Usos de las TIC y su temporalidad en prácticas evaluativas del profesorado de educación secundaria

  1. Moreno Romero, Liliana Leticia 1
  2. Rochera Villach, María José 1
  1. 1 Universitat de Barcelona
    info

    Universitat de Barcelona

    Barcelona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/021018s57

Revista:
Digital Education Review

ISSN: 2013-9144

Año de publicación: 2016

Número: 30

Páginas: 147-164

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Digital Education Review

Resumen

The objective of this study is to know the main uses of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to assess and provide formative feedback along a time dimension. Data were obtained through interviews applied to two teachers of upper secondary education. This data were complemented with the information obtained from Moodle and Wiki platforms. Regarding the analysis, specific categories were elaborated using a model of analysis of evaluation practices (Coll, Mauri & Rochera, 2012) and the principles of improvement of the assessment and feedback with the support of ICT (JISC, 2014). The results show three formative uses of ICT that vary in different evaluative moments depending on the previous conceptions of teachers, time, and support from the school.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Barberá, E. (2006). Aportaciones de la tecnología a la e-Evaluación. RED: Revista de Educación a Distancia. Monograph 6, 1-13.
  • Badge, J. L., Cann, A. J., & Scott, J. (2007). To cheat or not to cheat? A trial of the JISC plagiarism detection service with biological sciences students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(4), 433-439.
  • British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (2007). The impact of e-portfolios on learning e- assessment and e-portfolios, UK, en: http://becta.org.uk/corporate/publications/ documents/e-assessment.pdf (Consulta: 14 julio de 2014).
  • Boza, A., Tirado, R. & Guzmán, F., M.D. (2010). Creencias del profesorado sobre el significado de la tecnología en la enseñanza: influencia para su inserción en los centros docentes andaluces. Relieve, 16(1), 1-24.
  • Brown, G. (2009). Teachers’ self-reported assessment practices and conceptions: Using structural equation modelling to examine measurement and structural models. In T. Teo & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Structural equation modelling in educational research: Concepts and applications (pp. 243-266). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.
  • Brown, G. T., & Remesal, A. (2012). Prospective teachers' conceptions of assessment: A cross-cultural comparison. The Spanish journal of psychology, 15(01), 75-89.
  • Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in higher Education, 36, 395-407.
  • Coll, C., Barberà, E., & Onrubia, J. (2000). La atención a la diversidad en las prácticas de evaluación. Infancia y aprendizaje, 23(90), 111-132.
  • Coll, C., Mauri, T., & Rochera, M. J. (2012). La práctica de evaluación como contexto para el aprendizaje competente. Profesorado, 16, 49-59.
  • Coll, C. & Remesal, A. (2009). Concepciones del profesorado de matemáticas acerca de las funciones de la evaluación del aprendizaje en la educación obligatoria. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 32(3), 391-404.
  • Coll, C., Rochera, M. J., de Gispert, I., & Barriga, F. D. (2013). Distribution of feedback among teacher and students in online collaborative learning in small groups. Digital Education Review, (23), 27-45.
  • Colomina, R., & Rochera, M. J. (2002). Evaluar para ajustar la ayuda educativa. Cuadernos de pedagogía, (318), 56-62.
  • Davies, Sarah (2010). Effective Assessment in a Digital Age A guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback, Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), UK, en: http://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20140614115719/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/d ocuments/programmes/elearning/digiassass_eada.pdf (consulta: 23 de febrero de 2014).
  • Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371.
  • Elwood, J. (2006). Formative assessment: possibilities, boundaries and limitations, Assessment in Education. Principles: Policy & Practice, 13(2), 215-232.
  • Erickson, F. (1989). Métodos cualitativos de investigación sobre la enseñanza. En M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), La investigación de la enseñanza, II. Métodos cualitativos y de observación (pp. 195-301). Barcelona: Paidós.
  • Evans, C. (2013). Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70-120.
  • García, A. M. D., & Cuello, R. O. (2009). Interacción entre la evaluación continua y la autoevaluación formativa: La potenciación del aprendizaje autónomo. REDU: Revista de Docencia Universitaria, (4), 8.
  • Gikandi, J.W., Morrow, D. & Davis, N.E (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57, 2333-2351.
  • Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Meaning of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
  • Huang, K., Chen, C. H., Wu, W. S., & Chen, W. Y. (2015). Interactivity of Question Prompts and Feedback on Secondary Students’ Science Knowledge Acquisition and Cognitive Load. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 159-171.
  • Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) (2014). e – Assessment and Feedback for Effective Course Transformation (e-AFFECT), en: http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/file/84781771/AF%20Institutional%20Story% 20%202014%20final.docx (consulta: 4 de mayo de 2014).
  • Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta­analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28-37.
  • Lee, H., Feldman, A., & Beatty, I. D. (2012). Factors that affect science and mathematics teachers’ initial implementation of technology-enhanced formative assessment using a classroom response system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 523-539.
  • Li, J., & De Luca, R. (2014). Review of assessment feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 378-393.
  • Mauri, T. & Rochera, M.J. (2010). La evaluación de los aprendizajes en la Educación Secundaria. En Coll, C. (Coord.) Desarrollo, aprendizaje y enseñanza en la educación secundaria (pp.155-167). Barcelona: Graó / Madrid: MEC
  • Moreno, L. L., & Rochera, M. J. (2015). Congruencias y discrepancias entre concepciones y prácticas evaluativas con uso de TIC. Perspectiva Educacional, 54(2), 126-149.
  • Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J.J.G. van Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 125-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 87-502.
  • Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
  • Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O'Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: all that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289.
  • Quinton, S., & Smallbone, T. (2010). Feeding forward: using feedback to promote student reflection and learning– a teaching model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 125-135.
  • Redecker, C. & Johannseen, Ø. (2013). Changing Assessment —Towards a New Assessment Paradigm Using ICT. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 79-92.
  • Remesal, A. (2011). Primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 472-482.
  • Rochera, M. J. & Naranjo, M. (2007). Ayudar a autorregular el aprendizaje en una situación de evaluación. Electronic Journal of research in Educational Psychology, 5(13), 805-824.
  • Shirley, M. L., & Irving, K. E. (2015). Connected Classroom Technology Facilitates Multiple Components of Formative Assessment Practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 56-68.
  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-189. Stake, R. E. (1998). Investigación con estudio de casos. Madrid, España: Morata.
  • Taras, M. (2008). Summative and formative assessment: Perceptions and realities. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 172-92.
  • Tsai, F. H., Tsai, C. C., & Lin, K. Y. (2015). The evaluation of different gaming modes and feedback types on game-based formative assessment in an online learning environment. Computers & Education, 81, 259- 269.
  • Yin, R. K. (2006). Case Study Methods. En J. L Green, G. Camilli & P.B Elmore (Eds.) Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (pp. 111-122). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet