Estrategias de “evaluación por pares” para valorar competencias transversales en estudiantes universitarios a través de Moodle

  1. M. Consuelo Morán Astorga 1
  2. J. David Urchaga Litago 2
  3. Susana Rodríguez Escanciano 1
  4. M. José Fínez Silva 1
  5. Manuel López Moya 1
  6. M. Reyes Martínez Barroso 1
  7. Carlos López Diez 1
  1. 1 Universidad de León
    info

    Universidad de León

    León, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02tzt0b78

  2. 2 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Journal:
Trabajo: Revista iberoamericana de relaciones laborales

ISSN: 1136-3819

Year of publication: 2015

Issue Title: La docencia en los estudios de Relaciones Laborales: nuevas propuestas

Issue: 33

Pages: 31-44

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openArias Montano editor

More publications in: Trabajo: Revista iberoamericana de relaciones laborales

Abstract

One of the current challenges in university education is the design of new evaluation strategies according with the demands from the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). This platform determines students to play an active role also in the evaluation process and to be able to take more responsibilities in this matter. There are different possibilities for the student to be involved in the evaluation process such as peer review, a high valuable alternative to appreciate skills and competences gained by the student. We decided to take part in this research of teaching innovation by integrating new evaluation strategies for transversal competencies using their classmates’ results, helped by new technologies. We have adapted the questionnaire of academic goals to the hetero-evaluation and applied it through Moodle to the students of some courses of the University of León Degree in Industrial Relations and Human Resources, Master’s degree in Legal Counselling of Businesses, Master’s Degree in Research in Psychology and Educational Studies and Degree in Industrial Electronics and Automation Professors encouraged students to be in groups of three for the assignments, and later on evaluate them; 360 of these questionnaires were made at the end of the academic year. By doing that, we could evaluate this competence with objective measures. Results confirmed that there are two types of motivation in the peer review, one called ‘result’ and the other one ‘achievement’. Students motivated by the achievement pursuit intrinsic rewards and they are focus on learning, improving skills, solving social problems and mastering new tasks. On the other hand, ones motivated by `results` want extrinsic rewards, they perceive tasks as an intermediary to achieve something else by trying to maximise rewards, minimising the effort. Furthermore, some researches done by the EHEA show that it exists differences between males and females in this matter, concluding that women are more likely to be motivated by ‘achievement’ than men. These results were important while deciding about the transversal competences evaluation, as well as planning new activities that foment the development of useful professional and personnel skills such as the capacity of critical analysis, contrasting ideas or taking evaluation responsibilities. Additionally, it has given us the change to have a basic tool to generate quantitative evaluation measures for transversal competences. In our opinion, peer review is a right method to evaluate transversal competences and a great motivational factor for students; we feel encouraged and committed to keep up with this procedure by introducing more transversal competences in their hetero-evaluation.

Bibliographic References

  • Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. En D.H. Schunk y J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. Londres: Routledge Falmer.
  • Bretones, A. (2008). Participación del alumnado de Educación Superior en su evaluación. Revista de Educación, 347, 181-202.
  • Elliot, A. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. En A. Elliot y C. Dweck (eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52-72). Nueva York: Guilford Press.
  • Gaviria, E. y Fernández, I. (2006). La motivación social. En A. Gómez, E. Gaviria y Fernández, I. (Coords.), Psicología Social, (p.35-81). Madrid: Sanz y Torres.
  • Gil, J. y Padilla, M. T. (2009). La participación del alumnado universitario en la eva-La participación del alumnado universitario en la evaluación del aprendizaje. Educación XXI, 12, 43-65.
  • González, J. y Wagenaar, R. (2003). Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Informe Final. Fase Uno. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.
  • Hanrahan, S. J. e Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self-and peer-assessment: the student’s views. Higher Education Research & Development, 20 (1), 53-70.
  • Huertas, J. A. y Agudo, R. (2003). Concepciones de los estudiantes universitarios sobre motivación. En C. Monereo y J. I. Pozo (eds.), La universidad ante la nueva cultura educativa. Enseñar y aprender para la autonomía, (pp. 45-62). Madrid: Síntesis.
  • Kaplan, A. y Maehr, M. (2002). Adolescents’ achievements goals: Situating motivation in sociocultural contexts. En F. Pajares y T. Urdan (eds.), Academic Motivation of adolescents (pp. 125-167). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
  • Linnenbrink, E. A. y Pintrich, P. R. (2001). Multiple goals, multiple contexts: The dynamic interplay between personal goals and contextual goal stresses. In S. Volet y S. Jarvela (Eds.) Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 251-269). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd.
  • González Fernández, A. (2007). Modelos de motivación académica: una visión panorámica. Revista Electrónica de Motivación y Emoción, 20 (25). Obtenido el 14 de febrero de 2009 en http://reme.uji.es/articulos/numero25/article1/texto.html.
  • Lucas, S. (2007, Septiembre). Desarrollo de las competencias “preocupación por la calidad” y “motivación de logro” desde la docencia universitaria. Red U. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, Número 2. Consultado (4/noviembre/2009) en http:// www.redu.um.es/Red_U/2.
  • McClelland, D.C. (1984). Human Motivation. Oakland, NJ: Scott Foresman.
  • Morán, C. y dos Anjos, E. (2011). Validación del Cuestionario de Metas Académicas en Universitarios Brasileños, en VV.AA., Educación, aprendizaje y desarrollo en una sociedad multicultural, 11211-11226. Valladolid: Sociedad Española de Psicología de la Educación.
  • Paolini, P. V. (2009). Contextos favorecedores de la motivación y el aprendizaje. Una propuesta innovadora para alumnos de ingeniería. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7 (3), 953-984.
  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiples goals, multiples pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (3), 544-555.
  • Pintrich, P. R. y Schunk, D. (2004). Motivation in Education. Theory, research and applications. Nueva Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  • Pintrich, P. R. y Schunk, D. H. (2006). Motivación en contextos educativos. Teoría, investigación y aplicaciones. Madrid: Pearson.
  • Pintrich, P. R., (2003) A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686.
  • Shunk, D. (1991). Autoeficacia y motivación académica. Una visión panorámica. Educational Psychology, 26 (3), 207-231.
  • Thomas, M. (2001). Presentación. Educar, 28, 6-9.
  • Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48 (1), 20-27.
  • Villa, A. y Villa, O. (2007). El aprendizaje basado en competencias. El desarrollo de la dimensión social en las universidades. Educar, 40, 15-48.
Data source: Dialnet