Comparación de la satisfacción de futuros maestros/as en las modalidades formativas en línea y mixta a través del programa web trazo

  1. Rocío C. Seoane 1
  2. Juan E. Jiménez 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Laguna
    info

    Universidad de La Laguna

    San Cristobal de La Laguna, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01r9z8p25

Revista:
Qurriculum: Revista de Teoría, Investigación y Práctica Educativa

ISSN: 1130-5371

Año de publicación: 2021

Número: 34

Páginas: 9-22

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.25145/J.QURRICUL.2021.34.01 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openRIULL editor

Otras publicaciones en: Qurriculum: Revista de Teoría, Investigación y Práctica Educativa

Resumen

El presente estudio persigue conocer si la satisfacción con un programa de formación web para la enseñanza de la escritura (programa web Trazo) depende de si la formación se ofrece en las modalidades en línea y mixta. Se confrontan dos grupos de maestros/as en formación que cursaron el programa web Trazo bajo dos modalidades formativas (en línea, n=70 y grupo mixto n= 88). Los resultados demuestran que el grupo en línea ofreció una valoración significativamente mayor de la formación recibida que el grupo mixto en cuatro de las dimensiones evaluadas. No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre grupos en la valoración atribuida al rol de las interacciones en el espacio web. Finalmente, se discuten las implicaciones educativas de evaluar la satisfacción de los futuros maestros/as tras experiencias formativas en línea.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Albhnsawy, A.A. y Aliweh, A.M. (2016). «Enhancing student teachers’ teaching skills through a blended learning approach. International». Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 131-136. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n3p131.
  • Alexander, M., Lignugaris/Kraft, B. y Forbush, D. (2007). «Online mathematics methods course evaluation: Student outcomes, generalization, and pupil performance». Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(4), 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640703000401.
  • Al-Samarraie, H., Teng, B.K., Alzahrani, A.I. y Alalwan, N. (2018). «E-learning continuance satisfaction in higher education: a unified perspective from instructors and students». Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 2003-2019.
  • Astin, A.W. (1993). What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. Jossey-Bass.
  • Atmacasoy, A. y Aksu, M. (2018). «Blended learning at pre-service teacher education in Turkey: A systematic review». Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2399-2422. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9723-5.
  • Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P.A., Fiset, M. y Huang, B. (2004). «How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature». Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003379.
  • Birisci, S. (2017). «Identifying effectiveness of online group study on mathematical problem solving attitude: A comparitive study». European Journal of Education Studies, 3(7), 223-241. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.814239.
  • Bonk, C.J. y Graham, C.R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Cavanaugh, C.S. (2001). «The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis». International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7, 73-88. http://faculty.education.ufl.edu/cathycavanaugh/docs/CavanaughIJET01.pdf.
  • Davis, F.D. (1989). «Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology». MIS Quarterly, 13 (3): 319-340.
  • Delone, W.H. y McLean, E.R. (2003). «The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update». Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
  • Duhaney, D.C. (2012). «Blended learning and teacher preparation programs». International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(3),197-204. https://sites.newpaltz.edu/ncate/wp-content/uploads/ sites/21/2014/06/Example-Duhaney.pdf.
  • Erickson, A.S.G., Noonan, P.M. y McCall, Z. (2012). «Effectiveness of online professional development for rural special educators». Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(1), 22-32. https:// doi.org/10.1177/875687051203100104.
  • Fishman, B., Konstantopoulos, S., Kubitskey, B.W., Vath, R., Park, G., Johnson, H. y Edelson, D.C. (2013). «Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professional development in the context of curriculum implementation». Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 426-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113494413.
  • Guinet, E. y Kandel, S. (2010). «Ductus: A software package for the study of handwriting production». Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 326-332.
  • Graham, C.R. (2006). «Blended learning systems: definition, current trends, and future directions», en C.J. Bonk y C.R. Graham (eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-23). John Wiley y Sons.
  • Jiménez, J.E. y Gil, R. (2019). «Indicadores de progreso de aprendizaje en escritura (IPAE)», en J.E. Jiménez (ed.), Modelo de Respuesta a la Intervención. Un enfoque preventivo para el abordaje de las dificultades específicas de aprendizaje. Madrid: Pirámide.
  • Johansson, S. y Myrberg, E. (2019). «Teacher specialization and student perceived instructional quality: What are the relationships to student reading achievement?». Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 31(2), 177-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09297-5.
  • Jung, I. y Rha, I. (2000). «Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of online education: A review of the literature». Educational Technology, 40(4), 57-60. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ611766.
  • Kauffman, H. (2015). «A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning». Research in Learning Technology, 23.
  • Kissau, S. (2015). «Type of instructional delivery and second language teacher candidate performance: Online versus face-to-face». Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(6), 513-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.881389.
  • Kissau, S. y Algozzine, B. (2014). «The impact of mode of instructional delivery on second language teacher self-efficacy». European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(2), 239-256. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000391.
  • Lim, D.H., Morris, M.L. y Kupritz, V.W. (2019). «Online vs. Blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction». Online Learning, 11(2), 27-43. https:// doi.org/10.24059/olj.v11i2.1725.
  • Little, C.A. y Housand, B.C. (2011). «Avenues to professional learning online: Technology tips and tools for professional development in gifted education». Gifted Child Today, 34(4), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217511415383.
  • McKeown, D., Brindle, M., Harris, K.R., Sandmel, K., Steinbrecher, T.D., Graham, S., Lane, K.L. y Oakes,  W.P. (2018). «Teachers’ voices: Perceptions of effective professional development and classwide implementation of self-Regulated strategy development in writing». American Educational Research Journal, 54(3), 753-791. https://doi. org/10.3102/0002831218804146.
  • Myrberg, E., Johansson, S. y Rosén, M. (2019). «The Relation between Teacher Specialization and Student Reading Achievement». Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(5), 744-758. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1434826.
  • O’Brien, C., Hartshorne, R., Beattie, J. y Jordan, L. (2011). «A comparison of large lecture, fully online, and hybrid sections of introduction to special education». Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(4), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051103000404.
  • OECD. (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: The power of digital technologies and Skills. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264265097-en.
  • Seoane, R.C., Jiménez, J.E. y Gutiérrez, N. (2021). «Web-based training program for writing instruction: preservice teachers’ beliefs profiles and their satisfaction». Psicothema,3(4), 571-578. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2021.19.
  • Shand, K. y Farrelly, S.G. (2018). «The art of blending: Benefits and challenges of a blended course for preservice teachers». Journal of Educators Online, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.9743/ JEO2018.15.1.10.
  • Snow, K., Wardley, L., Carter, L. y Maher, P. (2019). «Lived experiences of online and experiential learning in four undergraduate professional programs». Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 12, 79-93. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v12i0.5388.
  • Strang, R. y Larkin, K. (2018, July 1-5). Pre-service teacher mathematics education: Online vs. blended vs. face to face! Is this the whole story? [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 41st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Auckland, Merga. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED592489.
  • Stricklin, K. y Tingle, B. (2016). «Using online education to transition teaching assistants to teacher certification: examining the differences between teacher education programs». American Journal of Distance Education,30(3),192-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/089236 47.2016.1192840.
  • Thompson, V.L. y McDowell, Y.L. (2019). «A case study comparing student experiences and suc- cess in an undergraduate mathematics course offered through online, blended, and faceto-face instruction». International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 7(2),116-136. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.552411.
  • Wigfield, A. y Eccles, J.S. (2000). «Expectancy-value Theory of Achievement Motivation». Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 68-81.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet