Böhme Suchara; Joely Leite Schaefer; Madalena Pereira da Silva
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Los autores que publican en esta revista concuerdan con los siguientes términos:
1) Los autores mantienen los derechos de autor y conceden a la revista el derecho de primera publicación, con el trabajo simultáneamente licenciado bajo la Licencia Creative Commons Attribution que permite el compartir el trabajo con reconocimiento de la autoría y publicación inicial en esta revista.
2) Los autores tienen autorización para asumir contratos adicionales por separado, para distribución no exclusiva de la versión del trabajo publicada en esta revista (por ejemplo, publicar en repositorio institucional o como capítulo de libro), con reconocimiento de autoría y publicación inicial en esta revista.
3) Los autores tienen permiso y son estimulados a publicar y distribuir su trabajo en línea (por ejemplo, en repositorios institucionales o en su página personal) a cualquier punto antes o durante el proceso editorial, ya que esto puede generar cambios productivos, así como aumentar el impacto y la cita del trabajo publicado.
