Tertiary education learning outcomes, a case study“You want us to think!”

  1. Margarita Mele-Marrero 1
  2. Andrés Rodríguez-Marrero 2
  1. 1 Universidad de La Laguna
    info

    Universidad de La Laguna

    San Cristobal de La Laguna, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01r9z8p25

  2. 2 Secondary School teacher
Revista:
Language Value

ISSN: 1989-7103

Año de publicación: 2021

Volumen: 14

Número: 2

Páginas: 114-131

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.6035/LANGUAGEV.6125 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Language Value

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Present perceptions about the poor production of university students in the last decades might be the same other professors had in previous centuries. Nonetheless, more corseting forms of assessment and the irruption of new technologies can establish a difference. These factors serve the controversy when blamed for preventing intellectual development, or when also considering that ICTs are the personal mark of new generations of youths who face their outdated dinosaur teachers. The purpose of this paper is to provide a tentative case analysis of the situation to validate what seems a generalized perception of the decay of tertiary education. Our data will be obtained from answers that students of the third year of a Humanities English degree could not provide. In our approach we will consider the difficulties students have in reaching the highest levels of taxonomies like Bloom’s (1956) or Dreyfus & Dreyfus (1980) with their further modifications. Collaterally we will tackle key competences and forms of assessment. Results will present the dichotomy of maintaining the present progression or, alternatively, think again and take some action.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
  • Arbaugh, J.B., Bangert, A. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 37–44.
  • Basu, A. (2020). How to be an expert in practically anything using heuristics, Bloom's taxonomy, Dreyfus model, and building rubrics for mastery: case of epidemiology and mountain bike riding. Qeios. https://doi.org/10.32388/BTH202.
  • Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning – the SOLO Taxonomy. Academic Press.
  • Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Longmans
  • Breeze and Dafouz (2017). Constructing complex Cognitive Discourse Functions in higher education: An exploratory study of exam answers in Spanish- and English-medium instruction settings. System 70, 81-91.
  • Christie, N.V. (2012). An Interpersonal Skills Learning Taxonomy for Program Evaluation Instructors. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(4), 739-756, https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2012.12001711 CoI (n.d.) CoI Framework. https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/
  • Doiz, A., Costa, F., Lasagabaster, D. & Mariotti, C. (2019). Linguistic demands and language assistance in EMI courses: What is the stance of Italian and Spanish undergraduates? Lingue Linguaggi, 33, 69-85.
  • Dreyfus, S.E & Dreyfus, H. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Operations Research Center, University of California.
  • European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2006). Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning, Pub. L. No. 2006/962/EC, 394/10.https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018 Fregonara, G. & Riva, O. (2021, July 9). Un anno in Dad: più difficile imparare, più facile copiare. I prof: lezioni andate a vuoto. Il Corriere.
  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
  • Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
  • Miller G. E. (1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 65(9 Suppl), S63–S67. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045.
  • Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 135−146.
  • Scroggins, W. A., Thomas, S .L., & Morris, J. A. (2008). Psychological testing in personnel selection, Part II: The refinement of methods and standards in employee selection. Public Personnel Management, 37(2), 185-199.
  • Shultz, G. V. & Zemke, J. M. (2019). “I Wanna Just Google It and Find the Answer”: Student information searching in a Problem-Based inorganic chemistry laboratory experiment. Journal of Chemical Education, 96, 618−628.
  • Tabrizi, S. & Rideout, G. (2017). Active learning: Using Bloom's Taxonomy to support critical pedagogy. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), 8(3), 3202-3209.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet