Motivos inhibidores del uso del Moodle en docentes de educación superior

  1. Del Prete, Annachiara 1
  2. Cabero Almenara, Julio 2
  3. Halal Orfali, Carol 1
  1. 1 Universidad Tecnológica de Chile INACAP
  2. 2 Universidad de Sevilla
    info

    Universidad de Sevilla

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03yxnpp24

Revista:
Campus Virtuales

ISSN: 2255-1514

Año de publicación: 2018

Título del ejemplar: Octubre/October

Volumen: 7

Número: 2

Páginas: 69-80

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Campus Virtuales

Resumen

The purpose of this study has been to identify which are the main reasons why teachers do not use Moodle or use it very little, in their teaching practice. A survey was carried out on a population of 640 teachers from a professional technical higher education institution in Chile. Among the reasons identified is the lack of training in the pedagogical application of the tools that Moodle presents and the common opinion that the main use of the platform is for management work. It is concluded that the degree of use of ICT in the classroom, together with instrumental management, responds to multiple factors among which we highlight the pedagogical skills and the frequency of use. The importance of analyzing the pedagogical use of Moodle with multifactor focus is evident.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aguilar, S.; barroso, J. (2015). La triangulación de datos como estrategia en investigación educativa. Pixel-bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 47, 73-88. doI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i47.05.
  • Alaminos, A. (2006). El muestreo en la investigación social. In A. Alaminos & J. L. Castejón, Elaboración, análisis e interpretación deencuestas, cuestionarios y escalas de opinión. Alcoy: Marfil (eds), 46-67. Universidad de Alicante.
  • Al-busaidi, K. A.; Al-Shihi, h. (2011). Critical factors influencing instructors' acceptance and use of learning management systems. Inhigher Education Institutions and Learning Management Systems: Adoption and Standardization (pp. 116-140). IgI global. doI:10.4018/978-1-60960-884-2.ch006
  • Ananiadou, K.; Magdalean, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills & Competences for new Millennium Learners in oECd Countries. oECdPublishing.
  • Avello Martínez, R.; duart, J. M. (2016). nuevas tendencias de aprendizaje colaborativo en e-learning: Claves para su implementaciónefectiva. Estudios pedagógicos (Valdivia), 42(1), 271-282.
  • Badia, A.; Garcia, C.; Meneses, J. (2017). Approaches to teaching online: Exploring factors influencing teachers in a fully online university.british Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1193-1207. doI:10.1111/bjet.12475.
  • Batanero, J. M.; bermejo, b. (2012). Actitudes docentes hacia las TIC en centros de buenas prácticas educativas con orientacióneducativa. Enseñanza & teaching, 30(1), 45-61.
  • Berenice, A.; de la Calleja, J. (2017). Brief Review of Educational Applications Using data Mining and Machine Learning. Redie. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 19(4), 84-96. doI: https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2017.19.4.1305
  • Bidarian, S.; Davoudi, A. M. (2011). A Model for application of ICT in the process of teaching and learning. International Conference onEducation and Educational Psychology (ICEEPSy). Procedia - Social and behavioral Sciences, 29, 1032-1041.
  • Cabero Almenara, J.; Morales Lozano, J. A.; barroso osuna, J. M.; fernández batanero, J. M.; Romero Tena, R.; Román graván, P.; Ballesteros Regaña, C. (2010). Análisis de centros de recursos de producción de las TIC de las universidades españolas. Revista deEducación, 351, 237-257.
  • Celik, V.; yesilyurt, E. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computersupported education. Computers & Education, 60(1), 148-158.
  • Costa, C.; Alvelos, h.; Teixeira, L. (2012). The Use of Moodle E-Learning Platform: A Study in a Portuguese University. Procedia Technology, 5, 334-343.
  • Coyago, A. P. R.; Puente, E.; Jiménez, g. A. M. (2017). Uso de las tecnologías de la información en la educación superior. InnoVAResearch Journal, 2(1), 99-112.
  • Davis, f. d. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3),319–340.
  • Del Prete Annachiara, V. C. A. (2018). Análisis del grado de implementación de las TIC en la práctica docente del profesorado de lasespecialidades técnico-profesionales de la Academia Politécnica naval de Chile. Rexe Revista de Estudio y experiencia en Educación, 3,59-69.
  • Deniz, L.;. Algan C. E, (2007) Validity and reliability studies of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) self-efficacy scalein education. Journal of Education Sciences, 25(25).
  • Englund, C.; olofsson, A. d.; Price, L. (2017). Teaching with technology in higher education: understanding conceptual change anddevelopment in practice. higher Education Research & development, 36(1), 73-87.
  • García, b.; Serrano, E. L.; Ponce, S.; Cisneros-Cohernour, E. J.; Cordero, G.; Espinosa, Y. (2018). Las competencias docentes enentornos virtuales: un modelo para su evaluación. RIEd. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a distancia, 21(1), 343-365. doI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ried.21.1.18816
  • Glazer, E.; Hannafin, M. J.; Song, L. (2005). Promoting Technology Integration Through Collaborative Apprenticeship. EducationalTechnology Research and development, 53, 57-67.
  • Graham, R. C.; burgoyne, n.; Cantrell, P.; Smith, L.; St Clair, L.; harris, R. (2009). Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice scienceteachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79.
  • Gramp, J. (2013). beyond the baseline: working with e-learning champions to transform e-learning at a research-led university. SecondMoodle Research Conference, 24-32.
  • Guzey, S. S.; Roehrig, g. h. (2009). Teaching Science with Technology: Case Studies of science Teachers' development of TechnologicalPedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25-45.
  • Hsu, S. (2011). Who Assigns the Most ICT Activities? Examining the Relationship between Teacher and Student Usage.Computers & Education 56(3), 847-855.
  • Kerimbayev, N.; Kultan, J.; Abdykarimova, S.; Akramova, A. (2017). LMS Moodle: distance international education in cooperation ofhigher education institutions of different countries. EducInf Technol, 22, 2125-2139. doI: 10.1007/s10639-016-9534-5.
  • Krause, M.; Pietzner, V.; Dori, y. J.; Eilks, I. (2017). differences and developments in Attitudes and Self-Efficacy of Prospective ChemistryTeachers Concerning the Use of ICT in Education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4405-4417.
  • Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Teacher educators’ digital competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(3), 269-280.
  • Lin, S.; Chen, S. f. (2013). Innovation attributes and pedagogical quality: a concretization of joint theories on course management systemsacceptance. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 2309-2317.
  • Luo, T.; Murray, A.; Crompton, H. (2017). Designing Authentic Learning Activities to Train Pre-Service Teachers About Teaching online.International Review of Research in open and distributed Learning, 18(7), 141-157.
  • Mateo, J. (2004). La investigación ex post-acto. In bisquerra, R. (coods.), Metodología de la investigación educative. Madrid: La Muralla.
  • Montero, L. (2011). El trabajo colaborativo del profesorado como oportunidad formativa. CEE Participación Educativa, 16, 69-88.
  • Morgan, g. (2003). faculty use of course management systems. ECAR, EdUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
  • Ndlovu, M.; Mostert, I. (2017). Teacher Perceptions of Moodle and Throughput in a blended Learning Programme for In-ServiceSecondary School Mathematics Teachers. Africa Education Review, 15(2), 131-151. doI: 10.1080/18146627.2016.1241667.
  • O´dwyer, L.; bernauer, J. (2014). Quantitative research for the qualitative researcher. California: Sage.
  • Park, J. y. (2014). Course evaluation: Reconfigurations for learning with learning management systems. higher Education Research &development, 33(5), 992-1006.
  • Parsons, A. (2017). Accessibility and use of VLEs by students in further education. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 22(2), 271-288.
  • Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009). P21 framework definitions. (15-01-2018)(http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_framework_definitions.pdf)
  • Perkins, M.; Pfaffman, J. (2006). Using a course management system to improve classroom communication. Science Teacher, 73(7), 33-37.
  • Price, L.; Kirkwood, A. (2014). Using technology for teaching and learning in higher education: A critical review of the role of evidencein informing practice. higher Education Research & development, 33(3), 549-564.
  • Ramirez, W.; Barajas, J. I. (2017). Uso de las plataformas educativas y su impacto en la práctica pedagógica en instituciones de educaciónsuperior de San Luis Potosí. EdUTEC, Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, 60. (12-03-2018) (http://www.edutec.es/revista)
  • Rienties, B.; Giesbers, B.; Lygo-baker, S.; Ma, h. W. S.; Rees, R. (2014). Why some teachers easily learn to use a new virtual learningenvironment: A technology acceptance perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 539-552.
  • Rodríguez, H.; Restrepo, L. f.; Aranzazu, D. (2014). Alfabetización Informática y Uso de Sistemas de gestión del Aprendizaje (LMS) EnLa docencia Universitaria. Revista de la Educación Superior, 171, 139-159.
  • Samaniego, G.; Marqués, L.; Gisbert, M. (2015). El profesorado universitario y el uso de Entornos Virtuales de aprendizaje. CampusVirtuales, 4(2), 50-58.
  • Sabariego, M. (2012). El proceso de investigación (parte 2). En bisquerra, R. (coord.), Metodología de la investigación educativa (127-163). Madrid: La Muralla.
  • Schneckenberg, D. (2010). Conceptual foundations and strategic approaches for ecompetence. InternationalJournal of ContinuingEngineering Education and Life Long Learning, 20(3), 290-305.
  • Silva, M.; García, T.; Guzmán, T.; Chaparro, R. (2016). Estudio de herramientas Moodle para desarrollar habilidades del siglo XXI.Campus Virtuales, 5(2), 58-69.
  • Sinclair, J.; Aho, A. M. (2018). Experts on super innovators: understanding staff adoption of learning management systems. higherEducation Research & development, 37(1), 158-172.
  • Smith, Sh.; Xu, D. (2016). how do online course design features influence student performance?. Computers & Education, 95, 270-284.doI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.014
  • Steiner, D.; Mendelovitch, M. (2017). I'm The Same Teacher": The Attitudes of Science and Computer Literacy Teachers RegardingIntegrating ICT in Instruction to Advance Meaningful Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13(5),1259-1282.
  • Teo, T.; Ursavas, o. f.; bahcekapili, E. (2012). An assessment of pre-service teachers technology acceptance in Turkey: a structuralequation modeling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 199-210.
  • Valencia-Molina, T.; Serna-Collazos, A.; ochoa-Angrino, S.; Caicedo-Tamayo, A. M.; Montes-gonzález, J. A.; Chávez-Vescance, J. D. (2016). Competencias y estándares TIC desde la dimensión pedagógica: una perspectiva desde los niveles de apropiación de las TIC enla práctica educativa docente. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Cali. (http://repositorio.minedu.gob.pe/bitstream/)
  • Van Laar, E.; Van deursen, A. J.; Van dijk, J. A.; de haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: Asystematic literature review. Computers in human behavior, 72, 577-588.
  • Vázquez, M. H.; Burrial, A. T. (2017). Factores que influyen en el aprendizaje mixto (blended-learning) y colaborativo en Moodle endidáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales en el grado de Maestro en Educación Primaria. In Propuesta de Innovación Educativa en laSociedad de la Información (pp. 48-60). Adaya Press.
  • Vuopala, E.; hyvönen, P.; Järvelä, S. (2016). Interaction forms in successful collaborative learning in virtual learning environments. ActiveLearning in higher Education, 17(1), 25-38.
  • Ward, L.; Parr, J. M. (2010). Revisiting and reframing use: implications for the integration of ICT. Computers and Education, 54(1), 113-122.
  • Yanacón-Atía, R.; Menini. M. (2018). Indicadores colaborativos individuales y grupales para Moodle. Campus Virtuales, 7(1), 125-139.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet